It's surely not a very big ask...is it? Amidst budget outlays last week of tens and hundreds of millions of Government-surplus induced funds for this, that and especially the other - to meet the endless medley of promises and pledges solemnly undertaken by the Opposition on last year's campaign trail - stands a seemingly rather small request from Central Otago for a measly three million. For no less than the 'Stand Children's Services Roxburgh children's village' (at one time Roxburgh Health Camp).
Providing 31 local, Roxburgh-based jobs, and, much more importantly, ongoing help annually for 380 traumatized, vulnerable kids, this is surely one of the standout institutions at the very coalface of the endemic social problems afflicting Aotearoa-New Zealand. Seemingly intractable matters that the constituent parties of our new Coalition Government profess to care so very much about; having argued incessantly and quite convincingly about the desperate need to fix once and for all, not only during last year's general election campaign, but for years prior.
Something's wrong here, surely? Something simply doesn't compute, doesn't 'add up'. So let's 'cut', as my former acting associates might have put it, in a brief 'discursion' to a seemingly unrelated topic:
On a 'Trending Now' repeat of one of her weekend interviews - with the Akina Foundation's 'Growing Social Enterprise' Louise Aitken - and for what interviewer Kim Hill herself characterized as a modest outlay of $5 million, a certain Maori-based initiative had just been granted funds to make a real difference. To make an impact through a wise and bold investment - of Government monies; into their own well-chosen (and apparently effective) pathways.
"Wunderbar!" as my German backpacker friends might put it. Money well spent - indeed. Putting one's money where one's mouth is, carefully targeting the funds required to where they would make the best and most successful impact. "Not rocket science, eh!" as ye average punter might have put it.
So Madames Ardern and Martin, we're all - even your recently-deposed opponent, the former P.M. (and social investment guru) Bill English - solidly (even philosophically) behind such carefully-delineated targets to achieve your impassioned pleas and aims to eradicate child poverty from God's Own. And to render whatsoever assistance is needed to NZ's PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) juvenile underclass, who, in the vast bulk of instances, through absolutely no fault of their own, have sadly ended up on the scrapheap of our society.
Yes, who can possibly argue with your well-intentioned aims and goals and priorities? Who indeed?
And likewise, who can possibly argue - especially yourselves, Prime Minister, Minister for (eradicating) Poverty, and Children's Minister, Tracey Martin - that the Roxburgh children's village is not an especially worthy recipient of just such - specially-targeted - help? Which moreover has been providing sorely-needed assistance for a very long time (since 1941): as the ODT (May 14th) puts it, 'an intensive, residential, wrap-around trauma service' for highly vulnerable children in the South.
A critically-situated service which experts, those 'on the ground' in this field who are fully conversant with what this long-running Roxburgh-based children's service has managed to achieve, tell us is simply without a peer (and, what's more, acceptable alternative) for the children involved; and hence is still needed by kids throughout the village's large catchment area (everything south of the Waitaki River). It is a longstanding child support facility that has literally resulted in changed lives.
As a fully qualified teacher aide myself, who admittedly (since 2002/2006, and a voluntary stint a couple years ago) has only limited experience in the field after being effectively sidetracked through some serious physical and mental health issues over the past decade, I can at least attest that through my personal interventions around a decade-and-a-half ago (spending a couple hours most weekdays), one young boy with major presenting behavioural issues was helped to turn his life around; at least for awhile thereafter (if sadly, not long-term), according to the intermediate principal I contacted a year or two down the track.
And so, no, not all interventions are ultimately successful, admittedly. But if they can help just such vulnerable youth even begin to get their fraught lives back on track, hey, let's not just arbitrarily jettison them; especially not without an adequate replacement in existence. And folks - that is, all politicians still seriously considering this (last-ditch appeal) - the last I heard the Stand Children's Services Roxburgh children's village was doing an effective job.
And surely, at the end of the day, Ms Ardern and Ms Martin - and I speak as one who's been vocally (and blogwise) highly supportive of you up till now - 'if it ain't broke, why (even try to) fix it (much less let it fall and fail)?' No, it's your absolute duty to admit you stuffed up here, have seen the error of your ways, and are indeed prepared to stump up now - however belatedly - with the needed cash.
Which surely isn't all that much - is virtually small change in the overall scheme of things, in light of your other budgetary expenditures. Hey, please do it - if not for any grand ideological imperatives, simply because these kids, who have so few advocates rooting for them in the real world, are counting upon you...to do the right thing...for and by them.
Pretty please, Prime Minister, and Minister Martin? And move forward without regrets. For the kids' sake.
Yours Sincerely (a long-time admirer of you both)
David Bernhardt
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Friday, May 11, 2018
On the Imminent New Zealand Institutional Abuse Commission
Pursuant to (my blogpost) 'Jacindamania', and as previewed therein:
As to Prime Minister Ardern's relationship with New Zealand's churches/Christianity a la Aotearoa, though I'm prepared to believe she is quite well-intentioned - yes, I'm willing to give her the full benefit of the doubt at this stage of proceedings - her (and her Government's) decision to omit private institutions such as churches from the forthcoming commission of inquiry into historic (sexual and physical - and even psycho-emotional?) abuse in God's own...is a dreadful, misguided mistake.
And will serve no useful purpose at all. Even allowing for the inclusion of those in such private institutions where their referral/placement therein was due to the state itself; that still doesn't give it a broad enough ambit.
This has been strongly echoed, rather emphasized by a couple vocal victims, fellows who were the subjects of such abuse, who understandably simply cannot accept the limiting of the terms of reference in this regard. Nor should they; it simply makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Sure, I'll grant that Ms Ardern in particular is reluctant to and wary about needlessly antagonizing the Christian community here by otherwise apparently attempting to mount what might well appear a veritable witch-hunt aimed at said religious organizations, delving into all the ins and outs, the nitty-gritty of how said churches have conducted themselves over the past half century. That is quite, perfectly understandable, especially in view of how upset and outraged many of them were made by the last Labour Government's ongoing 'progressive' social legislation - though at the same time a large number of liberal churches were foremost in actively supporting said reforms.
Moreover, for P.M. Ardern - quite unlike former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, it would seem - haled from a church/'Christian' background (though of course many evangelical believers and orthodox churches still regard the Mormons as a 'cult'), and so has an understandable personal stance ('skin in the game' so to speak) in the matter. And knows that, as I referred to a little earlier, sufficient offence and umbrage has already been given in recent years to said Christian community, and moreover is sure to come from the new Government, especially as the euthanasia and abortion overhauls are progressed during its first (or second) term.
The problem for Ardern and her government here, is that, having been made abundantly aware on numerous occasions over recent weeks and months (on RNZ National's Morning Report especially) - in relation to the commission of inquiry to be headed by former Governor General Sir Annan Satchanan - there's absolutely no good reason - no reasonable argument whatsoever - for restricting the mandate of said commission to only state-run institutions. No, absolutely none whatsoever.
Abuse, wherever it occurs, is an absolute scourge and knows no arbitrary physical bounds. Ever.
As to Prime Minister Ardern's relationship with New Zealand's churches/Christianity a la Aotearoa, though I'm prepared to believe she is quite well-intentioned - yes, I'm willing to give her the full benefit of the doubt at this stage of proceedings - her (and her Government's) decision to omit private institutions such as churches from the forthcoming commission of inquiry into historic (sexual and physical - and even psycho-emotional?) abuse in God's own...is a dreadful, misguided mistake.
And will serve no useful purpose at all. Even allowing for the inclusion of those in such private institutions where their referral/placement therein was due to the state itself; that still doesn't give it a broad enough ambit.
This has been strongly echoed, rather emphasized by a couple vocal victims, fellows who were the subjects of such abuse, who understandably simply cannot accept the limiting of the terms of reference in this regard. Nor should they; it simply makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Sure, I'll grant that Ms Ardern in particular is reluctant to and wary about needlessly antagonizing the Christian community here by otherwise apparently attempting to mount what might well appear a veritable witch-hunt aimed at said religious organizations, delving into all the ins and outs, the nitty-gritty of how said churches have conducted themselves over the past half century. That is quite, perfectly understandable, especially in view of how upset and outraged many of them were made by the last Labour Government's ongoing 'progressive' social legislation - though at the same time a large number of liberal churches were foremost in actively supporting said reforms.
Moreover, for P.M. Ardern - quite unlike former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, it would seem - haled from a church/'Christian' background (though of course many evangelical believers and orthodox churches still regard the Mormons as a 'cult'), and so has an understandable personal stance ('skin in the game' so to speak) in the matter. And knows that, as I referred to a little earlier, sufficient offence and umbrage has already been given in recent years to said Christian community, and moreover is sure to come from the new Government, especially as the euthanasia and abortion overhauls are progressed during its first (or second) term.
The problem for Ardern and her government here, is that, having been made abundantly aware on numerous occasions over recent weeks and months (on RNZ National's Morning Report especially) - in relation to the commission of inquiry to be headed by former Governor General Sir Annan Satchanan - there's absolutely no good reason - no reasonable argument whatsoever - for restricting the mandate of said commission to only state-run institutions. No, absolutely none whatsoever.
Abuse, wherever it occurs, is an absolute scourge and knows no arbitrary physical bounds. Ever.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Good on ya, Paddy Gower: A Well (even Superbly) Handled Scoop on Gloriavale
In sharp and distinct contrast to Lisa Owen - especially of late - I'd like to heartily commend a much-overlooked and often underrated tele-broadcaster, as it so transpires another TV3, now Newshub Nation, political commentator/correspondent: the redoubtable Paddy Gower.
Admittedly often mistaken for ye proverbial cheshire cat for his inimitable grin - or a budding child chess champion for his sheer inability not to insert a know-it-all smirk into any and every story he's involved with, or in which he feels he has the 'special goods', the inside scoop on secret proceedings - Gower's special Newshub Nation 6 p.m. report the other night (Tuesday, May 6th, I believe) was in verity 'one out of the box'.
In what was an extensive piece of investigative journalism - which had obviously taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears to produce - upon the now infamous *Gloriavale Christian community on New Zealand's West Coast, Gower made it clear that these days he is well and truly the adult journalist in the room amidst a vast field - a veritable school - of rank amateurs. At least on television.
In complete contradistinction to the extensive coverage previously given during the days of Campbell Live - especially from, I would argue (and any fellow Christians I've discussed the matter with have concurred), a somewhat jaded, cynical, inherently anti-Christian bias - Gower provides a very fair and balanced approach. (Here I will limit myself to canvassing his treatment of the head honcho and the community as a whole.)
As far as the overall community is concerned, Gower readily and generously conceded that the vast majority of residents - especially (apparently) beautifully innocent children looking as if they've come out of a reworked version of Sound of Music or a Dutch tale - were eminently good and decent folk.
As for the community's 'main man', their leader, **'Hopeful Christian', despite giving yet another unvarnished account of this man's dealings not only with the visiting media but moreover and far more concerningly with those residents who from time to time have actively dissented from the basic narrative that the community reverberates to (and lives according to), Gower yet gave a certain measure of respect, or let's just say due deference, to 'Hopeful' on account of the sheer position he holds within Gloriavale; and thus is 'endowed with' by its 550-some residents.
Though utterly undeserving, in the quite understandable view of ye average NZ citizen looking on, and rather askance, of any commendation whatsoever - in light of his heavy-handed approach to all manner of dissent and dissenters in said community over any number of years apparently - Paddy Gower makes a nuanced tweak to this general narrative (which no doubt he otherwise fully subscribes to). And the reason I'm singling this out is due to its relevance to all manner of other situations in especially modern Western society.
It is essentially the difference between the particular office-holder (at any one moment in history) and the actual institution s/he happens to lead. And thus between the honour and esteem rightly and properly accruing - hopefully! - to the institution itself, even when that organization, which may well be political or governmental in nature, is headed by a complete buffoon or imbecile. Yes, no great imagination is required as to at least one pertinent application in our current geo-political world!
It is interestingly a quality that the man who was reputably the greatest and most respected (not to mention popular) of the pre-Christian era kingdoms of Israel and Judah had in literal spades. (Perhaps one of the many reasons he was considered a wonderful type of Jesus Christ, being given that rarest of commendations: 'a man after God's own heart'.) Of course I refer to the great King David (who naturally I've a certain degree of partiality to, if regrettably lacking in the personal warmth (and hence popularity) and charisma/personal magnetism which made him so beloved to his own countrymen and women - if not to his envious first wife Michal!
To what in David's life here do I allude, and how does Paddy Gower exemplify that in regards to Hopeful Christian? Twice David, ever on the run (for 13 years all up) from the murderous hatred of the intensely envious symbolically deposed (yet still reigning) then King Saul, had Saul right in his power: once when Saul was relieving himself, supposedly privately, in a cave wherein David and his men were holed up!, David's men urged him to get the job over and done with once and for all and finish Saul off for good now he was finally in his grip, and a second time when David and his men encountered Saul asleep around a campfire.
And both times David responded to his bloodthirsty loyalists in this way: "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD." And once he adds: "For who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?"
*Coincidentally (though my life's ever been full of them), I picked up a tome at a favourite second-hand shop just two days later, Daughter of Gloriavale: My Life in a Religious Cult (by Lilia Tarawa); and almost purchased another, Trust No One, about abuse (of all sorts, especially sexual and physical, but also psychological) in state-run institutions, I believe in the United Kingdom.
**A misnomer is ever there were one! Though I'm quite familiar with the classic tale by John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, and moreover the character therein from whom he takes his name, Gloriavale's head honcho appears anything but a bringer of hope much less the love Jesus often denoted would be the hallmark, the lingua franca, of His earthly disciples.
Admittedly often mistaken for ye proverbial cheshire cat for his inimitable grin - or a budding child chess champion for his sheer inability not to insert a know-it-all smirk into any and every story he's involved with, or in which he feels he has the 'special goods', the inside scoop on secret proceedings - Gower's special Newshub Nation 6 p.m. report the other night (Tuesday, May 6th, I believe) was in verity 'one out of the box'.
In what was an extensive piece of investigative journalism - which had obviously taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears to produce - upon the now infamous *Gloriavale Christian community on New Zealand's West Coast, Gower made it clear that these days he is well and truly the adult journalist in the room amidst a vast field - a veritable school - of rank amateurs. At least on television.
In complete contradistinction to the extensive coverage previously given during the days of Campbell Live - especially from, I would argue (and any fellow Christians I've discussed the matter with have concurred), a somewhat jaded, cynical, inherently anti-Christian bias - Gower provides a very fair and balanced approach. (Here I will limit myself to canvassing his treatment of the head honcho and the community as a whole.)
As far as the overall community is concerned, Gower readily and generously conceded that the vast majority of residents - especially (apparently) beautifully innocent children looking as if they've come out of a reworked version of Sound of Music or a Dutch tale - were eminently good and decent folk.
As for the community's 'main man', their leader, **'Hopeful Christian', despite giving yet another unvarnished account of this man's dealings not only with the visiting media but moreover and far more concerningly with those residents who from time to time have actively dissented from the basic narrative that the community reverberates to (and lives according to), Gower yet gave a certain measure of respect, or let's just say due deference, to 'Hopeful' on account of the sheer position he holds within Gloriavale; and thus is 'endowed with' by its 550-some residents.
Though utterly undeserving, in the quite understandable view of ye average NZ citizen looking on, and rather askance, of any commendation whatsoever - in light of his heavy-handed approach to all manner of dissent and dissenters in said community over any number of years apparently - Paddy Gower makes a nuanced tweak to this general narrative (which no doubt he otherwise fully subscribes to). And the reason I'm singling this out is due to its relevance to all manner of other situations in especially modern Western society.
It is essentially the difference between the particular office-holder (at any one moment in history) and the actual institution s/he happens to lead. And thus between the honour and esteem rightly and properly accruing - hopefully! - to the institution itself, even when that organization, which may well be political or governmental in nature, is headed by a complete buffoon or imbecile. Yes, no great imagination is required as to at least one pertinent application in our current geo-political world!
It is interestingly a quality that the man who was reputably the greatest and most respected (not to mention popular) of the pre-Christian era kingdoms of Israel and Judah had in literal spades. (Perhaps one of the many reasons he was considered a wonderful type of Jesus Christ, being given that rarest of commendations: 'a man after God's own heart'.) Of course I refer to the great King David (who naturally I've a certain degree of partiality to, if regrettably lacking in the personal warmth (and hence popularity) and charisma/personal magnetism which made him so beloved to his own countrymen and women - if not to his envious first wife Michal!
To what in David's life here do I allude, and how does Paddy Gower exemplify that in regards to Hopeful Christian? Twice David, ever on the run (for 13 years all up) from the murderous hatred of the intensely envious symbolically deposed (yet still reigning) then King Saul, had Saul right in his power: once when Saul was relieving himself, supposedly privately, in a cave wherein David and his men were holed up!, David's men urged him to get the job over and done with once and for all and finish Saul off for good now he was finally in his grip, and a second time when David and his men encountered Saul asleep around a campfire.
And both times David responded to his bloodthirsty loyalists in this way: "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD." And once he adds: "For who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?"
*Coincidentally (though my life's ever been full of them), I picked up a tome at a favourite second-hand shop just two days later, Daughter of Gloriavale: My Life in a Religious Cult (by Lilia Tarawa); and almost purchased another, Trust No One, about abuse (of all sorts, especially sexual and physical, but also psychological) in state-run institutions, I believe in the United Kingdom.
**A misnomer is ever there were one! Though I'm quite familiar with the classic tale by John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, and moreover the character therein from whom he takes his name, Gloriavale's head honcho appears anything but a bringer of hope much less the love Jesus often denoted would be the hallmark, the lingua franca, of His earthly disciples.
Lisa Owen: NZ Media Inc Interrogator Extraordinaire
(Regrettably a much-deferred - and for me, unusually brief - opinion piece.)
It would seem that Newshub Nation's main interviewer over recent years, the (commendably) painstakingly diligent and thoroughly issue-conversant - let's give her all due credit - Lisa Owen, somewhere along the way missed her true calling in life: that of appointment to the modern-day *(Office of the) 'Inquisition', i.e. The Vatican's Department of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.
The interviews upon 'the Nation' which elicit this judgment upon my part are numerous, and in recent times include one with the P.M. and another with the two then would-be Green co-leaders. Though no big fan of either Marama Davidson or Julie-Ann Genter, and someone moreover who believes Genter - admittedly, like the rather notorious Mike Hosking - was eminently better qualified for the post than Davidson, however appealing the latter to the Greens' base, they both can only be commended for their admirably self-restrained responses to Lisa Owen.
Variously resembling anything and everything from stunned to agasp to absolutely horror-stricken at Owen's take-no-prisoners, lay it on the line, in-your-face, "I'm waiting on ya'll, now stop messin' around with me!" demeanour and approach, they could have taken a leaf out of the book from a subsequent interview Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had with the Newshub Nation host. With measured grace - though I've since misplaced the exact comments being made - Ardern quickly cut Owen down to size and put her back in her place by simply and matter-of-factly, in her own inimitable 'Now let's stop being foolish kiddies, okay?' style, effectively dismissing the entire line of questioning with a frank and firm, gentle but unyielding "No!" or the like, which simply could not be argued further with. Owen had finally met her match and seemingly immediately realized as much.
*Known by various names at different times, what was up until 1908 the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition' then became simply the 'Holy Office' until 1965, and thereafter has been the 'Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith'. All this according to the 'World Socialist Website', which I quote from in my treatise-length 2013 exposition 'Pope Francis (the First): A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or "surprise, surprise": A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?'
It would seem that Newshub Nation's main interviewer over recent years, the (commendably) painstakingly diligent and thoroughly issue-conversant - let's give her all due credit - Lisa Owen, somewhere along the way missed her true calling in life: that of appointment to the modern-day *(Office of the) 'Inquisition', i.e. The Vatican's Department of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.
The interviews upon 'the Nation' which elicit this judgment upon my part are numerous, and in recent times include one with the P.M. and another with the two then would-be Green co-leaders. Though no big fan of either Marama Davidson or Julie-Ann Genter, and someone moreover who believes Genter - admittedly, like the rather notorious Mike Hosking - was eminently better qualified for the post than Davidson, however appealing the latter to the Greens' base, they both can only be commended for their admirably self-restrained responses to Lisa Owen.
Variously resembling anything and everything from stunned to agasp to absolutely horror-stricken at Owen's take-no-prisoners, lay it on the line, in-your-face, "I'm waiting on ya'll, now stop messin' around with me!" demeanour and approach, they could have taken a leaf out of the book from a subsequent interview Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had with the Newshub Nation host. With measured grace - though I've since misplaced the exact comments being made - Ardern quickly cut Owen down to size and put her back in her place by simply and matter-of-factly, in her own inimitable 'Now let's stop being foolish kiddies, okay?' style, effectively dismissing the entire line of questioning with a frank and firm, gentle but unyielding "No!" or the like, which simply could not be argued further with. Owen had finally met her match and seemingly immediately realized as much.
*Known by various names at different times, what was up until 1908 the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition' then became simply the 'Holy Office' until 1965, and thereafter has been the 'Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith'. All this according to the 'World Socialist Website', which I quote from in my treatise-length 2013 exposition 'Pope Francis (the First): A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or "surprise, surprise": A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?'
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Yemen: Nothing New Under the Sun - Just As The Epitome of Wisdom, King Solomon Might've Put Things
"Next I observed all the oppression and sadness throughout the earth - the tears of the oppressed, and no one helping them, while on the side of their oppressors were powerful allies." (The Living Bible.)
"I looked again and saw all the oppression that goes on in the world; there were the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs - tyrants in power, and the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs!" (James Moffatt: A New Translation of the Bible.)
Those two versions of Ecclesiastes 4:1 pretty well say it all, don't they...not only about the awful humanitarian tragedy daily unfolding in Yemen, but of course in Syria - Afghanistan - Iraq et al? No, the world has learnt very little down the years - decades - centuries - millennia, and far from humanity ever progressing onward and upward, as we're so often told, it simply repeats the old patterns so familiar to human nature. There is indeed hardly anything truly 'new under the sun'.
So once again, while celebrating wedding parties and other civilians simply go about their day-to-day lives 'minding their own business', they are periodically blown to smithereens and otherwise gunned down, picked off by drones, or simply gassed out of existence in whatever gruesome fashion happens to be currently in vogue with those who sadistically could care less about the lives of innocents and other 'pawns' in the path of their murderous (but ever-'justifiable') ambitions, plans and purposes.
And so the world looks on impotently and stands idly by whilst yet another ghastly episode of 'man's inhumanity to man' unfolds on the Saudi Peninsula, where vast multitudes in the tiny nation of Yemen die every day of cholera; and vast swathes of others are mown down as 'collateral damage' in the war.
This occurs as often as not via Western military aid to the brutal Saudi (Arabian) regime/war machine...whose 'misdeeds' are increasingly overlooked and apparently condoned - turned the proverbial blind eye to - supposedly, if we're to believe the mainstream media's only other coverage of those two nations, because the Saudi regime is undergoing radical reforms in its monarchy: i.e. it has a bright new (modernist, 'progressive') 'thing' as its leader. Hey, they're even now allowing women to drive on their roads!
And to think that New Zealand Inc - c/o its Government of the day (only 3-4 years ago or so) - had the effrontery (to all those values we apparently hold so very dear - as witnessed once again 'just the other day' in our annual Anzac Day commemorations) to fly our national flag at half mast upon the death of the last Saudi crown prince. Yes, all for a nation which regularly beheads its (dissenting) citizens and otherwise de-limbs them (for lesser offences) - are women still stoned for committing adultery (while the male participants get away scot-free presumably)? Doing so apparently all in the name of a religion which makes its God into a supremely unworthy representation of all that's noblest and best in life.
When, oh when, will our supposedly 'enlightened' modern-day world - c/o its supposed representatives in the United Nations et al - get its act together and do something about Yemen (and these various other 'intractable' conflicts? Not anytime soon, you can bet. No, I'm not holding my breath, either - nor will Yemen's suffering innocents be.
"Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were weeping, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side." (The Good News Bible.)
"I looked again and saw all the oppression that goes on in the world; there were the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs - tyrants in power, and the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs!" (James Moffatt: A New Translation of the Bible.)
Those two versions of Ecclesiastes 4:1 pretty well say it all, don't they...not only about the awful humanitarian tragedy daily unfolding in Yemen, but of course in Syria - Afghanistan - Iraq et al? No, the world has learnt very little down the years - decades - centuries - millennia, and far from humanity ever progressing onward and upward, as we're so often told, it simply repeats the old patterns so familiar to human nature. There is indeed hardly anything truly 'new under the sun'.
So once again, while celebrating wedding parties and other civilians simply go about their day-to-day lives 'minding their own business', they are periodically blown to smithereens and otherwise gunned down, picked off by drones, or simply gassed out of existence in whatever gruesome fashion happens to be currently in vogue with those who sadistically could care less about the lives of innocents and other 'pawns' in the path of their murderous (but ever-'justifiable') ambitions, plans and purposes.
And so the world looks on impotently and stands idly by whilst yet another ghastly episode of 'man's inhumanity to man' unfolds on the Saudi Peninsula, where vast multitudes in the tiny nation of Yemen die every day of cholera; and vast swathes of others are mown down as 'collateral damage' in the war.
This occurs as often as not via Western military aid to the brutal Saudi (Arabian) regime/war machine...whose 'misdeeds' are increasingly overlooked and apparently condoned - turned the proverbial blind eye to - supposedly, if we're to believe the mainstream media's only other coverage of those two nations, because the Saudi regime is undergoing radical reforms in its monarchy: i.e. it has a bright new (modernist, 'progressive') 'thing' as its leader. Hey, they're even now allowing women to drive on their roads!
And to think that New Zealand Inc - c/o its Government of the day (only 3-4 years ago or so) - had the effrontery (to all those values we apparently hold so very dear - as witnessed once again 'just the other day' in our annual Anzac Day commemorations) to fly our national flag at half mast upon the death of the last Saudi crown prince. Yes, all for a nation which regularly beheads its (dissenting) citizens and otherwise de-limbs them (for lesser offences) - are women still stoned for committing adultery (while the male participants get away scot-free presumably)? Doing so apparently all in the name of a religion which makes its God into a supremely unworthy representation of all that's noblest and best in life.
When, oh when, will our supposedly 'enlightened' modern-day world - c/o its supposed representatives in the United Nations et al - get its act together and do something about Yemen (and these various other 'intractable' conflicts? Not anytime soon, you can bet. No, I'm not holding my breath, either - nor will Yemen's suffering innocents be.
"Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were weeping, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side." (The Good News Bible.)
Monday, April 30, 2018
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
'Jacinda-Mania': Sure, Some of the Gloss has now Worn Off, But Folks, There's a Perfectly Good Reason, There Really Is: Various Reflections and Observations Upon the First 100/175 Days of New Zealand's 'new' Coalition Government
Seemingly incapable of putting a foot wrong for some considerable time, we're now informed by all and sundry - of the media commentariat, political pundits, never mind all those politicoes with a vested interest in the question - that New Zealand's 'new' Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has now lost some/much of her initial gloss/*'stardust'; the 'glory' which has hitherto attended her unconventional rise and rise and rise to the top of Aotearoa's political landscape, and up to recently appeared a seeming, virtual 'given' to accompany her way on into and beyond the political sunrise.
That may well be so (i.e. the diminishing of the glitter), especially in light of the previous few weeks of scandal, supposed indiscipline in the ranks, and increasingly controversial decisions in the environmental space in particular. As happens for every newbie government, invariably, though admittedly for the Labour-NZ First-Green Coalition Government this has occurred somewhat more readily, certainly than the previous John Key walk-on-water Government, anyway. Although four-and-a-half months or so is otherwise a pretty good innings for most NZ Inc Governments, especially of the MMP variety, to so seamlessly maintain their political honeymoon.
And 'Jacindamania', like Canada's equivalent 'Trudeaumania', can really only last so long: political 'glory' and stardom, as we all know, has a built-in use-by date, however unknown till hindsight's benefit eventually discloses the truth. A sentiment, incidentally, Americans have been realizing each and every new day as they awake once more to yet another instalment in the ongoing, 'Give a Little' saga - or rather fiasco - better known to ye average punter as the Trump Presidency. Political 'celebrities' really do come in all shapes and sizes these days, don't they... .
But first, let's take a breather to reflect upon the first 100 days of our Jacinda Ardern, Labour-led Coalition Government. The following, then, is the personal assessment (scribbled months ago) of a long-time/lifetime political 'junkie'/Political Studies (and English) graduate on Prime Minister Ardern's personal performance, as such - only; and not upon the Government as a whole (much less the policies either merely advanced/advocated thus far, or already implemented).
A double, even triple A-plus. Not for her - (nevertheless) quite outspoken and commendably open - on-the-public-record support for stuff I personally regard as wrong, bad, or just plain awful, such as yet more 'progressive' social legislation - such as euthanasia and even more liberalized abortion law. But at least these issues do tend to be voted upon separately as 'conscience' issues, enabling MPs to avoid being simply 'whipped' into line as otherwise occurs; though it's a worrying trend of recent years and of governments of both, but especially the left persuasion, that these are more and more being treated as **purely party political matters.
But as I say, what I really do and very much appreciate about our new P.M. is that at least she's completely open and honest thereabouts: one knows precisely where she ultimately stands upon such issues, and why. However unwelcome discussion of such matters might ordinarily be to career-minded (and ***poll-driven fruitcake) politicians.
Which is conspicuously unlike our now former Prime Minister Bill English, who, despite his one-time, even lifetime, ****strident and implacable opposition to all manner of legislation advanced as part and parcel of the last Helen Clark-led Labour Government's grocery shopping list of social reform - The Matrimonial Property Act; Prostitution Decriminalization Act; Civil Unions Act; and the 'Sue Bradford Smacking Ban' - and more recently (under John Key's Government) his supposed (firm as steel) opposition to the (Homosexual Marriage-enabling) 'Marriage Amendment Act'; upon acceding to the prime ministerialship, Bill English jettisoned his longstanding opposition to *****'gay' marriage almost overnight.
Which, again - please overlook my old-fashioned values if you must - does look oh so conveniently like, to re-work the description of the comic book hero (of my youth), Luke Cage, 'Hero for Hire': 'Bill English, Politician for Rent' (to the highest bidder). Sure, not all that big a deal, I readily concur, since that's pretty well your average politician's middle name/modus operandi/job description (if you will), is it not? Indeed.
But for someone whose 'moral principles' were ever such an intrinsic part of his particular political brand and appeal - to effectively sell those selfsame 'bedrock fundamentals' out, and at the very earliest opportunity - smacks of either political cowardice or at least insecurity (in arguing his own 'corner' once the nation's political leader), or just of sheer political expediency at its most basic, and I would add, despicable.
Sure, political observers like myself are well aware that much/most of what our politicians do is for strict public consumption - and thus the phrase 'swallowing dead rats' to describe their tendency to occasionally not only tolerate but even vote for stuff that otherwise they'd have no bar of, simply to progress their particular party's overall agenda - but there's even an acceptable limit to that, surely? Especially when the matter in question goes to the very heart and soul of why that individual politician supposedly stood up for elected office in the first instance.
And so, yes, we can readily see how such a political tactic might well have been employed by English so as not to alienate the ever-more-vocal and politically active GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) lobby/voting bloc. Why, Mr English - if I remember rightly, not necessarily a certainty unlike my 'photographic memory' brother - even attended the past year's annual 'Big Gay Out' in Auckland (though doing so while effectively 'holding his nose'). Yes, even regular attendees could see he felt uncomfortable, being essentially conflicted, yet (some there) seemed to enjoy, even revel in the discomfort the spectacle created for the thoroughgoing ******Catholic, 'morally conservative' *******English.
*A term employed by the naturally somewhat envious then-P.M. Bill English in the run-up to the last election.
**Though this opinion piece, as I mentioned, will not deal with policy concerns, I'll still note here the worrisome advancing of Winston Peters' 'waka jumping' pet project, the so-called 'Electoral Integrity Bill', whose provisions would quickly relegate NZ Inc to a position alongside the likes of Zimbabwe in terms of parliamentary freedom, and which has accordingly been termed a concerning development by virtually all independent legal eagles in this land. Though at least Mr Peters himself did walk the walk 25 years ago or so when he left the National Party and forthwith sought re-election as the New Zealand First Member of Parliament for Tauranga.
***A memorable term once employed by that unforgettable Prime Minister of yesteryear, David Lange.
****How could this social conservative ever forget some of those very vociferous parliamentary debates, including (ofttimes) then National Party leader Bill English's part therein, especially when listening in while gardening via my trusty transmitter radio?
*****Again I am reminded of the title of a book I've consumed over recent months, Tim La Haye's The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality.
******Chancing shortly thereafter upon an ofttime independent general election candidate - who I'd myself stood alongside and against, incidentally, in a one-off similarly independent candidacy in Dunedin South in the 2008 General Election - at the (streetside) Speight's 'watering-hole' (for pure water fiends and freaks), he let me know in no uncertain terms that such openly-avowed apostasy (especially of someone in Bill English's position) from such fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith, effectively meant he really wasn't a real Catholic anymore.
*******Nevertheless the long-serving public servant Bill English gave an obituary - I mean, valedictory - like few others have in recent times, and I'll give my own take on that in due course (after re-listening to it on-line etc). Suffice to say for now, he 'went out' (of Parliament and politics) not only in some self-assured style but - what's infinitely more important - in real substance. Yes, a polished performance in every way, as commentators pretty well unanimously agreed.
Part Two: Various Other Reactions, Musings and Stances of NZ's Jacinda Ardern:
Whether Jacinda Ardern is - I mean, was - the perfect foil to National's Bill English, or simply Labour's answer to John Key, matters little; she simply has that essential pizzazz apparently critical to any modern-day leader hoping to be more than a one election 'show pony'. Call it charisma - or whatever - it is that indefinable sense, which, notwithstanding *vociferous critics to the contrary, is an intuitive, instinctive sense/ability to not only correctly judge, but - much more importantly - to embody/'incarnate' that innate/inherent sense of what the nation and its citizenry want; what pleases and displeases them, and without even so much as trying (to suss this out).
I.e. it just comes quite naturally, almost accidentally. Ardern's a 'spontaneous act' if you will, there's no forcing of a smile etc...everything happens without conscious effort or any self-consciousness, being oftentimes simply the most appropriate reaction to events and issues she is suddenly confronted with or has thrust upon her. Such as a whole host of various and sundry 'stuff' of recent months. Be they:
D J Trump's **one-time foolhardy ratcheting up and escalating of the North Korean nuclear missile crisis/standoff awhile ago with his temperamental alter ego Kim Jong Un (I believe it is), through unwise words of personal oneupmanship and locker-room style boyhood banter and macho bravado; perhaps no big deal in their place (and out of the public arena, no doubt), but when a deadly nuclear face-off might well result, it's clearly high time the boys in the cot put down their toys and toned down their language. Ms Ardern - without a minder or one of Trump's teleprompters to assist her - ***simply responded promptly, decisively and adroitly to his childish antics, in a firm and serious, tacitly dismissive "Let's be adults here, folks!" rejoinder befitting the occasion.
Then we have her perhaps unexpected and extraordinarily self-possessed, articulate and un-politically correct reaction to the long-term Aussie numbskull interviewer/media personality Michael Worsley (I believe), who's since been pilloried from pillar to post by all and sundry in ****New Zealand's 'Who's Who' of media personalities and political commentators. This was of course in response to an interview in which her pregnancy and the precise circumstances thereof were subjected to all manner of petty probing and impertinent inquisitioning; a situation which, in another time in not-too-distant history, would've simply seen the fellow *****delivered a not too touchy-feely clip to the ears!
The supremely self-effacing manner in which P.M. Ardern summarily dismissed well-intentioned concerns expressed on her behalf as actually not ones she happened to share, was indeed a spectacle to behold, verily a sight for sore eyes in this day and age of faux, trumped-up media-led outrage, shock and horror; whereby anyone happening to diverge - in whatever way - from the Western World's once sacredly-cherished value of free speech, in regards to certain groups that said media has deemed simply off-limits and sacrosanct, is forthwith summoned to a public flogging by all and sundry and given a lesson they'll never forget.
Jacinda Ardern conceded that it was perhaps her upbringing in small-town Morrinsville that gave/allowed her such a (generous) perspective, and not to be overly sensitive, an indirect if quite unintentional but nevertheless well-deserved and welcome slap in the face, an indirect serve to all those folk - especially among the present-day university population throughout the Western World, who, by dint of their constantly being on their guard and so very precious over perceived indignities and insults and slights to their political sensibilities, over-sized egos and super-thin skins; which characteristic has earned them the monicker 'snowflakes', an insult in itself in my book to that most exquisite of natural delights the humble, ever unique and individuated flake of snow.
And last but by no means least, while she spoke at Waitangi Day commemorations up at the Treaty Grounds this year, refreshingly positively inviting honest and robust feedback from Maori whenever they happen to feel the Government of the day has gotten the wrong end of the stick about some situation and/or simply to air grievances they might well have from time to time.
Labour's Well-Aired Youth Camp Scandal: Much Fury But Little (En)Light(enment):
In terms of the Labour Party's youth camp scandal, these are my own simple comments. So reputation rules, right? Supposedly. 'Victims' rights' the number one concern? Yeah, right (as the tui billboard says)!
Do I say this in regards to the Labour Party's handling of said scandal? Actually, no; not at all. But rather upon the ongoing, seemingly endless media beat-up about it (over a number of weeks).
Why? Because my opening two paragraphs (immediately above) actually apply not to the Labour Party's - and especially not to the P.M.'s - ******supposed poor handling thereof, but rather to the actual, nitty-gritty focus of the pollsters and political pundits, the media commentariat, the supposed experts on and off the cyber- and blogger-sphere...whose #1 concern - correct me if I'm wrong - appears to be: the way the whole deal reflects upon the new Government (and its reputation, its good name if you will); and especially its popular as Prime Minister. I.e. its 'political management' as such.
Not the rights of the actual victims involved. Surely the most important, nay, the one and only worthwhile aspect to justify getting one's knickers in a knot over, surely? No, I mean, really and truly! And these are supposedly the sorts of concerns that 'anti-PC' especially National Party politicians and self-styled media 'pundits' such as Kate Hawkesby and her self-righteous husband, the irrepressible (though admittedly often brilliant and incisive) Mike Hosking, supposedly care about.
These self-styled, self-righteous media elites - eat yer heart out, Lisa Owens - in making a song and dance upon Jacinda Ardern's Government, in raising merry hell thereupon - actually reveal, not the Govt et al's lack of ethics, but instead their own abject, scurrilous race-to-the-bottom-of-the-pit; and indeed into the subterranean regions thereof. For, let me simply repeat - what I, anyhow, see as the one essential aspect in the whole matter: the victims of this sexual abuse (if such it was and amounted to, rather than unwanted physical advances nipped off at the bud, however distasteful and unpleasant: not to condone such in any way, shape or form, simply to get things into some perspective in light of the kinds of incidents that we hear about all too frequently in New Zealand and around the world in this day and age) themselves evidently requested that the matter be taken no further.
And, quite frankly, if their well-considered views and deep-seated concerns don't matter, are judged irrelevant, don't you dare talk about how important *******'victims' rights' are to you. You're simply using them to have a rather cheap, even shabbily tawdry, shot at the Government.
Yes indeed - when(ever) it suits their own particular political purposes and partisan politics. While on this topic, like vultures circling in for the kill on a fresh piece of carrion, having smelt the faintest whiff of blood upon the ground, they're instantly in and at it like hammer and tongs, like there's no tomorrow... .
*Such as my beloved brother ever was of John Key, P.M.. Incredibly, a politician with whom said bro has shared an uncanny facial resemblance of recent years.
**These days it'd be hard to find anyone, except inveterate Trump-haters and political partisans - and admittedly, a fair proportion of Western women generally (for obvious reasons) - who'd not be willing to give 'the Donald' credit upon North Korea, anyhow. As folk say, 'it takes one to know one', and thus the secret magic of DJT's dealings with such rogue despots as Jong Un and Putin to name the two most worrying.
***Indeed, P.M. Ardern's forthright and unambiguous response to reporters' questions then (in February I believe) vis-a-vis President Trump's then 'injudicious' (to state it mildly) remarks re the North Korean leader were - alongside her quite refreshingly unpolitical request, during the Waitangi Day commemoration, for Maori to thenceforth tender herself and the Government honest feedback about their various gripes and grizzles - as a breath of fresh air. All the more with the backdrop of both recent 'poll-driven' governments in view, and completely unlike P.M. Clark's (and 'Minister of Everything' Stephen Joyce's) ever measured political focus group-driven (or ever-so-closely-calibrated and nuanced) comments on so many matters to pass the acceptable muster for public consumption.
****Though the (decidedly left-wing) respected British 'Guardian' featured such a critique as well.
*****In days gone by not only did Sir Bob Jones, but (Sir) Rob(ert) 'Piggy' Muldoon did just such to various protesters outside public meetings in Dunedin, as well as punching one-time Race Relations Conciliator and All Black Chris Laidlaw at an international Gleneagles Summit.
******Though, it would appear, the way their Party Secretary dealt with matters might well have left somewhat to be desired.
*******However, having now raised that whole matter of the victims of sexual abuse (and physical/emotional) abuse in this land, the 'new' Government does not get off so lightly in regards to another matter currently 'doing the rounds' in the media spotlight, and destined to stay there for some considerable time to come. But more upon that another day...
That may well be so (i.e. the diminishing of the glitter), especially in light of the previous few weeks of scandal, supposed indiscipline in the ranks, and increasingly controversial decisions in the environmental space in particular. As happens for every newbie government, invariably, though admittedly for the Labour-NZ First-Green Coalition Government this has occurred somewhat more readily, certainly than the previous John Key walk-on-water Government, anyway. Although four-and-a-half months or so is otherwise a pretty good innings for most NZ Inc Governments, especially of the MMP variety, to so seamlessly maintain their political honeymoon.
And 'Jacindamania', like Canada's equivalent 'Trudeaumania', can really only last so long: political 'glory' and stardom, as we all know, has a built-in use-by date, however unknown till hindsight's benefit eventually discloses the truth. A sentiment, incidentally, Americans have been realizing each and every new day as they awake once more to yet another instalment in the ongoing, 'Give a Little' saga - or rather fiasco - better known to ye average punter as the Trump Presidency. Political 'celebrities' really do come in all shapes and sizes these days, don't they... .
But first, let's take a breather to reflect upon the first 100 days of our Jacinda Ardern, Labour-led Coalition Government. The following, then, is the personal assessment (scribbled months ago) of a long-time/lifetime political 'junkie'/Political Studies (and English) graduate on Prime Minister Ardern's personal performance, as such - only; and not upon the Government as a whole (much less the policies either merely advanced/advocated thus far, or already implemented).
A double, even triple A-plus. Not for her - (nevertheless) quite outspoken and commendably open - on-the-public-record support for stuff I personally regard as wrong, bad, or just plain awful, such as yet more 'progressive' social legislation - such as euthanasia and even more liberalized abortion law. But at least these issues do tend to be voted upon separately as 'conscience' issues, enabling MPs to avoid being simply 'whipped' into line as otherwise occurs; though it's a worrying trend of recent years and of governments of both, but especially the left persuasion, that these are more and more being treated as **purely party political matters.
But as I say, what I really do and very much appreciate about our new P.M. is that at least she's completely open and honest thereabouts: one knows precisely where she ultimately stands upon such issues, and why. However unwelcome discussion of such matters might ordinarily be to career-minded (and ***poll-driven fruitcake) politicians.
Which is conspicuously unlike our now former Prime Minister Bill English, who, despite his one-time, even lifetime, ****strident and implacable opposition to all manner of legislation advanced as part and parcel of the last Helen Clark-led Labour Government's grocery shopping list of social reform - The Matrimonial Property Act; Prostitution Decriminalization Act; Civil Unions Act; and the 'Sue Bradford Smacking Ban' - and more recently (under John Key's Government) his supposed (firm as steel) opposition to the (Homosexual Marriage-enabling) 'Marriage Amendment Act'; upon acceding to the prime ministerialship, Bill English jettisoned his longstanding opposition to *****'gay' marriage almost overnight.
Which, again - please overlook my old-fashioned values if you must - does look oh so conveniently like, to re-work the description of the comic book hero (of my youth), Luke Cage, 'Hero for Hire': 'Bill English, Politician for Rent' (to the highest bidder). Sure, not all that big a deal, I readily concur, since that's pretty well your average politician's middle name/modus operandi/job description (if you will), is it not? Indeed.
But for someone whose 'moral principles' were ever such an intrinsic part of his particular political brand and appeal - to effectively sell those selfsame 'bedrock fundamentals' out, and at the very earliest opportunity - smacks of either political cowardice or at least insecurity (in arguing his own 'corner' once the nation's political leader), or just of sheer political expediency at its most basic, and I would add, despicable.
Sure, political observers like myself are well aware that much/most of what our politicians do is for strict public consumption - and thus the phrase 'swallowing dead rats' to describe their tendency to occasionally not only tolerate but even vote for stuff that otherwise they'd have no bar of, simply to progress their particular party's overall agenda - but there's even an acceptable limit to that, surely? Especially when the matter in question goes to the very heart and soul of why that individual politician supposedly stood up for elected office in the first instance.
And so, yes, we can readily see how such a political tactic might well have been employed by English so as not to alienate the ever-more-vocal and politically active GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) lobby/voting bloc. Why, Mr English - if I remember rightly, not necessarily a certainty unlike my 'photographic memory' brother - even attended the past year's annual 'Big Gay Out' in Auckland (though doing so while effectively 'holding his nose'). Yes, even regular attendees could see he felt uncomfortable, being essentially conflicted, yet (some there) seemed to enjoy, even revel in the discomfort the spectacle created for the thoroughgoing ******Catholic, 'morally conservative' *******English.
*A term employed by the naturally somewhat envious then-P.M. Bill English in the run-up to the last election.
**Though this opinion piece, as I mentioned, will not deal with policy concerns, I'll still note here the worrisome advancing of Winston Peters' 'waka jumping' pet project, the so-called 'Electoral Integrity Bill', whose provisions would quickly relegate NZ Inc to a position alongside the likes of Zimbabwe in terms of parliamentary freedom, and which has accordingly been termed a concerning development by virtually all independent legal eagles in this land. Though at least Mr Peters himself did walk the walk 25 years ago or so when he left the National Party and forthwith sought re-election as the New Zealand First Member of Parliament for Tauranga.
***A memorable term once employed by that unforgettable Prime Minister of yesteryear, David Lange.
****How could this social conservative ever forget some of those very vociferous parliamentary debates, including (ofttimes) then National Party leader Bill English's part therein, especially when listening in while gardening via my trusty transmitter radio?
*****Again I am reminded of the title of a book I've consumed over recent months, Tim La Haye's The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality.
******Chancing shortly thereafter upon an ofttime independent general election candidate - who I'd myself stood alongside and against, incidentally, in a one-off similarly independent candidacy in Dunedin South in the 2008 General Election - at the (streetside) Speight's 'watering-hole' (for pure water fiends and freaks), he let me know in no uncertain terms that such openly-avowed apostasy (especially of someone in Bill English's position) from such fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith, effectively meant he really wasn't a real Catholic anymore.
*******Nevertheless the long-serving public servant Bill English gave an obituary - I mean, valedictory - like few others have in recent times, and I'll give my own take on that in due course (after re-listening to it on-line etc). Suffice to say for now, he 'went out' (of Parliament and politics) not only in some self-assured style but - what's infinitely more important - in real substance. Yes, a polished performance in every way, as commentators pretty well unanimously agreed.
Part Two: Various Other Reactions, Musings and Stances of NZ's Jacinda Ardern:
Whether Jacinda Ardern is - I mean, was - the perfect foil to National's Bill English, or simply Labour's answer to John Key, matters little; she simply has that essential pizzazz apparently critical to any modern-day leader hoping to be more than a one election 'show pony'. Call it charisma - or whatever - it is that indefinable sense, which, notwithstanding *vociferous critics to the contrary, is an intuitive, instinctive sense/ability to not only correctly judge, but - much more importantly - to embody/'incarnate' that innate/inherent sense of what the nation and its citizenry want; what pleases and displeases them, and without even so much as trying (to suss this out).
I.e. it just comes quite naturally, almost accidentally. Ardern's a 'spontaneous act' if you will, there's no forcing of a smile etc...everything happens without conscious effort or any self-consciousness, being oftentimes simply the most appropriate reaction to events and issues she is suddenly confronted with or has thrust upon her. Such as a whole host of various and sundry 'stuff' of recent months. Be they:
D J Trump's **one-time foolhardy ratcheting up and escalating of the North Korean nuclear missile crisis/standoff awhile ago with his temperamental alter ego Kim Jong Un (I believe it is), through unwise words of personal oneupmanship and locker-room style boyhood banter and macho bravado; perhaps no big deal in their place (and out of the public arena, no doubt), but when a deadly nuclear face-off might well result, it's clearly high time the boys in the cot put down their toys and toned down their language. Ms Ardern - without a minder or one of Trump's teleprompters to assist her - ***simply responded promptly, decisively and adroitly to his childish antics, in a firm and serious, tacitly dismissive "Let's be adults here, folks!" rejoinder befitting the occasion.
Then we have her perhaps unexpected and extraordinarily self-possessed, articulate and un-politically correct reaction to the long-term Aussie numbskull interviewer/media personality Michael Worsley (I believe), who's since been pilloried from pillar to post by all and sundry in ****New Zealand's 'Who's Who' of media personalities and political commentators. This was of course in response to an interview in which her pregnancy and the precise circumstances thereof were subjected to all manner of petty probing and impertinent inquisitioning; a situation which, in another time in not-too-distant history, would've simply seen the fellow *****delivered a not too touchy-feely clip to the ears!
The supremely self-effacing manner in which P.M. Ardern summarily dismissed well-intentioned concerns expressed on her behalf as actually not ones she happened to share, was indeed a spectacle to behold, verily a sight for sore eyes in this day and age of faux, trumped-up media-led outrage, shock and horror; whereby anyone happening to diverge - in whatever way - from the Western World's once sacredly-cherished value of free speech, in regards to certain groups that said media has deemed simply off-limits and sacrosanct, is forthwith summoned to a public flogging by all and sundry and given a lesson they'll never forget.
Jacinda Ardern conceded that it was perhaps her upbringing in small-town Morrinsville that gave/allowed her such a (generous) perspective, and not to be overly sensitive, an indirect if quite unintentional but nevertheless well-deserved and welcome slap in the face, an indirect serve to all those folk - especially among the present-day university population throughout the Western World, who, by dint of their constantly being on their guard and so very precious over perceived indignities and insults and slights to their political sensibilities, over-sized egos and super-thin skins; which characteristic has earned them the monicker 'snowflakes', an insult in itself in my book to that most exquisite of natural delights the humble, ever unique and individuated flake of snow.
And last but by no means least, while she spoke at Waitangi Day commemorations up at the Treaty Grounds this year, refreshingly positively inviting honest and robust feedback from Maori whenever they happen to feel the Government of the day has gotten the wrong end of the stick about some situation and/or simply to air grievances they might well have from time to time.
Labour's Well-Aired Youth Camp Scandal: Much Fury But Little (En)Light(enment):
In terms of the Labour Party's youth camp scandal, these are my own simple comments. So reputation rules, right? Supposedly. 'Victims' rights' the number one concern? Yeah, right (as the tui billboard says)!
Do I say this in regards to the Labour Party's handling of said scandal? Actually, no; not at all. But rather upon the ongoing, seemingly endless media beat-up about it (over a number of weeks).
Why? Because my opening two paragraphs (immediately above) actually apply not to the Labour Party's - and especially not to the P.M.'s - ******supposed poor handling thereof, but rather to the actual, nitty-gritty focus of the pollsters and political pundits, the media commentariat, the supposed experts on and off the cyber- and blogger-sphere...whose #1 concern - correct me if I'm wrong - appears to be: the way the whole deal reflects upon the new Government (and its reputation, its good name if you will); and especially its popular as Prime Minister. I.e. its 'political management' as such.
Not the rights of the actual victims involved. Surely the most important, nay, the one and only worthwhile aspect to justify getting one's knickers in a knot over, surely? No, I mean, really and truly! And these are supposedly the sorts of concerns that 'anti-PC' especially National Party politicians and self-styled media 'pundits' such as Kate Hawkesby and her self-righteous husband, the irrepressible (though admittedly often brilliant and incisive) Mike Hosking, supposedly care about.
These self-styled, self-righteous media elites - eat yer heart out, Lisa Owens - in making a song and dance upon Jacinda Ardern's Government, in raising merry hell thereupon - actually reveal, not the Govt et al's lack of ethics, but instead their own abject, scurrilous race-to-the-bottom-of-the-pit; and indeed into the subterranean regions thereof. For, let me simply repeat - what I, anyhow, see as the one essential aspect in the whole matter: the victims of this sexual abuse (if such it was and amounted to, rather than unwanted physical advances nipped off at the bud, however distasteful and unpleasant: not to condone such in any way, shape or form, simply to get things into some perspective in light of the kinds of incidents that we hear about all too frequently in New Zealand and around the world in this day and age) themselves evidently requested that the matter be taken no further.
And, quite frankly, if their well-considered views and deep-seated concerns don't matter, are judged irrelevant, don't you dare talk about how important *******'victims' rights' are to you. You're simply using them to have a rather cheap, even shabbily tawdry, shot at the Government.
Yes indeed - when(ever) it suits their own particular political purposes and partisan politics. While on this topic, like vultures circling in for the kill on a fresh piece of carrion, having smelt the faintest whiff of blood upon the ground, they're instantly in and at it like hammer and tongs, like there's no tomorrow... .
*Such as my beloved brother ever was of John Key, P.M.. Incredibly, a politician with whom said bro has shared an uncanny facial resemblance of recent years.
**These days it'd be hard to find anyone, except inveterate Trump-haters and political partisans - and admittedly, a fair proportion of Western women generally (for obvious reasons) - who'd not be willing to give 'the Donald' credit upon North Korea, anyhow. As folk say, 'it takes one to know one', and thus the secret magic of DJT's dealings with such rogue despots as Jong Un and Putin to name the two most worrying.
***Indeed, P.M. Ardern's forthright and unambiguous response to reporters' questions then (in February I believe) vis-a-vis President Trump's then 'injudicious' (to state it mildly) remarks re the North Korean leader were - alongside her quite refreshingly unpolitical request, during the Waitangi Day commemoration, for Maori to thenceforth tender herself and the Government honest feedback about their various gripes and grizzles - as a breath of fresh air. All the more with the backdrop of both recent 'poll-driven' governments in view, and completely unlike P.M. Clark's (and 'Minister of Everything' Stephen Joyce's) ever measured political focus group-driven (or ever-so-closely-calibrated and nuanced) comments on so many matters to pass the acceptable muster for public consumption.
****Though the (decidedly left-wing) respected British 'Guardian' featured such a critique as well.
*****In days gone by not only did Sir Bob Jones, but (Sir) Rob(ert) 'Piggy' Muldoon did just such to various protesters outside public meetings in Dunedin, as well as punching one-time Race Relations Conciliator and All Black Chris Laidlaw at an international Gleneagles Summit.
******Though, it would appear, the way their Party Secretary dealt with matters might well have left somewhat to be desired.
*******However, having now raised that whole matter of the victims of sexual abuse (and physical/emotional) abuse in this land, the 'new' Government does not get off so lightly in regards to another matter currently 'doing the rounds' in the media spotlight, and destined to stay there for some considerable time to come. But more upon that another day...
Friday, April 6, 2018
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Just For Peoples' Interest (vis-a-vis my two previous Ed Sheeran concert-related blogposts)
Firstly, I was unable to access my major blogpost (of Easter Monday) today (in terms of editing it) when I came onto my computer, and so I decided, wanting to publish my retraction/mea culpa asap, I'd simply post an addendum (extra blogpost) as I just have.
Secondly, which folk reading this may well regard as rather odd, I've decided to leave - as opposed to delete - that earlier blogpost...despite the issues now outlined. Why? Essentially because I'm rather attached to said piece - despite its 'issues'; but having now explicated my bulls-up (in a detailed blogpost just posted) I don't see the need to; and moreover, perhaps it'll serve - for anyone reading it, anyhow - as a rather salient object lesson in the perils of simply believing and running with everything you hear...without and before first checking it out.
Nuff said...I'm off for some rest.
POSTSCRIPT (December 2nd):
Due to the inordinate interest, evidently, in this particular blogpost - from way back yonder - I now feel the need to insert an addendum (to these self-deprecating comments of mine)...not least in view of a certain traffic source/referring site/URL (I've noticed of late) suggesting I might be one of those who traffics in those much-canvassed 'false facts' of our peculiar era...-although admittedly such a site with the word 'boobs' in its address...could mean something else altogether, I well appreciate...
Guess what, folks? To adopt for my own purposes here what ye 'ole song put so beautifully and tunefully: hey, Yours Tru-ly was right all a-long...Yours Tru-ly was right all-a-long...
-Vis-a-vis the Dunedin Ed Sheeran concert, apparently...as my brother mentioned a couple months back (concerning not only that item I'd commented upon, but as regards another - where it initially appeared, post-script, that I was well and truly up the creek without ye proverbial paddle - as well)...
So - and I'm just suggestin', folks - you're perfectly entitled to do what ya want with my observation - perhaps you could do a whole lot worse than regularly consult this (and my other blogsite)... for the real doss upon what's really happening in our mixed-up, present-day world...
...for indeed Dunedin (retail and other) workers were evidently verily treated shabbily during that (multiple) concert time...as I later heard upon RNZ National, following my brother reading about the same in our local rag - The Otago Daily Time (otherwise oft-known as The Odious Daily Slime)...
...that is, in terms of being required - with their arms tied behind their individual and collective backs as it were - to work during the regular, long-established, statutory Easter holidays provided for in law...at the cost of their jobs/positions...
P>S> I believe I did a couple months ago make reference to these updated facts upon this blogsite ...but blown if I can find it, having now spent quite enough time trying to do that very thing!
Good - and moreover, profitable - reading upon this blogsite, folks...-KEEP IT UP!
Secondly, which folk reading this may well regard as rather odd, I've decided to leave - as opposed to delete - that earlier blogpost...despite the issues now outlined. Why? Essentially because I'm rather attached to said piece - despite its 'issues'; but having now explicated my bulls-up (in a detailed blogpost just posted) I don't see the need to; and moreover, perhaps it'll serve - for anyone reading it, anyhow - as a rather salient object lesson in the perils of simply believing and running with everything you hear...without and before first checking it out.
Nuff said...I'm off for some rest.
POSTSCRIPT (December 2nd):
Due to the inordinate interest, evidently, in this particular blogpost - from way back yonder - I now feel the need to insert an addendum (to these self-deprecating comments of mine)...not least in view of a certain traffic source/referring site/URL (I've noticed of late) suggesting I might be one of those who traffics in those much-canvassed 'false facts' of our peculiar era...-although admittedly such a site with the word 'boobs' in its address...could mean something else altogether, I well appreciate...
Guess what, folks? To adopt for my own purposes here what ye 'ole song put so beautifully and tunefully: hey, Yours Tru-ly was right all a-long...Yours Tru-ly was right all-a-long...
-Vis-a-vis the Dunedin Ed Sheeran concert, apparently...as my brother mentioned a couple months back (concerning not only that item I'd commented upon, but as regards another - where it initially appeared, post-script, that I was well and truly up the creek without ye proverbial paddle - as well)...
So - and I'm just suggestin', folks - you're perfectly entitled to do what ya want with my observation - perhaps you could do a whole lot worse than regularly consult this (and my other blogsite)... for the real doss upon what's really happening in our mixed-up, present-day world...
...for indeed Dunedin (retail and other) workers were evidently verily treated shabbily during that (multiple) concert time...as I later heard upon RNZ National, following my brother reading about the same in our local rag - The Otago Daily Time (otherwise oft-known as The Odious Daily Slime)...
...that is, in terms of being required - with their arms tied behind their individual and collective backs as it were - to work during the regular, long-established, statutory Easter holidays provided for in law...at the cost of their jobs/positions...
P>S> I believe I did a couple months ago make reference to these updated facts upon this blogsite ...but blown if I can find it, having now spent quite enough time trying to do that very thing!
Good - and moreover, profitable - reading upon this blogsite, folks...-KEEP IT UP!
Completely Getting The Wrong End of the Stick: A Serious Mea Culpa vis-a-vis my last blogpost
As popstar Elton John so profoundly sang, and his co-creator Bernie Taupin wrote, 'sorry' does indeed at times 'seem[.] to be the hardest word' It ain't here, though I do nevertheless need to be devouring some rather serious humble pie. So perhaps it's just as well that apparently next to nobody at all (especially here in NZ) reads my blogposts. A terrible admission, I well realize, but nonetheless quite true, and as I say, just as well, or I could be in for some serious defamatory/libel action - by local authorities. Again, that is, if anyone even cared less, which perhaps they don't or wouldn't!
Nevertheless, in the interests of that wonderful and increasingly lonely 'thing' known as journalistic integrity - something I've ever tried to maintain since my high school days in the dim, distant past as reporter upon and later Chief Editor and finally Editor of our once famous *KVHS school newspaper 'Mercury', let me say the following:
In this day and age of 'fake news', though I wouldn't go as far as to put my offering several days ago quite into that invidious category - although who needs facts when one's opinions can carry the day (and everything in their path)?; and we've all heard at some time that old saying about 'My mind is made up; I won't let the facts get in the way of a good opinion!' - how very easy it really is to get half the (particular) story, from a partially reliable source, and then go off half-cocked to share it with one and all, supposing you've got a real scoop in your precious little lap.
And so I was misled, no, not so much perhaps by Jim Mora's **weekday Panel discussion - though I do now upon reflection feel and believe that Jim et al got mighty exercised over what was really the proverbial storm in a teacup. But quite clearly I simply wasn't paying proper attention at the time (to the aforementioned radio chat), that's all I can conclude.
But none of that gets me off the hook from not having done my proper research and background investigation for my strongly-worded opinion piece about the recent Ed Sheeran concerts in my hometown of Dunedin. Essentially paragraphs three through six are out of order...in that evidently local workers of all sorts were apparently not required to work over the special Easter 'holy-days' (as some would see them), i.e. Good Friday and Easter Sunday in particular...which as I stressed (to the nth degree) in said article/blogpost would've indeed been a violation of those peoples' (and their families') right to observe (away from work, with their loved ones) such annual days of special spiritual significance (to many people).
No, I discovered today (at the local library, since we stopped getting the ODT delivered probably a good decade ago now) that the only real fuss over Ed Sheeran's concerts was over the cost of a mural done in his honour (about which I won't comment, even if it indeed was a gross mis-expenditure of local council monies, as some might justifiably claim). In terms of my own pointed remarks, however, I frankly care not about the particular hours purveyors of death and destruction (i.e. local liquor shops and bars) were allowed to open on either of the two major days, since this is an ongoing saga of musical chairs effectively each and every year throughout New Zealand: vis-a-vis opening hours and days for Good Friday and/or Easter Sunday, and prosecutions undertaken - or not as the case may well be - as a consequence of outfits across the land or at least in special tourist hotspots often openly (and without repercussions) flouting such laws.
Sadly such alcohol-fuelled carnage and mayhem - filling hospital emergency departments on a regular basis - seems likely to continue unabated, irrespective of rather arbitrary limitations essentially 'around the edges'...and hey, since supermarkets became 'open slather' vis-a-vis alcohol sales two decades ago or so, what difference if certain places have certain restrictions placed upon them on what are essentially 'bits' n' bobs' of the greater picture? And after all we're hardly likely to see prohibition revisited in our lifetime; though I did chance upon an interesting bit of historical info awhile ago in which it was stated how there had been no-one before the courts one year (a hundred years ago or so) in Invercargill due to its being one of several 'dry areas' in NZ.
But more majorly, as I've already alluded to, locals were not required to work on those two days...unless bus drivers and other transport operators (such as shuttle drivers to and from the airport etc) were indeed required to. However, the ODT seemed to indicate that Good Friday was not involved for transport providers (and indeed there was no concert then), and local bus operators were only slotted on Easter Sunday afternoon, though of course that could well have posed issues for some workers and their families, I have little doubt (and am not denying that).
*Kaikorai Valley High School, now Kaikorai Valley College, in Dunedin.
**Unfortunately I've also long since 'lost' the date that that particular discussion took place.
Post Script: Please, somebody, help (as the Beatles once famously requested)...I need somebody, help! So any and every opinion will be well considered and seriously reflected upon - just give me some, a little feedback, d'ya hear?!?!?! That's what the 'Comments' section is all about. No, I mean, really!
Especially - pretty please - if you happen to share the same name as a pen-pal I once had by the name of Toni...
Nevertheless, in the interests of that wonderful and increasingly lonely 'thing' known as journalistic integrity - something I've ever tried to maintain since my high school days in the dim, distant past as reporter upon and later Chief Editor and finally Editor of our once famous *KVHS school newspaper 'Mercury', let me say the following:
In this day and age of 'fake news', though I wouldn't go as far as to put my offering several days ago quite into that invidious category - although who needs facts when one's opinions can carry the day (and everything in their path)?; and we've all heard at some time that old saying about 'My mind is made up; I won't let the facts get in the way of a good opinion!' - how very easy it really is to get half the (particular) story, from a partially reliable source, and then go off half-cocked to share it with one and all, supposing you've got a real scoop in your precious little lap.
And so I was misled, no, not so much perhaps by Jim Mora's **weekday Panel discussion - though I do now upon reflection feel and believe that Jim et al got mighty exercised over what was really the proverbial storm in a teacup. But quite clearly I simply wasn't paying proper attention at the time (to the aforementioned radio chat), that's all I can conclude.
But none of that gets me off the hook from not having done my proper research and background investigation for my strongly-worded opinion piece about the recent Ed Sheeran concerts in my hometown of Dunedin. Essentially paragraphs three through six are out of order...in that evidently local workers of all sorts were apparently not required to work over the special Easter 'holy-days' (as some would see them), i.e. Good Friday and Easter Sunday in particular...which as I stressed (to the nth degree) in said article/blogpost would've indeed been a violation of those peoples' (and their families') right to observe (away from work, with their loved ones) such annual days of special spiritual significance (to many people).
No, I discovered today (at the local library, since we stopped getting the ODT delivered probably a good decade ago now) that the only real fuss over Ed Sheeran's concerts was over the cost of a mural done in his honour (about which I won't comment, even if it indeed was a gross mis-expenditure of local council monies, as some might justifiably claim). In terms of my own pointed remarks, however, I frankly care not about the particular hours purveyors of death and destruction (i.e. local liquor shops and bars) were allowed to open on either of the two major days, since this is an ongoing saga of musical chairs effectively each and every year throughout New Zealand: vis-a-vis opening hours and days for Good Friday and/or Easter Sunday, and prosecutions undertaken - or not as the case may well be - as a consequence of outfits across the land or at least in special tourist hotspots often openly (and without repercussions) flouting such laws.
Sadly such alcohol-fuelled carnage and mayhem - filling hospital emergency departments on a regular basis - seems likely to continue unabated, irrespective of rather arbitrary limitations essentially 'around the edges'...and hey, since supermarkets became 'open slather' vis-a-vis alcohol sales two decades ago or so, what difference if certain places have certain restrictions placed upon them on what are essentially 'bits' n' bobs' of the greater picture? And after all we're hardly likely to see prohibition revisited in our lifetime; though I did chance upon an interesting bit of historical info awhile ago in which it was stated how there had been no-one before the courts one year (a hundred years ago or so) in Invercargill due to its being one of several 'dry areas' in NZ.
But more majorly, as I've already alluded to, locals were not required to work on those two days...unless bus drivers and other transport operators (such as shuttle drivers to and from the airport etc) were indeed required to. However, the ODT seemed to indicate that Good Friday was not involved for transport providers (and indeed there was no concert then), and local bus operators were only slotted on Easter Sunday afternoon, though of course that could well have posed issues for some workers and their families, I have little doubt (and am not denying that).
*Kaikorai Valley High School, now Kaikorai Valley College, in Dunedin.
**Unfortunately I've also long since 'lost' the date that that particular discussion took place.
Post Script: Please, somebody, help (as the Beatles once famously requested)...I need somebody, help! So any and every opinion will be well considered and seriously reflected upon - just give me some, a little feedback, d'ya hear?!?!?! That's what the 'Comments' section is all about. No, I mean, really!
Especially - pretty please - if you happen to share the same name as a pen-pal I once had by the name of Toni...
Monday, April 2, 2018
Upon Much More Mundane Matters, But Embracing Some Important Principles: My Hometown Dunedin, NZ's Recent Dealings Vis-A-Vis Easter Weekend Working Requirements (for superstar Ed Sheeran)
All our city was effectively done and dusted, broomed up and made ready as for a certain pop sensation over the Easter break. Though *not a fan of the British superstar Ed Sheeran - all truth be told I'd hardly heard of him till recent months when advertising already undertaken was stepped up in deadly earnest - I've been made well aware (like the rest of the town) that this really is (now was) a really big deal for Dunedin, N.Z., Inc. What I mean is, like a really, really, really, big, super-dooper deal. And all the rest!
That aside, and trusting the seeming myriads of folk driving and being driven in and out of the city, from accommodation provided (from Balclutha to the south all the way through Oamaru to Dunedin's north) for up to 100,000 people evidently - I mentioned this as being a very big deal; Dunedin's normal population is only 100,000 after all, topped up for nine-ten months each and every year by around 20,-25,000 (locally-, nationally-, and internationally-sourced varsity) students - throughout Thursday, Saturday and (Easter) Sunday to see Sheeran perform at one of his three concerts in our newfangled Forsyth Barr Stadium, were actually really well-served by his performances there...
Yes, assuming that (positive glean on/view of events/proceedings) to be the case...and I've no reason to think otherwise - but then how would I even know, having neither read newspaper accounts thus far nor heard from (do I even know any?) *actual fans (bar the daughter of parents providing me a very appreciated hitchhike ride back to Dunedin late Saturday afternoon)...yes, assuming all of that to be the case, I still regard it as utterly reprehensible and abhorrent that Dunedin city councillors (or so I understand) had the gall to put their feet down and require workers (of whatever sort, background and/or industry) to work throughout said Easter break completely irrespective and regardless of selfsame workers' (and their families' and loved ones') personal convictions, however strongly held and deeply cherished, as to the rights and wrongs of their so doing.
Hey, who appointed the D.C.C. as our conscience or moral guide? Who indeed! And it matters not whether one believes in Easter or not, let alone the biblical history upon which the observance is reputedly (and arguably) based - and much genuine dispute exists upon that front, I am only too well aware (and am certainly not indifferent or insensitive to).
But any tier of government seeking to intrude its nosey beak into areas of private conviction and heartfelt conscience - in however tentative, incremental and minimal a fashion (as it may well be argued) - is thereby intruding into areas of peoples' lives that are truly sacrosanct and inviolable, and quite frankly, ought to be respected and treated with due deference. At the very least. Assuming, that is, that we still live in a truly free society - itself a moot point these days I'll concede.
Moreover those steadfastly pursuing this sort of 'City Hall knows best', interfering approach in the lives of their citizenry - as is the case in this small and seemingly insignificant but notable instance - are, I believe and respectfully suggest, taking the first, however tentative and hesitant steps, upon a path that will in the not too distant future - actually, in an essentially similar if far more international (and religio-political) context altogether - see the biblically-prophesied 'abomination of desolation' 'standing where it ought not'...i.e. '[with]in the [very] holy place' of the God-given conscience sacredly entrusted to humankind, to every individual person (child or adult) upon Planet Earth.
And when that moment arrives, folks, when that critical juncture is reached - yep, you guessed it - we're to quite literally 'head for the hills'. For our very lives (for both time and eternity) will verily depend upon it.
*And as I told a bank teller in town the other day (Thursday) while ***all downtown was astir for his - no, not Jesus the Messiah's long-anticipated Second Advent, but this singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran's - (physical) coming to Dunedin. I hadn't really heard any of his music (except telecast 'trailers' for his upcoming three concerts here) and hoped I wouldn't, instinctively/intuitively sensing I simply wouldn't be into it - yet withal not really wanting to dis this popstar of the up-and-coming (and, anyway, is that the Y or the X?) generation, and/or, even in my own small way, discharge bucket-loads of cold water (or worse) on the town's festivities - let alone be a party-pooper. Not that I could really care either way, much bigger issues are at play here.
***Reminding me of observing lines, or rather a succession of seemingly endless groups of Fleetwood Mac fans locked arm-in-arm, wending their ways through the same streets just a couple years ago, my noting at the time that it was evident who the actual fans/concert-goers were as opposed to those other city street strollers simply ambling their various ways back and forth upon everyday outings and to and away from workplaces and other such. Itself recollective of my own attending my one and only ever 'pop concert' just a couple years prior to that, for the Seekers' 50th reunion concert in my birthplace of Christchurch.
Whereupon - just as with those town-dwellers (in that ancient fairy tale) totally transfixed under the Pied Piper's spell, or, similarly, as with the innumerable species of animal drawn inexorably towards and into Noah's celebrated Ark as if by magical unseen hand or supernatural guidance - the hordes and huddles of died-in-the-wool devotees characteristically made it clear - if completely unintentionally and even as it were subconsciously - that they were bone-of-their-idols'-bone and flesh-of-their-idols'-flesh; and quite unashamedly so.
**And a local bus driver who filled me in upon many such details later Thursday told me the $400 odd cost (?of all three concerts) - naturally, depending upon the particular deals folk managed to get - would make attending Ed Sheeran's shows way out of the question for ye average university student here. As one Alabaman student I chatted with on my way to Centre City that day fully attested.
That aside, and trusting the seeming myriads of folk driving and being driven in and out of the city, from accommodation provided (from Balclutha to the south all the way through Oamaru to Dunedin's north) for up to 100,000 people evidently - I mentioned this as being a very big deal; Dunedin's normal population is only 100,000 after all, topped up for nine-ten months each and every year by around 20,-25,000 (locally-, nationally-, and internationally-sourced varsity) students - throughout Thursday, Saturday and (Easter) Sunday to see Sheeran perform at one of his three concerts in our newfangled Forsyth Barr Stadium, were actually really well-served by his performances there...
Yes, assuming that (positive glean on/view of events/proceedings) to be the case...and I've no reason to think otherwise - but then how would I even know, having neither read newspaper accounts thus far nor heard from (do I even know any?) *actual fans (bar the daughter of parents providing me a very appreciated hitchhike ride back to Dunedin late Saturday afternoon)...yes, assuming all of that to be the case, I still regard it as utterly reprehensible and abhorrent that Dunedin city councillors (or so I understand) had the gall to put their feet down and require workers (of whatever sort, background and/or industry) to work throughout said Easter break completely irrespective and regardless of selfsame workers' (and their families' and loved ones') personal convictions, however strongly held and deeply cherished, as to the rights and wrongs of their so doing.
Hey, who appointed the D.C.C. as our conscience or moral guide? Who indeed! And it matters not whether one believes in Easter or not, let alone the biblical history upon which the observance is reputedly (and arguably) based - and much genuine dispute exists upon that front, I am only too well aware (and am certainly not indifferent or insensitive to).
But any tier of government seeking to intrude its nosey beak into areas of private conviction and heartfelt conscience - in however tentative, incremental and minimal a fashion (as it may well be argued) - is thereby intruding into areas of peoples' lives that are truly sacrosanct and inviolable, and quite frankly, ought to be respected and treated with due deference. At the very least. Assuming, that is, that we still live in a truly free society - itself a moot point these days I'll concede.
Moreover those steadfastly pursuing this sort of 'City Hall knows best', interfering approach in the lives of their citizenry - as is the case in this small and seemingly insignificant but notable instance - are, I believe and respectfully suggest, taking the first, however tentative and hesitant steps, upon a path that will in the not too distant future - actually, in an essentially similar if far more international (and religio-political) context altogether - see the biblically-prophesied 'abomination of desolation' 'standing where it ought not'...i.e. '[with]in the [very] holy place' of the God-given conscience sacredly entrusted to humankind, to every individual person (child or adult) upon Planet Earth.
And when that moment arrives, folks, when that critical juncture is reached - yep, you guessed it - we're to quite literally 'head for the hills'. For our very lives (for both time and eternity) will verily depend upon it.
*And as I told a bank teller in town the other day (Thursday) while ***all downtown was astir for his - no, not Jesus the Messiah's long-anticipated Second Advent, but this singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran's - (physical) coming to Dunedin. I hadn't really heard any of his music (except telecast 'trailers' for his upcoming three concerts here) and hoped I wouldn't, instinctively/intuitively sensing I simply wouldn't be into it - yet withal not really wanting to dis this popstar of the up-and-coming (and, anyway, is that the Y or the X?) generation, and/or, even in my own small way, discharge bucket-loads of cold water (or worse) on the town's festivities - let alone be a party-pooper. Not that I could really care either way, much bigger issues are at play here.
***Reminding me of observing lines, or rather a succession of seemingly endless groups of Fleetwood Mac fans locked arm-in-arm, wending their ways through the same streets just a couple years ago, my noting at the time that it was evident who the actual fans/concert-goers were as opposed to those other city street strollers simply ambling their various ways back and forth upon everyday outings and to and away from workplaces and other such. Itself recollective of my own attending my one and only ever 'pop concert' just a couple years prior to that, for the Seekers' 50th reunion concert in my birthplace of Christchurch.
Whereupon - just as with those town-dwellers (in that ancient fairy tale) totally transfixed under the Pied Piper's spell, or, similarly, as with the innumerable species of animal drawn inexorably towards and into Noah's celebrated Ark as if by magical unseen hand or supernatural guidance - the hordes and huddles of died-in-the-wool devotees characteristically made it clear - if completely unintentionally and even as it were subconsciously - that they were bone-of-their-idols'-bone and flesh-of-their-idols'-flesh; and quite unashamedly so.
**And a local bus driver who filled me in upon many such details later Thursday told me the $400 odd cost (?of all three concerts) - naturally, depending upon the particular deals folk managed to get - would make attending Ed Sheeran's shows way out of the question for ye average university student here. As one Alabaman student I chatted with on my way to Centre City that day fully attested.
Friday, March 16, 2018
The Syrian (Civil) War (Part Two): So What About The (100s of thousands, even millions) of Syrian Refugees? As So Many Armchair Critics in these Western lands have so emphatically declared, shouldn't they just get some guts and stay and fight for their besieged, beleaguered homeland?
That's (seemingly) a very 'good' question indeed. Just what should all these Syrian refugees actually do, that is, rather than 'simply' flee their rapidly sinking ship of state? I'm glad you asked.
For an entirely different and fresh perspective on this much-mooted point of contention, I seriously suggest you link in (in no more than about half an hour's time, I'm hoping) to my blogpost on my original blogsite. The opinion piece, entitled 'Who's To Say Who Should Stay?', reflects some considered thinking on my part over recent weeks and months, and utilizes a serendipitous reading I chanced upon just last Saturday in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's classic tome The Cost of Discipleship.
For those unfamiliar, my original blogsite is, and is located at:
http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
For an entirely different and fresh perspective on this much-mooted point of contention, I seriously suggest you link in (in no more than about half an hour's time, I'm hoping) to my blogpost on my original blogsite. The opinion piece, entitled 'Who's To Say Who Should Stay?', reflects some considered thinking on my part over recent weeks and months, and utilizes a serendipitous reading I chanced upon just last Saturday in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's classic tome The Cost of Discipleship.
For those unfamiliar, my original blogsite is, and is located at:
http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Seven Sad and Sorry Years On In Syria: the more things change, the more they stay the same
The Scene and Setting: a battle-scarred wasteland of ruin and desolation, located to the east/north-east of Palestine...where Syrian Government forces, backed by the Russian military machine, fight it out with rebel forces and Sissii sympathizers in mainly urban enclaves throughout the land. In an odd cat-and-mouse juxtaposition with American forces supporting anti-Government Kurdish 'rebels' in the north.
The Diagnosis: Help for innocent civilians needed on every hand, especially for the establishment of 'safe corridors' out of danger into less threatened areas or out of Syria altogether as outcasts/refugees.
The Prognosis: Not too good.
Reason: The above military situation, topped off by a 'too little, too late' response by the United Nations, which has effectively been found to be 'missing in inaction'. As per usual.
No, you vehemently protest, the U.N. has indeed been involved, and on an ongoing basis, and for some considerable time, continually negotiating truces between the various warring parties. Yes, that's quite indisputable. It has indeed. But, really, where has it gotten things?
Only nowhere fast. It's been completely ineffective, ever lacking the military means and 'suasion' necessary to achieve its noble as, well-intentioned ends. True, its ongoing efforts to secure safe corridors for civilian passage out of conflict zones are providing a temporary breather or several to many Syrian civilians caught up unwittingly in the conflict...that is, until the next military assault and onslaught by Bashir al-Assad's forces with their Russian confederates...who, without batting an eye, readily regroup during said peace pauses and then swiftly move in once more like all-consuming locusts to devour yet another swathe of Syrian opponents cum neighbouring innocents.
No, on this one I'm entirely in agreement with New Zealand's former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who recently remarked on how shameful the U.N. response to the entire saga has been. And how effectively impotent it and its new Secretary-General, the former Portuguese Prime Minister, has been in the apparently intractable conflict. And surely she should know. Yes, perhaps she's still resentful at having been pipped at the post (evidently by a country mile) by the new United Nations head, for that job, that's probably a given. Yet as #3 at the U.N. for the three years preceding her recent bid, heading the United Nations Food and Aid Programme, she's probably just as piqued knowing that she herself knew precisely the problem and what to do about it.
Supposedly. One can only assume that that was in the back of Ms Clark's methodical, detail-oriented and solution-driven mind. But even if she'd been U.N. head herself, how the heck can one get what has effectively been a sabreless tiger to exert any real coercion, moral or otherwise, over those (such as Assad and his Russian allies - let alone Sissii International) who have no inclination whatsoever to desist from their butchery and bloodshed. Little hope - in reality.
But dreams are ever free, and after all, without any such hope, we're ultimately all doomed!
The Diagnosis: Help for innocent civilians needed on every hand, especially for the establishment of 'safe corridors' out of danger into less threatened areas or out of Syria altogether as outcasts/refugees.
The Prognosis: Not too good.
Reason: The above military situation, topped off by a 'too little, too late' response by the United Nations, which has effectively been found to be 'missing in inaction'. As per usual.
No, you vehemently protest, the U.N. has indeed been involved, and on an ongoing basis, and for some considerable time, continually negotiating truces between the various warring parties. Yes, that's quite indisputable. It has indeed. But, really, where has it gotten things?
Only nowhere fast. It's been completely ineffective, ever lacking the military means and 'suasion' necessary to achieve its noble as, well-intentioned ends. True, its ongoing efforts to secure safe corridors for civilian passage out of conflict zones are providing a temporary breather or several to many Syrian civilians caught up unwittingly in the conflict...that is, until the next military assault and onslaught by Bashir al-Assad's forces with their Russian confederates...who, without batting an eye, readily regroup during said peace pauses and then swiftly move in once more like all-consuming locusts to devour yet another swathe of Syrian opponents cum neighbouring innocents.
No, on this one I'm entirely in agreement with New Zealand's former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who recently remarked on how shameful the U.N. response to the entire saga has been. And how effectively impotent it and its new Secretary-General, the former Portuguese Prime Minister, has been in the apparently intractable conflict. And surely she should know. Yes, perhaps she's still resentful at having been pipped at the post (evidently by a country mile) by the new United Nations head, for that job, that's probably a given. Yet as #3 at the U.N. for the three years preceding her recent bid, heading the United Nations Food and Aid Programme, she's probably just as piqued knowing that she herself knew precisely the problem and what to do about it.
Supposedly. One can only assume that that was in the back of Ms Clark's methodical, detail-oriented and solution-driven mind. But even if she'd been U.N. head herself, how the heck can one get what has effectively been a sabreless tiger to exert any real coercion, moral or otherwise, over those (such as Assad and his Russian allies - let alone Sissii International) who have no inclination whatsoever to desist from their butchery and bloodshed. Little hope - in reality.
But dreams are ever free, and after all, without any such hope, we're ultimately all doomed!
Good on ya, Rand Paul - you've shown your quality. Now will the other - real - American men (and women) - as in Republican Party politicians, in this case - please step up...- that is, if any remain
Or has the once truly grand old party of such 'greats' as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, and yes, *'even' Herbert Hoover, vanished without trace?
My question, seemingly rhetorical, is somewhat facetious, as there are a couple - influential - Republicans (senators both) who have indeed come to the fore in this time of crisis (and previously) and truly shown their mettle. In the **genuinely bipartisan spirit of the equally great Republican senator of the 1960s through 1980s, Washington State's Mark Hatfield - a man so genuinely decent, progressive and far-sighted he was even apparently considered a serious Vice-Presidential nominee for George McGovern's radical presidential ticket of 1972 - Kentucky Senator and would-be presidential nominee Rand Paul has just stepped up to the mark (along with John McCain, who has almost made a specialty of standing up to President Trump); in publicly criticizing (and staunchly opposing) the imminent appointment of two individuals notorious for their active support (in recent times past) of techniques of torture utilized by the American military. Rand's voice of independence has been well-noted over recent decades with his firm and unyielding opposition to post-9/11 U.S. Government infringements upon citizen rights, freedoms and privacy, and by his almost sole 'voice in the (Republican) wilderness' opposing American involvement in Iraq. Paul, like McCain - and that despite the latter's momentary lapse of judgment in selecting then Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his own presidential running mate in 2008 - has long shown himself a thoroughly independent 'operator', acting courageously 'in all seasons' quite irrespective of his formal party political allegiance. Thus proving themselves - in times of crisis when heroes and heroines are few upon the ground and exceptionally hard to locate - people of valour and principle, of integrity and decency.
*Whom I mention because the historical records suggest that - very similarly to 'Jimmy' Carter - while not a particularly effective (some would claim more an 'unfortunate') President, he, just like James Earl Carter, proved himself an exceptional human being and humanitarian (throughout his lifetime). The former thoughts were gleaned especially during a memorable course/university paper in American History I undertook when recommencing my two-decade-long university study in 2003. I also found it interesting how each of these two (Hoover and Carter) were replaced by similarly popular, sanguine, charismatic Presidents with 'the gift of the gab', who went on to serve multiple terms (Reagan probably being prevented from a third term by the Republican Party, post-FDR, passing a two-term limitation on presidential terms.) Hoover served 'on the ground' throughout Europe during and after WW1 (and indeed also following WW11), personally overseeing and organizing the distribution of emergency food relief to the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of displaced and homeless orphans and adults from Belgium through to famine-stricken Soviet Russia, silencing critics by declaring: "Twenty million people are starving...Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!" So respected did his name thus become, that he was literally feted by homeless orphans in post-World War 11 Europe, his name becoming synonymous with disinterested benevolence both at home (hence the term 'Hooverizing') and abroad (coined in Europe as tantamount to the same, i.e. charitable good works without hope or prospect of reward or recompense).
Or such is my memory thereof. Whereas President Carter's works of decency, goodwill, reconciliation and peace-building since leaving office have quite rightly earned him the reputation of achieving more and greater things shorn of the vestiges and prestige and accoutrements of elected office than many, even arguably most, presidents have accomplished during their tenure in office.
**Indeed even the highly contentious 1964 Republican presidential nominee (and long-serving Arizona Senator) Barry Goldwater, and the equally long-serving and far more controversial Alabama Governor (and independent president candidate in 1968 and 1972) George Wallace, later proved their own qualities in various ways, the latter's eventually radically resiling from his staunch, do-or-die segregationist stance - even to the point of appointing blacks into top positions in his Alabaman cabinet; the former proving a genuine bipartisan force upon Capitol Hill, from being one of the first to seek President Nixon's impeachment, through to declaring illegal the Reagan Administration's bombing of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and/or equipping of El Salvadoran death squads, to his ultimately parting ways with the one-time Moral Majority, nowadays 'Religious Right', and then 'Christian Coalition', declaring his firm conviction that they were interposing upon long-settled American constitutional principles, and would indeed prove eventually to cause the demise of the Grand Old Party.
My question, seemingly rhetorical, is somewhat facetious, as there are a couple - influential - Republicans (senators both) who have indeed come to the fore in this time of crisis (and previously) and truly shown their mettle. In the **genuinely bipartisan spirit of the equally great Republican senator of the 1960s through 1980s, Washington State's Mark Hatfield - a man so genuinely decent, progressive and far-sighted he was even apparently considered a serious Vice-Presidential nominee for George McGovern's radical presidential ticket of 1972 - Kentucky Senator and would-be presidential nominee Rand Paul has just stepped up to the mark (along with John McCain, who has almost made a specialty of standing up to President Trump); in publicly criticizing (and staunchly opposing) the imminent appointment of two individuals notorious for their active support (in recent times past) of techniques of torture utilized by the American military. Rand's voice of independence has been well-noted over recent decades with his firm and unyielding opposition to post-9/11 U.S. Government infringements upon citizen rights, freedoms and privacy, and by his almost sole 'voice in the (Republican) wilderness' opposing American involvement in Iraq. Paul, like McCain - and that despite the latter's momentary lapse of judgment in selecting then Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his own presidential running mate in 2008 - has long shown himself a thoroughly independent 'operator', acting courageously 'in all seasons' quite irrespective of his formal party political allegiance. Thus proving themselves - in times of crisis when heroes and heroines are few upon the ground and exceptionally hard to locate - people of valour and principle, of integrity and decency.
*Whom I mention because the historical records suggest that - very similarly to 'Jimmy' Carter - while not a particularly effective (some would claim more an 'unfortunate') President, he, just like James Earl Carter, proved himself an exceptional human being and humanitarian (throughout his lifetime). The former thoughts were gleaned especially during a memorable course/university paper in American History I undertook when recommencing my two-decade-long university study in 2003. I also found it interesting how each of these two (Hoover and Carter) were replaced by similarly popular, sanguine, charismatic Presidents with 'the gift of the gab', who went on to serve multiple terms (Reagan probably being prevented from a third term by the Republican Party, post-FDR, passing a two-term limitation on presidential terms.) Hoover served 'on the ground' throughout Europe during and after WW1 (and indeed also following WW11), personally overseeing and organizing the distribution of emergency food relief to the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of displaced and homeless orphans and adults from Belgium through to famine-stricken Soviet Russia, silencing critics by declaring: "Twenty million people are starving...Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!" So respected did his name thus become, that he was literally feted by homeless orphans in post-World War 11 Europe, his name becoming synonymous with disinterested benevolence both at home (hence the term 'Hooverizing') and abroad (coined in Europe as tantamount to the same, i.e. charitable good works without hope or prospect of reward or recompense).
Or such is my memory thereof. Whereas President Carter's works of decency, goodwill, reconciliation and peace-building since leaving office have quite rightly earned him the reputation of achieving more and greater things shorn of the vestiges and prestige and accoutrements of elected office than many, even arguably most, presidents have accomplished during their tenure in office.
**Indeed even the highly contentious 1964 Republican presidential nominee (and long-serving Arizona Senator) Barry Goldwater, and the equally long-serving and far more controversial Alabama Governor (and independent president candidate in 1968 and 1972) George Wallace, later proved their own qualities in various ways, the latter's eventually radically resiling from his staunch, do-or-die segregationist stance - even to the point of appointing blacks into top positions in his Alabaman cabinet; the former proving a genuine bipartisan force upon Capitol Hill, from being one of the first to seek President Nixon's impeachment, through to declaring illegal the Reagan Administration's bombing of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and/or equipping of El Salvadoran death squads, to his ultimately parting ways with the one-time Moral Majority, nowadays 'Religious Right', and then 'Christian Coalition', declaring his firm conviction that they were interposing upon long-settled American constitutional principles, and would indeed prove eventually to cause the demise of the Grand Old Party.
Revisiting Regurgitated Entrails - for a moment longer...
Re: a certain university lecturer of yesteryear
Notwithstanding that seemingly overly large self-serving of humble pie having been dished out (by myself at the conclusion of my last blogpost), may I respectfully suggest, as a necessary corrective:
there are people who have no place whatsoever in any 'people profession' much less educational institution/'institute of learning', lacking as they are in even the most elementary of people skills; (no offence intended, you understand - but let the chips fall where they well may...)
Nuff said.
Notwithstanding that seemingly overly large self-serving of humble pie having been dished out (by myself at the conclusion of my last blogpost), may I respectfully suggest, as a necessary corrective:
there are people who have no place whatsoever in any 'people profession' much less educational institution/'institute of learning', lacking as they are in even the most elementary of people skills; (no offence intended, you understand - but let the chips fall where they well may...)
Nuff said.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Yet While We're At It, If We Really Must Put The Boot In, May I Equally Respectfully Suggest A Couple Other, Very High-Profile, Seriously Major World Leaders...
Such as, for instance:
!Russian President Vladimir Putin
Never one to pussy-foot around when it comes to asserting his will and way, to promoting his own ego and grandiose sense of self for every compatriot to see, and his muscular physique and sheer physical prowess for every last besmitten Russian woman and girl to ogle, the one-time KGB agent and on-again, off-again President-Prime Minister-President, Emeritus Tzar for life Vladimir Putin leaves Trump well and truly in the dust, breathing up noxious, inorganic particulate matter...
What with the Russian Federation's Leader-for-Life (if he could arrange it) Putin, unabashedly gloating in unbridled fashion whilst promoting his grand nuclear strategy the other day - to bedazzle folks at home and terrify those abroad - by displaying the latest permutations and configuration of Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles; while simultaneously dishing out the poison cup - no doubt indirectly through his loyal-till-death-do-them-part operatives - to his regime's sworn and steadfast enemies...*including this very morning as well to a fellow (now in London) who'd lived - and moreover also been poisoned etc - here in God's Own just a few years ago!
*No, apparently not, i.e. the words 'including this very morning...also'. Otherwise my words above stand, and are anything but fake news. What I should've put/added in above was simply that said former Russian (I believe, unless he'd hailed originally from Lithuania or another of the 15 present-day nations/one-time republic components of the former Soviet Union) - a Boris Karpickhov (sp?) - speaking livecast on TV3 tonight (NZ time) from a British TV studio panel interview, confirmed he'd personally been targeted back in 2006-2007 while living in New Zealand; i.e. walking a central Auckland street where **'a beggar' [homeless woman] had accosted him and sprayed him with a powdery substance (subsequently causing much ongoing physical discomfort). And evidently - understandably enough - now evidently had more than his share of concerns for his own ongoing safety in the U.K. in the aftermath of the recent well-reported 'international incident', compounded apparently this very morning (NZ time) in London by a similar event (of which I'm still a little hazy).
**But for Newstalk ZB's afternoons talkback host Larry Williams to use this incident (in NZ 2006/2007) to add apparent fuel to the ongoing fire to justify the continuing call for the banning of beggars from central Auckland streets, is not only doing a disservice for the myriads of genuine as homeless/panhandling dudes upon our streets, but it betrays an utter lack of rationality and under-standing of how a sophisticated spy operation as the Russian Government has ever run is actually undertaken - in the real world, that is. So keep your cheap shots for a better target, Mr Williams; homeless guys and gals and other beggars have more than enough upon their plate to be constantly served such endless self-serving drivel, and former Auckland Mayor, National Government Minister and Whangarei M.P. John Banks ***himself in comparison - despite his own various faults and failings - at least had the relative humanity (apparently) to take sandwiches down every Sunday evening (or suchlike) to a person in that position years earlier (on a regular and anonymous basis).
***As once revealed by a phoner upon a Sunday night talkback discussion/'this is/was your life, John Banks' (with Newstalk ZB's John McGowan) a decade or so ago.
Oh, and hey...and now I'm getting myself into even hotter water...what about a certain
!Chinese Premier/President Xi ('Winnie-the-Pooh') Jinping.
This fellow evidently sees and styles himself in the same vein, only as the Chinese counterpart thereof, or the modern-day equivalent/personification/reincarnation (if you will) of one of China's ancient dynastic emperors. And having studied such a good 32 years ago at the University of Otago under the inspired and inspiring tutelage of a certain Political Studies Professor Stuart *Greif, Jinping's certainly placing himself amidst some illustrious company, not only that of communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung of half a century ago.
Yes, under Jinping's esteemed leadership the Chinese Tiger's roaring louder than ever before, though it's equally correct that it's managing to become a real economic powerhouse upon the world stage, even succeeding in lifting vast swathes of its citizenry into an ever-expanding middle class, whose membership now numbers into the 300 millions (if reports are correct). And the Chinese Government is taking a high-profile and celebrated role upon the global stage in tackling the climate change crisis. But for all that the influence of the Chinese Dragon only continues to grow and expand around the world, especially throughout the South Pacific, as the tentacles of the Chinese octopus gradually spread out further and further, seeking to engulf and gobble up each and every last vestige of perceived dissent and rebellion - especially (as with Russia) of (either present or former) Chinese nationals overseas. In this regards, to New Zealand's own shame, one needs look no further than the Key Government's formal ratification of an agreement with China to return Chinese citizens that Government wished to try for crimes back at home. In which regard the BBC reported extensively a couple years back as to how the Chinese authorities had evidently been found - as suspected - to have been behind the whisking off of five independent booksellers critical of the new regime in the supposedly newly autonomous Hong Kong.
*Though for Yours Truly perhaps 'Grief' would've been more apt, my ending up failing both the papers I undertook under said lecturer (though I generally did okay at Political Studies/Science (whether at Otago or Canterbury varsities, finally ending up with a 'minor', to my English major)); and to this day I happen to retain a pitiful and rather pathetic essay I had the effrontery apparently to present him with, his dismissive written comments/evaluation essentially being that: 'This doesn't even remotely approach being an acceptable effort'. Nuff said!
!Russian President Vladimir Putin
Never one to pussy-foot around when it comes to asserting his will and way, to promoting his own ego and grandiose sense of self for every compatriot to see, and his muscular physique and sheer physical prowess for every last besmitten Russian woman and girl to ogle, the one-time KGB agent and on-again, off-again President-Prime Minister-President, Emeritus Tzar for life Vladimir Putin leaves Trump well and truly in the dust, breathing up noxious, inorganic particulate matter...
What with the Russian Federation's Leader-for-Life (if he could arrange it) Putin, unabashedly gloating in unbridled fashion whilst promoting his grand nuclear strategy the other day - to bedazzle folks at home and terrify those abroad - by displaying the latest permutations and configuration of Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles; while simultaneously dishing out the poison cup - no doubt indirectly through his loyal-till-death-do-them-part operatives - to his regime's sworn and steadfast enemies...*including this very morning as well to a fellow (now in London) who'd lived - and moreover also been poisoned etc - here in God's Own just a few years ago!
*No, apparently not, i.e. the words 'including this very morning...also'. Otherwise my words above stand, and are anything but fake news. What I should've put/added in above was simply that said former Russian (I believe, unless he'd hailed originally from Lithuania or another of the 15 present-day nations/one-time republic components of the former Soviet Union) - a Boris Karpickhov (sp?) - speaking livecast on TV3 tonight (NZ time) from a British TV studio panel interview, confirmed he'd personally been targeted back in 2006-2007 while living in New Zealand; i.e. walking a central Auckland street where **'a beggar' [homeless woman] had accosted him and sprayed him with a powdery substance (subsequently causing much ongoing physical discomfort). And evidently - understandably enough - now evidently had more than his share of concerns for his own ongoing safety in the U.K. in the aftermath of the recent well-reported 'international incident', compounded apparently this very morning (NZ time) in London by a similar event (of which I'm still a little hazy).
**But for Newstalk ZB's afternoons talkback host Larry Williams to use this incident (in NZ 2006/2007) to add apparent fuel to the ongoing fire to justify the continuing call for the banning of beggars from central Auckland streets, is not only doing a disservice for the myriads of genuine as homeless/panhandling dudes upon our streets, but it betrays an utter lack of rationality and under-standing of how a sophisticated spy operation as the Russian Government has ever run is actually undertaken - in the real world, that is. So keep your cheap shots for a better target, Mr Williams; homeless guys and gals and other beggars have more than enough upon their plate to be constantly served such endless self-serving drivel, and former Auckland Mayor, National Government Minister and Whangarei M.P. John Banks ***himself in comparison - despite his own various faults and failings - at least had the relative humanity (apparently) to take sandwiches down every Sunday evening (or suchlike) to a person in that position years earlier (on a regular and anonymous basis).
***As once revealed by a phoner upon a Sunday night talkback discussion/'this is/was your life, John Banks' (with Newstalk ZB's John McGowan) a decade or so ago.
Oh, and hey...and now I'm getting myself into even hotter water...what about a certain
!Chinese Premier/President Xi ('Winnie-the-Pooh') Jinping.
This fellow evidently sees and styles himself in the same vein, only as the Chinese counterpart thereof, or the modern-day equivalent/personification/reincarnation (if you will) of one of China's ancient dynastic emperors. And having studied such a good 32 years ago at the University of Otago under the inspired and inspiring tutelage of a certain Political Studies Professor Stuart *Greif, Jinping's certainly placing himself amidst some illustrious company, not only that of communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung of half a century ago.
Yes, under Jinping's esteemed leadership the Chinese Tiger's roaring louder than ever before, though it's equally correct that it's managing to become a real economic powerhouse upon the world stage, even succeeding in lifting vast swathes of its citizenry into an ever-expanding middle class, whose membership now numbers into the 300 millions (if reports are correct). And the Chinese Government is taking a high-profile and celebrated role upon the global stage in tackling the climate change crisis. But for all that the influence of the Chinese Dragon only continues to grow and expand around the world, especially throughout the South Pacific, as the tentacles of the Chinese octopus gradually spread out further and further, seeking to engulf and gobble up each and every last vestige of perceived dissent and rebellion - especially (as with Russia) of (either present or former) Chinese nationals overseas. In this regards, to New Zealand's own shame, one needs look no further than the Key Government's formal ratification of an agreement with China to return Chinese citizens that Government wished to try for crimes back at home. In which regard the BBC reported extensively a couple years back as to how the Chinese authorities had evidently been found - as suspected - to have been behind the whisking off of five independent booksellers critical of the new regime in the supposedly newly autonomous Hong Kong.
*Though for Yours Truly perhaps 'Grief' would've been more apt, my ending up failing both the papers I undertook under said lecturer (though I generally did okay at Political Studies/Science (whether at Otago or Canterbury varsities, finally ending up with a 'minor', to my English major)); and to this day I happen to retain a pitiful and rather pathetic essay I had the effrontery apparently to present him with, his dismissive written comments/evaluation essentially being that: 'This doesn't even remotely approach being an acceptable effort'. Nuff said!
Yet For All That Rose-Tinted, Possibly Pollyanna-ish Optimism...the sacking overnight (NZ-time) of United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in itself a somewhat concerning development
If for no other reason, that once each and every last sane, sensible, level-headed and reasonable, rational person is expelled from the asylum, the lunatics left inside will not only have full reign, but moreover the chances of their wreaking merry havoc therein, and subsequently spreading their folly thick and fast throughout neighbouring communities, towns, cities, provinces/regions, nations - and yes, ultimately the entire globe...only increases in exponential proportions...
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
For All his 'Faults' - and they are both numerous, even 'innumerable', and incredibly variegated...the sitting American President:
is surely deserving of at least a little commendation (of late)...would not 'all men [i.e. people] of good will' agree? My question is rhetorical, but seeing as some (perhaps fairly understandably, I'll freely admit) regard Donald J Trump as virtually (pun both unintended yet simultaneously quite intentional) the devil incarnate (eminent position - he currently occupies - notwithstanding)..:
Let me suggest, as gently and respectfully as I can - no hard feelings, you understand - that it's in absolutely nobody's interests ('best' or otherwise); except perhaps that/those of a patently hostile, malice-ridden assemblage of onlooking ***other-worldly would-be earth conquerors; for this present world to go up in an incendiary smokestack of nuclear mushroom-style ruin and desolation. No, truly. And yes, whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. Admittedly even when the toddlers are in charge of the schoolhouse and its precincts.
Hence, ipso facto, whoever happens to get the credit - and who really cares, that's for kiddies in kindergartens, folks - let's all just be grateful, for a moment (or several), anyhow, that the lifespan of this fragile planet has thus been, ****hopefully, reprieved for a couple more months, at least... .
Whichever of the two, even if both larger-than-life high-flying politicoes are ultimately responsible; again, who really cares? It doesn't matter a jot or tittle. You might indeed be right in your own evaluation/assessment, spot on in fact, and correct to the very nth degree even...but may I, again ever so respectfully, suggest and point out: if we're all dead, d'ya think we'll be around to extol your superior wisdom?
So stop, for just a sec (or two), in order, if not to positively give due credit where credit is due, to at the very least refrain (for the briefest of interludes) from ye usual petty party political, partisan bitching, bickering, nit-picking and just plain ('I can't stand the man' (I mean, oaf) ) ideological point-scoring and other assorted 'holier than Trump' self-indulgences...to do the following: celebrate with all men and women and children of good will a small 'win' for homo sapiens and all other Earth-bound creatures.
But please, oh pretty please, don't hold it against dear old Mr Trump that he honestly just can't help himself, for real, that he's once again chosen to trumpet (pun all too fully intended) his own supposed involvement in/contribution to such a (******highly temporary, no doubt) stay of execution for Planet Earth. And meanwhile, for all us supposed 'adults in the room', let's not do the 'ole 'hate the sinner whilst loving the sin' thingamy by emulating 'the Donald' himself...but rather just 'thank our lucky stars' (if that's the way we're inclined and all we can do): that the impending spectre of nuclear winter has been - at least temporarily - deferred for all beings that on this earth do dwell.
Yes indeed. That'll give us all due cause for pause and food enough for thought for some time to come.
**(From title: 'numerous, even 'innumerable, and incredibly variegated'): Too many indeed to easily cite here, and embracing a wide swathe of territory, that's for sure.
*(From title: 'all his faults'): Comprehending errors, mistakes, personality failings and flaws (as well as quite arguably the morally disqualifying act of cowardly evading the draft - while cynically employing that old 'last refuge of a scoundrel', patriotism, whenever it's tended to suit his own political purposes and agenda, including to 'dis' the likes of genuine war heroes such as Arizona Republican Senator John McCain)...but not here referring to the evidently well-founded allegations swirling around 'everywhere' of far more serious, even heinous, ********crimes of passion, shonky business dealings and employment practices (let alone the seething charges, now entering America's highest legislative bodies, of nepotism, gerrymandering election results alongside doing so by collusion with a foreign power of the most powerful and hostile type (i.e. effectively committing treason)).
***Eat ya hearts out, all ye comedians/comediennes of New Zealand's TV3's weeknightly 'The Project'.
****Of course ongoing, never-ending 'developments' in that *****other constantly simmering global (nuclear) hotspot, the Middle East, only ever seem to progressively worsen (outside of President Obama's own various reprieves a few short years back), and give no such cause for optimism, only for rather hopeless pessimism.
*****Though as 'we' were reminded this morning (on Kathryn Ryan's RNZ National 'Nine to Noon' show) by a longtime expert on the world's nuclear arsenals and deployment, we tend to hear little about the ongoing waxing and waning and waxing tensions between two other nuclear weaponry-wielding neighbours, i.e. Pakistan and India; whose rhetoric has often been just as worrisome!
******For with two *******madmen running this particular 'show', naturally some legitimately feel 'it's only a matter of time', and not, 'which one blinks first?', as it was with the three seriously intelligent - and essentially decent-minded and humane - statesmen of yesteryear, Cuba's Castro, the U.S.S.R.'s Khrushchev and America's Camelot President 'JFK' (during their own state-of-the-art brinkmanship in the 'Bay of Pigs' nuclear standoff).
*******Without even mentioning a whole assortment of present-day supposedly much more sophisticated, sensible and intelligent world leaders, and two (larger than life characters) in particular. And no, I make no reference here to one of the leaders of the historic Brexit referendum result, a certain much-pilloried Boris Johnson, who I for one regard as all of the immediate above - minus the descriptor 'supposedly'. And his idiosyncratic 'rough and ready' style detracts not one iota from that intriguing, endearing persona!
********Though admittedly not being the sole 'perpetrator' of some of these sordid affairs even amongst the generally, supposedly hallowed chambers of American presidents, his - at least apparent - combination of so many (in one individual) is enough to stagger the imagination, surely.
Let me suggest, as gently and respectfully as I can - no hard feelings, you understand - that it's in absolutely nobody's interests ('best' or otherwise); except perhaps that/those of a patently hostile, malice-ridden assemblage of onlooking ***other-worldly would-be earth conquerors; for this present world to go up in an incendiary smokestack of nuclear mushroom-style ruin and desolation. No, truly. And yes, whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. Admittedly even when the toddlers are in charge of the schoolhouse and its precincts.
Hence, ipso facto, whoever happens to get the credit - and who really cares, that's for kiddies in kindergartens, folks - let's all just be grateful, for a moment (or several), anyhow, that the lifespan of this fragile planet has thus been, ****hopefully, reprieved for a couple more months, at least... .
Whichever of the two, even if both larger-than-life high-flying politicoes are ultimately responsible; again, who really cares? It doesn't matter a jot or tittle. You might indeed be right in your own evaluation/assessment, spot on in fact, and correct to the very nth degree even...but may I, again ever so respectfully, suggest and point out: if we're all dead, d'ya think we'll be around to extol your superior wisdom?
So stop, for just a sec (or two), in order, if not to positively give due credit where credit is due, to at the very least refrain (for the briefest of interludes) from ye usual petty party political, partisan bitching, bickering, nit-picking and just plain ('I can't stand the man' (I mean, oaf) ) ideological point-scoring and other assorted 'holier than Trump' self-indulgences...to do the following: celebrate with all men and women and children of good will a small 'win' for homo sapiens and all other Earth-bound creatures.
But please, oh pretty please, don't hold it against dear old Mr Trump that he honestly just can't help himself, for real, that he's once again chosen to trumpet (pun all too fully intended) his own supposed involvement in/contribution to such a (******highly temporary, no doubt) stay of execution for Planet Earth. And meanwhile, for all us supposed 'adults in the room', let's not do the 'ole 'hate the sinner whilst loving the sin' thingamy by emulating 'the Donald' himself...but rather just 'thank our lucky stars' (if that's the way we're inclined and all we can do): that the impending spectre of nuclear winter has been - at least temporarily - deferred for all beings that on this earth do dwell.
Yes indeed. That'll give us all due cause for pause and food enough for thought for some time to come.
**(From title: 'numerous, even 'innumerable, and incredibly variegated'): Too many indeed to easily cite here, and embracing a wide swathe of territory, that's for sure.
*(From title: 'all his faults'): Comprehending errors, mistakes, personality failings and flaws (as well as quite arguably the morally disqualifying act of cowardly evading the draft - while cynically employing that old 'last refuge of a scoundrel', patriotism, whenever it's tended to suit his own political purposes and agenda, including to 'dis' the likes of genuine war heroes such as Arizona Republican Senator John McCain)...but not here referring to the evidently well-founded allegations swirling around 'everywhere' of far more serious, even heinous, ********crimes of passion, shonky business dealings and employment practices (let alone the seething charges, now entering America's highest legislative bodies, of nepotism, gerrymandering election results alongside doing so by collusion with a foreign power of the most powerful and hostile type (i.e. effectively committing treason)).
***Eat ya hearts out, all ye comedians/comediennes of New Zealand's TV3's weeknightly 'The Project'.
****Of course ongoing, never-ending 'developments' in that *****other constantly simmering global (nuclear) hotspot, the Middle East, only ever seem to progressively worsen (outside of President Obama's own various reprieves a few short years back), and give no such cause for optimism, only for rather hopeless pessimism.
*****Though as 'we' were reminded this morning (on Kathryn Ryan's RNZ National 'Nine to Noon' show) by a longtime expert on the world's nuclear arsenals and deployment, we tend to hear little about the ongoing waxing and waning and waxing tensions between two other nuclear weaponry-wielding neighbours, i.e. Pakistan and India; whose rhetoric has often been just as worrisome!
******For with two *******madmen running this particular 'show', naturally some legitimately feel 'it's only a matter of time', and not, 'which one blinks first?', as it was with the three seriously intelligent - and essentially decent-minded and humane - statesmen of yesteryear, Cuba's Castro, the U.S.S.R.'s Khrushchev and America's Camelot President 'JFK' (during their own state-of-the-art brinkmanship in the 'Bay of Pigs' nuclear standoff).
*******Without even mentioning a whole assortment of present-day supposedly much more sophisticated, sensible and intelligent world leaders, and two (larger than life characters) in particular. And no, I make no reference here to one of the leaders of the historic Brexit referendum result, a certain much-pilloried Boris Johnson, who I for one regard as all of the immediate above - minus the descriptor 'supposedly'. And his idiosyncratic 'rough and ready' style detracts not one iota from that intriguing, endearing persona!
********Though admittedly not being the sole 'perpetrator' of some of these sordid affairs even amongst the generally, supposedly hallowed chambers of American presidents, his - at least apparent - combination of so many (in one individual) is enough to stagger the imagination, surely.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
And profuse apologies to one and all loyal blogsite 'followers' (in spirit if not in name) who've patiently, painstakingly awaited my eventual return to this (and my sister) blogsite, I can assure you your 114-day-and-night wait has not been without reason, purpose or ultimate recompense...over days (and weeks) to come
Hip, Hip Hooray for Four Paws, (as opposed to) Hysteria-ridden Hubbub from PETA: while the latter talks a good talk, the former walks a better walk
Congratulations to the animal rescue outfit known as Four Paws for rescuing lions Simba and Saed (sp?) from their strife-torn home in Syria, returning them safe and sound (as much as can be expected in the circumstances) to their native habitat in South Africa, long a bastion of 'the king of the beasts'.
Though some - including myself - might initially reflect unfavourably on their thus doing - whilst millions of human beings remain in wrack and ruin, in strife and suffering, in misery and neglect, heartache and hunger in Syria - let's for a change simply celebrate the betterment of two 'lone' lions.
While (for my part, anyway) reflecting - by way of comparison and contrast - less favourably upon their 'sister' organization (in these - Antipodean - parts) 'P.E.T.A.' Whose extreme form of 'Getcha' and 'Gotcha' tactics (in the cause of selfsame animal rights) has been over the top (and off into the wop-wops) as they, for instance, sought - ultimately unsuccessfully - to pin all manner of animal cruelty charges upon the likes of WETA workshop et al, in its well-supported crusade (by certain kiwis) to find ammo in their Hobbit films-bashing, Sir Peter Jackson-loathing misanthropy.
Though some - including myself - might initially reflect unfavourably on their thus doing - whilst millions of human beings remain in wrack and ruin, in strife and suffering, in misery and neglect, heartache and hunger in Syria - let's for a change simply celebrate the betterment of two 'lone' lions.
While (for my part, anyway) reflecting - by way of comparison and contrast - less favourably upon their 'sister' organization (in these - Antipodean - parts) 'P.E.T.A.' Whose extreme form of 'Getcha' and 'Gotcha' tactics (in the cause of selfsame animal rights) has been over the top (and off into the wop-wops) as they, for instance, sought - ultimately unsuccessfully - to pin all manner of animal cruelty charges upon the likes of WETA workshop et al, in its well-supported crusade (by certain kiwis) to find ammo in their Hobbit films-bashing, Sir Peter Jackson-loathing misanthropy.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Sunday, November 5, 2017
The Coca-Cola Company 'innocent'? Goodness Gracious, They're Guilty As Sin! (And Not Only For Coming Down like the Proverbial Upon a small-time Wellington Restaurant)
Just what is it anyhow about these sizeable corporations and their seeming readiness, nay eagerness, to wage all-out commercial warfare upon tiny little individual entrepreneurs and the like who're just seeking to eke out a rather meagre living...simply because the latter happen to - inadvertently, in almost every instance, there's little doubt - transgress the letter of the law in terms of (generally name-related) copyright infringements?
Have they nothing better to do with their time, than to end up spending considerable time and energy - and all the rest, including monies - in chasing up and hunting down anyone and everyone, who, however innocently and guilelessly, 'just so happens' to cross the invisible corporate line and stray into their territory?
Are they really so insecure - in themselves, let alone their particular product and franchise - that they actually feel genuinely threatened and intimidated even by some little company or often simply twosome or family concern, who as I say inadvertently strays into their business province, and - horror of horrors - uses a term or phrase, however commonplace in regular company, that just so happens to sound an awful lot like theirs?
It would appear so, for what else could possibly explain an outfit as dodgy as Coca-Cola, now increasingly 'implicated', according to various 'experts', in the global (or at least Western) obesity epidemic, pursuing down a couple who've had the sheer temerity - at least initially, until belatedly stopped in their tracks - to go ahead and name their small restaurant franchise 'Innocent Foods' (or 'the Innocent Restaurant')? Or, more precisely, without even bothering to consult their highnesses, the high-and-mighty Coca-Cola company itself, before doing so? As if they'd even have known to begin with! But that's the world some of these corporates with considerable clout live in, they instinctively feel everything revolves around themselves and their commercial concerns, and are almost more chagrined, I've little doubt, that said 'opposition' didn't even realize CC et al's actual prior possession of such names and distinctives as a point of fact, quite apart from thus being an actual copyright infringement as such.
Who'll be next in their sights, the famous 'Innocent Project' seeking to establish some body, New Zealand- or even Western-worldwide, that'd make it easier for unjustly-convicted individuals to contest their innocence vis-a-vis the particular national authorities concerned? Or those who still believe 'innocent' to be a beautiful word redolent and reminiscent of a gentler, kinder, more peaceable (and less driven and commercially-obsessed) era and world - and thus wholly unfit for the likes of a money-grubbing, health-debasing, truth-rejecting, and otherwise thoroughly objectionable commercial entity such as Coca-Cola to peddle in?
Hey, may they - however belatedly - have the gumption and preparedness to swallow some humble pie by taking a leaf out of the 'portfolio' of another company - itself actually once great - that's long since lowered its own standards and principles in the same regards? Yes, I speak now of none other than (the New Zealand division, anyhow, of) Sanitarium...who have themselves debased themselves over recent months (and perhaps years over this and other matters), to take to 'the cleaners', i.e. the Copyright Authority, a little Timaru-based outfit, evidently haling from Great Britain originally, who themselves dared to try to market their own breakfast cereal here in Aotearoa as 'Weet-abix', evidently just a little too close for comfort, in naming sensibilites, to the aforementioned's longtime market winner Weetbix!
Yes, truly 'nuff said!
(Nevertheless, to be continued.)
Have they nothing better to do with their time, than to end up spending considerable time and energy - and all the rest, including monies - in chasing up and hunting down anyone and everyone, who, however innocently and guilelessly, 'just so happens' to cross the invisible corporate line and stray into their territory?
Are they really so insecure - in themselves, let alone their particular product and franchise - that they actually feel genuinely threatened and intimidated even by some little company or often simply twosome or family concern, who as I say inadvertently strays into their business province, and - horror of horrors - uses a term or phrase, however commonplace in regular company, that just so happens to sound an awful lot like theirs?
It would appear so, for what else could possibly explain an outfit as dodgy as Coca-Cola, now increasingly 'implicated', according to various 'experts', in the global (or at least Western) obesity epidemic, pursuing down a couple who've had the sheer temerity - at least initially, until belatedly stopped in their tracks - to go ahead and name their small restaurant franchise 'Innocent Foods' (or 'the Innocent Restaurant')? Or, more precisely, without even bothering to consult their highnesses, the high-and-mighty Coca-Cola company itself, before doing so? As if they'd even have known to begin with! But that's the world some of these corporates with considerable clout live in, they instinctively feel everything revolves around themselves and their commercial concerns, and are almost more chagrined, I've little doubt, that said 'opposition' didn't even realize CC et al's actual prior possession of such names and distinctives as a point of fact, quite apart from thus being an actual copyright infringement as such.
Who'll be next in their sights, the famous 'Innocent Project' seeking to establish some body, New Zealand- or even Western-worldwide, that'd make it easier for unjustly-convicted individuals to contest their innocence vis-a-vis the particular national authorities concerned? Or those who still believe 'innocent' to be a beautiful word redolent and reminiscent of a gentler, kinder, more peaceable (and less driven and commercially-obsessed) era and world - and thus wholly unfit for the likes of a money-grubbing, health-debasing, truth-rejecting, and otherwise thoroughly objectionable commercial entity such as Coca-Cola to peddle in?
Hey, may they - however belatedly - have the gumption and preparedness to swallow some humble pie by taking a leaf out of the 'portfolio' of another company - itself actually once great - that's long since lowered its own standards and principles in the same regards? Yes, I speak now of none other than (the New Zealand division, anyhow, of) Sanitarium...who have themselves debased themselves over recent months (and perhaps years over this and other matters), to take to 'the cleaners', i.e. the Copyright Authority, a little Timaru-based outfit, evidently haling from Great Britain originally, who themselves dared to try to market their own breakfast cereal here in Aotearoa as 'Weet-abix', evidently just a little too close for comfort, in naming sensibilites, to the aforementioned's longtime market winner Weetbix!
Yes, truly 'nuff said!
(Nevertheless, to be continued.)
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
Struck Down During A Noble Quest: Malta's Investigative Journalist of Distinction: Daphne Caruana Galizia
Just to record that yet another journalist 'simply doing her job' has been struck down, in this case seemingly blown to literal smithereens by a car bomb which took her life in one fell blast, apparently just half an hour after she made her final blogpost. Her last words were memorable, well worth noting: "There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate."
Her life's work will thus live on, though her passing may seem but another 'statistic' upon the endlessly-growing ash-heap of investigative reporters and foreign correspondents mown down in their prime. Some occupations are indeed a rather risky 'business'.
Viva Daphne!
Her life's work will thus live on, though her passing may seem but another 'statistic' upon the endlessly-growing ash-heap of investigative reporters and foreign correspondents mown down in their prime. Some occupations are indeed a rather risky 'business'.
Viva Daphne!
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish (aka Sissii International): Hurrah, hurrah for the Kurdistan Forces/Kurdish People
Simply *celebrating the victory declared two days ago of the Syrian Kurdish forces in finally dislodging Sissii International from its last stronghold in Raqqa (Syria). And to suggest that the sooner this modern-day incarnation of the biblical (Old Testament) **Medo-Persians get their own state, so much the better.
As folk (i.e. the Iraqi Kurds) left in the lurch by George W's Dad, i.e. President Bush Senior (in the aftermath of the 1991 U.N.-authorized Gulf War - Desert Storm) - though they were arguably the staunchest opponents of dictator Saddam Hussein, and so were subsequently subjected to chemical bombing by him and his henchmen - I ***can't think of anyone else more deserving of their own homeland. Never welcome in Turkey, yet with a****sizeable population there, and in Iraq and Syria (and also Iran), they have every reason for a place of their own.
May it come soon - asap. All power to the Kurds/Kurdish people!
*While commiserating with them in being simultaneously repulsed in Kirkuk and across northern Iraq.
**Or rather the first of these people groups, i.e. the ancient Medes, who have been traced to the peoples now constituting the Kurds and the geographical location where the Kurds are now situated.
***Though it's a topic I write about occasionally, even just the other day (about Catalonia/ns in particular) upon my associated blogsite (http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
****According to some admittedly older stats, in or around 1985-1986, according to Patrick Johnstone's acclaimed Operation World, the Kurds comprised approximately 16% of the Turkish population; 18% of the Iraqi populace, which people group included the 'ethnically-cleansed' Yezidis, 4% of said total; 6% of the Syrian populace; and 8% of Iran's population.
As folk (i.e. the Iraqi Kurds) left in the lurch by George W's Dad, i.e. President Bush Senior (in the aftermath of the 1991 U.N.-authorized Gulf War - Desert Storm) - though they were arguably the staunchest opponents of dictator Saddam Hussein, and so were subsequently subjected to chemical bombing by him and his henchmen - I ***can't think of anyone else more deserving of their own homeland. Never welcome in Turkey, yet with a****sizeable population there, and in Iraq and Syria (and also Iran), they have every reason for a place of their own.
May it come soon - asap. All power to the Kurds/Kurdish people!
*While commiserating with them in being simultaneously repulsed in Kirkuk and across northern Iraq.
**Or rather the first of these people groups, i.e. the ancient Medes, who have been traced to the peoples now constituting the Kurds and the geographical location where the Kurds are now situated.
***Though it's a topic I write about occasionally, even just the other day (about Catalonia/ns in particular) upon my associated blogsite (http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/(or .com/).
****According to some admittedly older stats, in or around 1985-1986, according to Patrick Johnstone's acclaimed Operation World, the Kurds comprised approximately 16% of the Turkish population; 18% of the Iraqi populace, which people group included the 'ethnically-cleansed' Yezidis, 4% of said total; 6% of the Syrian populace; and 8% of Iran's population.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
In Defence of (one-time National Radio, now RNZ National) Morning Report co-host Sean Plunkett - and not the American 'Movie Mogul' Harvey Weinstein, as such...
Get 'im - sic 'im - get out the lynch mob, we'll have us a damn good public flogging...nay, burn us a witch, flay us another heretic... .
Let's get something very straight, so clear and plain in fact that there can be no misunderstanding, by honest-hearted 'souls', anyhow, if not for those who (ever) choose to wilfully misunderstand, misinterpret and malign: I've no brief whatsoever - for anyone (man, woman or even pre-adult) - who meddles with, molests, and otherwise - in far worse, cruel and brutal, humiliating and subjugating, fashion - degrades anyone else, whether sexually or in any other way...-and so no, this is no kind of 'apology' for/defence of, much less public vindication or excusing of the latest public enemy #1...i.e. Harvey Weinstein. No way, Jose.
No, I repeat I'm not - in any way, shape or form whatsoever - seeking to defend, excuse or plead one word even in support of, or to contest the latest object of peoples' new-found ire (via 'Social Media Incorporated' apparently, c/o el regular mainstream media), U.S. film director Harvey Weinstein. I wouldn't really know, actually, neither being a twit nor a facebook persona. No, I'm somewhat (or so I like to imagine, anyway) much more multi-dimensional than that superficiality and dumbing-down of modern-day humanity.
But getting back to my essential point: for some reason this 'movie mogul' is in the sights of Global Women Incorporated, or should I rather say, Modern Media Woman, as if he and he alone is deserving of all the justified pent-up rage and fury that some have been treasuring up, apparently, for just such a moment as this: i.e. when another of the rich and powerful, the influential 'heavyweights' of our era, has been - yet again - shown to have clay feet. (But of course Weinstein's alleged offences go way beyond mere misdemeamours and the like.) And moreover as if it's taken everyone by complete surprise, when point of fact - evidently - is that it was 'Hollywood's Worst Kept Secret' or some such - for literally decades in fact, from the sounds of it. A secret kept as such because some (even many) would-be female actresses were apparently unprepared to expose him publicly - for understandable fear that their future/s in acting would be, ipso pronto, put paid to, apparently because 'no-one would believe them', and HW et al would quickly terminate their budding careers.
All the latter would apparently seem to have a lot of validity, unless and until one considers that all of us have moments - for Yours Truly, in fact, many occasions, sure, far less traumatic that that - when we've/I've had to make just such decisions to maintain my/our own good conscience/s let alone sense of inner integrity... when, yes, forgoing - as Winston Peters once infamously termed it (in a wholly different context) - the showy glitter and tinsel of 'the baubles of office', one *deems a certain principle to be of infinitely greater value than any (mere worldly) recompense one might gain in this life; yes, **even though it cost one entrance into one's chosen profession.
No, it's the ready-made lynch mob mentality and feral witch-hunt, against someone who's both as ugly as sin and grossly obese to boot - and thus an easy target for ****those, I would (respectfully) suggest, too cowardly to take on someone without those particular personal attributes. A campaign, moreover, that's been conducted by all and sundry ever since Weinstein was effectively 'outed' only a week or so ago, and long since been given the judge and jury treatment, though still awaiting the executioner and being hung, drawn and quartered. Treated thus, as we're all constantly reminded, for his odious/appalling/criminal sexual harassment/assaults/rapes, over many decades, apparently, of innumerable actress colleagues. */**Fair enough, far as that goes, many would reasonably argue.
But what I happen to find rather sickening - if infinitely predictable in our present-day soundbite-driven media landscape - is the unseemly fashion in which the gutless wonders referred to in previous paragraphs are not only ganging up one after another to pile invective upon invective and calumny upon calumny onto an already deeply sullied reputation, but are moreover bending over backwards (forwards, and every other which way) to - apparently - not only uncover but forthwith cite every last conceivable hanging offence
for the 'man'.
So what's such a big deal, the guy's obviously as guilty as sin and much more, you readily counter? And so you do indeed legitimately suggest. Yes, I'll concede that much, anyhow. So what exactly is my real beef?
Well, you'll just have to wait - a little while (but hopefully not as long as we've been awaiting a new government in God's Own)...Shuteye beckons, and I must hearken to her gentle but oh so persistent pleading...
To Be Continued - asap.
*/**Though as I would suggest (now, immediately below) I happen to have a somewhat differing perspective.
*For Christians, like Moses upon 'bec[oming] of age, refus[ing] to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter' (and thus next in line for the throne), 'choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin'...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt', '...look(ing) (instead) to the reward' for the faithful, tried and ultimately true. Hebrews 11: 24-26 (Scripture taken from the [The Holy Bible]: New King James Version. [Copyright] 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)
**At least, that is, in the short term or immediate future. For apparent roadblocks and obstacles, one has well said, are really but the steps to one's eventual success (in any chosen field); and surely, if one's heart is set upon a particular calling or line of work, nothing will ultimately prevent one - even devils in human form.
***Postscript: Perhaps the most succinct yet perceptive remark upon the topic came after my writing the foregoing, upon Jim Mora's esteemed Panel, as guest John Barnett of South Pacific Films, alongside high-profile lawyer Mai Chen, joined host, fill-in Christchurch City Councillor Ali(sp?) Jones, today (4.50 p.m.ish) upon New Zealand's RNZ National. Barnett made reference to what (I believe) he deemed an obscure Old Testament 'custom' (or suchlike) to a/the 'scapegoat', which biblical scholars like myself know is located in Leviticus 16, arguably the most important chapter in that Book of the Torah, in which the Jewish Day of Atonement, otherwise known as Yom Kippur, is detailed. In 'awful' brevity that passage essentially posits an annual day upon which sacrifice and atonement is made and forgiveness proffered for each and every last sin committed by any Israelite over the previous year, and how two goats are thus presented 'before the Lord' on behalf of said Israelites; the 'Lord's goat' being offered (and then killed) as a sacrifice of atonement, and then the 'live goat', deemed 'the scapegoat', has those selfsame sins transferred onto itself, and it is then sent off into the wilderness to bear those sins forever. The Holy Bible.
Obviously there's no time here, as already alluded to, to get into my own denomination's understanding of how the former represented and represents The Lord, in particular as Jesus Christ upon Calvary's Cross, and the latter His arch-nemesis, 'the great dragon...that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...the accuser'. And where the former thus bore said 'sins of the whole world' upon His lonesome (for time and eternity), bearing God's wrath for the same, and being prepared even to die eternally on behalf of each and every last 'son of Adam and daughter of Eve' (as the Narnians in C S Lewis' brilliant allegorical The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' characterized it) if that was what it took to appease God's wrath; and arguably that was what He fully believed would happen as He cried out "My Father, My Father, why have You forsaken Me?" Whereas 'the slanderer', Satan, symbolically has selfsame sins finally, ultimately, eternally imputed unto him (only!) at the end of the thousand years, the biblical Millennium, and thus (again, symbolically) the devil is attributed ultimate and complete responsibility for having himself been the instigator and cause of every last sin ever committed by anyone on earth (or in the entire Universe even). Revelation 20:2; 12:9/10; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 etcetera. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Sure, it's quite true that no-one will ever be able to shake their fist at God on That Great Day and accuse Him of unjust dealing, arguing 'the devil made me do it', but just as surely, in the very real sense that sin originated in Paradise with the one, Lucifer, the Light-Bearer and 'anointed cherub who covers', who was 'the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty', and was moreover 'perfect in [his] ways from the day [he] was created, till iniquity was found in [him]', that thus as the author of sin, he has been the ultimate instigator of every last sin ever committed, whether by direct agency (himself or one of the third of heavenly angels ejected alongside himself to this earth), via the tempting world all round us, or even c/o our own sinful human natures which ever, unregenerated, incline us to satisfy our legitimate needs in (an endless array of) sinful ways...since his successful temptation (of our forefather and 'fore-mother') in 'Eden, the garden of God' thus turned human nature from essentially sinless to sinful, thus inclining us to sin and sinful desires, attitudes, thoughts, ways and words as our inherent (if subconscious) modus operandi or pivot point at all times and in all places...though admittedly - thanks be to God - we don't ever and always so choose to order our lives thus. Ezekiel 28:12-15. Revelation 12:4. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Enough for a pithy, brief, short and succinct summary I earlier indicated I had no time or space to pursue here and now...
****No, I don't include here those actually raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by Mr Weinstein, only those now belatedly jumping on the bandwagon, many of whom were most probably somewhat 'in the know' about said allegations in years gone by, but without the personal gonads or intestinal fortitude then, unlike now, to come forward and put themselves, their livelihoods and their reputations on the line for a greater cause and moreover on behalf of the vulnerable victims for whom their hearts are apparently now bleeding.
Reminding me once again of James Russell Lowell's memorable and inimitable 'Once to Every Man and Nation', in which verse two especially (and verse one, to some extent) sum up the aforementioned with wonderful aptness:
'Once to ev-ery [wo]man and na-tion Comes the mo-ment to de-cide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood, For the good or e-vil side;
Some great cause, God's new Mes-si-ah, Of-fering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by for-ev-er 'Twixt that dark-ness and that light.
Then to side with truth is no-ble When we share her wretch-ed crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and prof-it, And 'tis prosper-ous to be just;
Then it is the brave [wo]man choos-es, While the cow-ard stands a-side,
Till the mul-ti-tude make vir-tue Of the faith they had de-nied.
(Hyphenation already supplied - in Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (SIGNS PUBLISHING, Warburton, Australia, 1985), and included so one (myself, anyhow!) can sing along. Bold highlighted letters supplied by me.)
Let's get something very straight, so clear and plain in fact that there can be no misunderstanding, by honest-hearted 'souls', anyhow, if not for those who (ever) choose to wilfully misunderstand, misinterpret and malign: I've no brief whatsoever - for anyone (man, woman or even pre-adult) - who meddles with, molests, and otherwise - in far worse, cruel and brutal, humiliating and subjugating, fashion - degrades anyone else, whether sexually or in any other way...-and so no, this is no kind of 'apology' for/defence of, much less public vindication or excusing of the latest public enemy #1...i.e. Harvey Weinstein. No way, Jose.
No, I repeat I'm not - in any way, shape or form whatsoever - seeking to defend, excuse or plead one word even in support of, or to contest the latest object of peoples' new-found ire (via 'Social Media Incorporated' apparently, c/o el regular mainstream media), U.S. film director Harvey Weinstein. I wouldn't really know, actually, neither being a twit nor a facebook persona. No, I'm somewhat (or so I like to imagine, anyway) much more multi-dimensional than that superficiality and dumbing-down of modern-day humanity.
But getting back to my essential point: for some reason this 'movie mogul' is in the sights of Global Women Incorporated, or should I rather say, Modern Media Woman, as if he and he alone is deserving of all the justified pent-up rage and fury that some have been treasuring up, apparently, for just such a moment as this: i.e. when another of the rich and powerful, the influential 'heavyweights' of our era, has been - yet again - shown to have clay feet. (But of course Weinstein's alleged offences go way beyond mere misdemeamours and the like.) And moreover as if it's taken everyone by complete surprise, when point of fact - evidently - is that it was 'Hollywood's Worst Kept Secret' or some such - for literally decades in fact, from the sounds of it. A secret kept as such because some (even many) would-be female actresses were apparently unprepared to expose him publicly - for understandable fear that their future/s in acting would be, ipso pronto, put paid to, apparently because 'no-one would believe them', and HW et al would quickly terminate their budding careers.
All the latter would apparently seem to have a lot of validity, unless and until one considers that all of us have moments - for Yours Truly, in fact, many occasions, sure, far less traumatic that that - when we've/I've had to make just such decisions to maintain my/our own good conscience/s let alone sense of inner integrity... when, yes, forgoing - as Winston Peters once infamously termed it (in a wholly different context) - the showy glitter and tinsel of 'the baubles of office', one *deems a certain principle to be of infinitely greater value than any (mere worldly) recompense one might gain in this life; yes, **even though it cost one entrance into one's chosen profession.
No, it's the ready-made lynch mob mentality and feral witch-hunt, against someone who's both as ugly as sin and grossly obese to boot - and thus an easy target for ****those, I would (respectfully) suggest, too cowardly to take on someone without those particular personal attributes. A campaign, moreover, that's been conducted by all and sundry ever since Weinstein was effectively 'outed' only a week or so ago, and long since been given the judge and jury treatment, though still awaiting the executioner and being hung, drawn and quartered. Treated thus, as we're all constantly reminded, for his odious/appalling/criminal sexual harassment/assaults/rapes, over many decades, apparently, of innumerable actress colleagues. */**Fair enough, far as that goes, many would reasonably argue.
But what I happen to find rather sickening - if infinitely predictable in our present-day soundbite-driven media landscape - is the unseemly fashion in which the gutless wonders referred to in previous paragraphs are not only ganging up one after another to pile invective upon invective and calumny upon calumny onto an already deeply sullied reputation, but are moreover bending over backwards (forwards, and every other which way) to - apparently - not only uncover but forthwith cite every last conceivable hanging offence
for the 'man'.
So what's such a big deal, the guy's obviously as guilty as sin and much more, you readily counter? And so you do indeed legitimately suggest. Yes, I'll concede that much, anyhow. So what exactly is my real beef?
Well, you'll just have to wait - a little while (but hopefully not as long as we've been awaiting a new government in God's Own)...Shuteye beckons, and I must hearken to her gentle but oh so persistent pleading...
To Be Continued - asap.
*/**Though as I would suggest (now, immediately below) I happen to have a somewhat differing perspective.
*For Christians, like Moses upon 'bec[oming] of age, refus[ing] to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter' (and thus next in line for the throne), 'choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin'...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt', '...look(ing) (instead) to the reward' for the faithful, tried and ultimately true. Hebrews 11: 24-26 (Scripture taken from the [The Holy Bible]: New King James Version. [Copyright] 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)
**At least, that is, in the short term or immediate future. For apparent roadblocks and obstacles, one has well said, are really but the steps to one's eventual success (in any chosen field); and surely, if one's heart is set upon a particular calling or line of work, nothing will ultimately prevent one - even devils in human form.
***Postscript: Perhaps the most succinct yet perceptive remark upon the topic came after my writing the foregoing, upon Jim Mora's esteemed Panel, as guest John Barnett of South Pacific Films, alongside high-profile lawyer Mai Chen, joined host, fill-in Christchurch City Councillor Ali(sp?) Jones, today (4.50 p.m.ish) upon New Zealand's RNZ National. Barnett made reference to what (I believe) he deemed an obscure Old Testament 'custom' (or suchlike) to a/the 'scapegoat', which biblical scholars like myself know is located in Leviticus 16, arguably the most important chapter in that Book of the Torah, in which the Jewish Day of Atonement, otherwise known as Yom Kippur, is detailed. In 'awful' brevity that passage essentially posits an annual day upon which sacrifice and atonement is made and forgiveness proffered for each and every last sin committed by any Israelite over the previous year, and how two goats are thus presented 'before the Lord' on behalf of said Israelites; the 'Lord's goat' being offered (and then killed) as a sacrifice of atonement, and then the 'live goat', deemed 'the scapegoat', has those selfsame sins transferred onto itself, and it is then sent off into the wilderness to bear those sins forever. The Holy Bible.
Obviously there's no time here, as already alluded to, to get into my own denomination's understanding of how the former represented and represents The Lord, in particular as Jesus Christ upon Calvary's Cross, and the latter His arch-nemesis, 'the great dragon...that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...the accuser'. And where the former thus bore said 'sins of the whole world' upon His lonesome (for time and eternity), bearing God's wrath for the same, and being prepared even to die eternally on behalf of each and every last 'son of Adam and daughter of Eve' (as the Narnians in C S Lewis' brilliant allegorical The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' characterized it) if that was what it took to appease God's wrath; and arguably that was what He fully believed would happen as He cried out "My Father, My Father, why have You forsaken Me?" Whereas 'the slanderer', Satan, symbolically has selfsame sins finally, ultimately, eternally imputed unto him (only!) at the end of the thousand years, the biblical Millennium, and thus (again, symbolically) the devil is attributed ultimate and complete responsibility for having himself been the instigator and cause of every last sin ever committed by anyone on earth (or in the entire Universe even). Revelation 20:2; 12:9/10; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 etcetera. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Sure, it's quite true that no-one will ever be able to shake their fist at God on That Great Day and accuse Him of unjust dealing, arguing 'the devil made me do it', but just as surely, in the very real sense that sin originated in Paradise with the one, Lucifer, the Light-Bearer and 'anointed cherub who covers', who was 'the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty', and was moreover 'perfect in [his] ways from the day [he] was created, till iniquity was found in [him]', that thus as the author of sin, he has been the ultimate instigator of every last sin ever committed, whether by direct agency (himself or one of the third of heavenly angels ejected alongside himself to this earth), via the tempting world all round us, or even c/o our own sinful human natures which ever, unregenerated, incline us to satisfy our legitimate needs in (an endless array of) sinful ways...since his successful temptation (of our forefather and 'fore-mother') in 'Eden, the garden of God' thus turned human nature from essentially sinless to sinful, thus inclining us to sin and sinful desires, attitudes, thoughts, ways and words as our inherent (if subconscious) modus operandi or pivot point at all times and in all places...though admittedly - thanks be to God - we don't ever and always so choose to order our lives thus. Ezekiel 28:12-15. Revelation 12:4. The Holy Bible (ibid.)
Enough for a pithy, brief, short and succinct summary I earlier indicated I had no time or space to pursue here and now...
****No, I don't include here those actually raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by Mr Weinstein, only those now belatedly jumping on the bandwagon, many of whom were most probably somewhat 'in the know' about said allegations in years gone by, but without the personal gonads or intestinal fortitude then, unlike now, to come forward and put themselves, their livelihoods and their reputations on the line for a greater cause and moreover on behalf of the vulnerable victims for whom their hearts are apparently now bleeding.
Reminding me once again of James Russell Lowell's memorable and inimitable 'Once to Every Man and Nation', in which verse two especially (and verse one, to some extent) sum up the aforementioned with wonderful aptness:
'Once to ev-ery [wo]man and na-tion Comes the mo-ment to de-cide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood, For the good or e-vil side;
Some great cause, God's new Mes-si-ah, Of-fering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by for-ev-er 'Twixt that dark-ness and that light.
Then to side with truth is no-ble When we share her wretch-ed crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and prof-it, And 'tis prosper-ous to be just;
Then it is the brave [wo]man choos-es, While the cow-ard stands a-side,
Till the mul-ti-tude make vir-tue Of the faith they had de-nied.
(Hyphenation already supplied - in Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal (SIGNS PUBLISHING, Warburton, Australia, 1985), and included so one (myself, anyhow!) can sing along. Bold highlighted letters supplied by me.)
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Oh, How Exceedingly INtolerant are the 'tolerant'; or, let's give each and every - conceivable - religion (and religious understanding) its corner in the religious arena, except of course Christianity!
C.S.Lewis, the distinguished Oxford University scholar/professor/Christian author and apologist - and all the rest - would be wincing/squirming/turning in his grave, this very day, could he have foreseen what his beloved 'alma mater' *has just done...i.e. apparently, according to the British correspondent upon this morning's 'Mike Hosking' Newstalk ZB radio segment (around 6.50 a.m.), deeming the Christian religion alone effective persona no grata and thereby **'disbarred' from being able to operate upon said campus. And why, you understandably ask? Well, for obvious reasons: for being (at least in its evangelical incarnation, anyhow) politically incorrect to a fault. Or, in the allegation of those **'disbarring' it, for [promoting/instilling/circulating - my words and paraphraseology] homophobia and neocolonialism.
Without even deigning at this stage to dignify such slanderous, no doubt even ****libellous accusations against Christianity (as a religion) and Christians themselves (as the 'practitioners' thereof), let me simply point out the supreme irony of the particular time juncture upon which said esteemed learning institution has chosen to issue such an edict: apparently, from a wholly unrelated news item this morning upon BBC World Radio - which, interestingly and oddly enough (though perhaps I missed something earlier or later), carried no mention of this - cited the formal induction (if I'm not mistaken) this selfsame day of the famed Pakistani teenager *****Mahalai ******Yousseff into selfsame university. For her outspokenness in upholding religious freedom within a (national, i.e. Pakistani) context/atmosphere of religious intolerance.
Oh, the supreme irony of the juxtaposition of these two easily overlooked pieces of news...which together speak volumes, even tomes, about the point to which we have now - long since - well and truly arrived in the (one time) 'free world'. But then didn't that old sage, former British P.M. Tony Blair's distantly related relative, Eric Blair - better known to one and all as George Orwell - 'prophesy' just such idiomatic and vocabulary shenanigans in his own 1984 version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Or, as the animals upon the farm in GO's equally brilliantly Animal Farm might have expressed it - if we can rephrase the sentiment in modern lingo (to adequately characterize the situation we see today in/at Oxford University): non-Christian religions and adherents (all invariably) good; Christianity and Christians bad. Or alternatively: all religions and their adherents are equal, but some are more equal than others.
'Nuff said!
*Or rather, the 'student union' thereof (far as I can gather at this stage anyway).
**Admittedly a term strictly relating to the law, and signifying ***'expel[ing] from the bar'.
***Once again, according to my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary (1988), although I used to ever studiously consult my Grandma's equally tried and trustworthy Concise Oxford Dictionary (of a similar vintage, but even earlier, I believe 1980).
****Because surely the university 'edict' involved was issued in actual writing, whether physical or 'virtual'.
*****About whom I've previously written - and in highly eulogistic terms - upon this or, more likely, my other blogsite.
******Trusting my spelling is a-ok, but desiring to get this 'out there' ipso pronto...
Without even deigning at this stage to dignify such slanderous, no doubt even ****libellous accusations against Christianity (as a religion) and Christians themselves (as the 'practitioners' thereof), let me simply point out the supreme irony of the particular time juncture upon which said esteemed learning institution has chosen to issue such an edict: apparently, from a wholly unrelated news item this morning upon BBC World Radio - which, interestingly and oddly enough (though perhaps I missed something earlier or later), carried no mention of this - cited the formal induction (if I'm not mistaken) this selfsame day of the famed Pakistani teenager *****Mahalai ******Yousseff into selfsame university. For her outspokenness in upholding religious freedom within a (national, i.e. Pakistani) context/atmosphere of religious intolerance.
Oh, the supreme irony of the juxtaposition of these two easily overlooked pieces of news...which together speak volumes, even tomes, about the point to which we have now - long since - well and truly arrived in the (one time) 'free world'. But then didn't that old sage, former British P.M. Tony Blair's distantly related relative, Eric Blair - better known to one and all as George Orwell - 'prophesy' just such idiomatic and vocabulary shenanigans in his own 1984 version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Or, as the animals upon the farm in GO's equally brilliantly Animal Farm might have expressed it - if we can rephrase the sentiment in modern lingo (to adequately characterize the situation we see today in/at Oxford University): non-Christian religions and adherents (all invariably) good; Christianity and Christians bad. Or alternatively: all religions and their adherents are equal, but some are more equal than others.
'Nuff said!
*Or rather, the 'student union' thereof (far as I can gather at this stage anyway).
**Admittedly a term strictly relating to the law, and signifying ***'expel[ing] from the bar'.
***Once again, according to my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary (1988), although I used to ever studiously consult my Grandma's equally tried and trustworthy Concise Oxford Dictionary (of a similar vintage, but even earlier, I believe 1980).
****Because surely the university 'edict' involved was issued in actual writing, whether physical or 'virtual'.
*****About whom I've previously written - and in highly eulogistic terms - upon this or, more likely, my other blogsite.
******Trusting my spelling is a-ok, but desiring to get this 'out there' ipso pronto...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)