And?

When I read this my reaction was the same as the title of this post. If someone is insulted by you doing your own thing, clearly not offering any insult, then it really isn't worth knowing them. And really, I don't think the Japanese would be insulted to any degree that would influence how they percieve us or engage with us, any more than Western diplomats are insulted when African representatives conduct talks dressed in traditional dress, or when Muslim representatives request that no alcohol be served at a reception.

Good international relations are based on give and take between the two parties, underpinned by a sense of mutual respect. Clearly Len Brown is stuck on give mode, and he is not afraid to take from the ratepayers to do it.

I don't intend to talk much about the supercity elections, but if this is the caliber of the frontrunner, Auckland has much to be afraid of, as does the National party who will have to wear the blame for a rushed process - not to mention the thouroughly undemocratic transition set up by Rodney Hide. Supporters of this Government should ask themselves, exactly when did it become acceptable for a Government minister to set up a shadow council of good citizens to determine things for everyone else?

"Step-Change"

I note 'Not PC' has been criticising the so called "step-change" the National Government promised on tax.

I really can't see why: I think the metaphore perfectly conveys the actions the National Government are taking. While Wikitionary does define the phrase "step change" the image it conjured for me was of two things: rugby players making a side-step or sudden break, or a solider marching out of time with the rest of his company and making the small shuffle that gets you back in time.

Either way, you are still playing for the same team, wearing the same uniform and going for the same goal. Now consider that John Key's budget is a "step change" from Labours. Thats right, same team, same goal, just hoping to do it a little better.

In any event, English had better have a few grenades left on his belt if he is going to get any bang for his buck come budget day, with even National super-blogger David Farrar giving him just a B.

Should New Zealand ban the 'burqa' in public places?

The 'burqa' is a style of dress that covers the wearer head to toe, completely obscuring them from sight.



While this particular dress is unique to countries with large Muslim populations, many would claim that its origins are to be found in Arabian culture, as opposed to the tenets of the Islamic religion.



Several European nations have taken stands against the dress, which is controversial, given that women are often said to be coerced to wear it upon threat of violence. Jack Straw, a prominent Government Minister in the UK, declared he would only allow constituents into his electorate office if their face was uncovered. France banned all signs of religious affiliation, which included the burqa.



In western nations, covering the entire face has long been an unacceptable practice in the public sphere. One cannot walk into a bank with a motorcylce helmet on, for example. Not only is this offending the mores of society, it poses a danger - it is much easier to get away with robbing a bank if your face cannot be seen by security cameras.



So it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that if you allow a certain section of society the special privilige to ignore this rule, that someone would try to exploit it. And in France, two bank robbers have done exactly that.



I don't believe the people acting through the state has the right to enforce a ban on what you wear in private situations. But the people do have a right to manage their safety in public spaces - one cannot walk down main street with a loaded gun for example. And the problem with the burqa is that it destroys the safety of public space - without the ability to identify the person under the burqa, it creates an opening that can be exploited.



New Zealand should take steps against just such an event, by banning the full concealment of the face in public areas (banks, Government offices etc) by any type of clothing.

Iranian heroes

I found this image on the Huffington Post attached to this story and I've been mesmerised by it for a couple of minutes now. It almost seems like one of the paintings from NotPC celebrating defiance. Fantastic stuff.

Infamous the world over

Apparently Coca Cola wants to trademark the phrase "World Famous in New Zealand", a phrase closely associated with Coca Cola's 'L&P' brand of soft drink.

Someone actually from the town the soft drink is named after has decided to stand up on behalf of all of us and fight this attempt to appropriate a kiwism, and he deserves a bit of recognition. After all, its not often someone takes a positive stand against a global mega brand for little personal gain. It is the kind of action we need to celebrate more.

So we here at this blog pledge that should we ever find ourselves in Paeroa in the company of Mr Tony Coombes, we'll shout him a beer.

Until then, we wish him the best in his courageous endeavour.

"Read My Lips : No New Taxes"

The above quote does, of course come from George HW Bush's 1988 address to the Republican National Convention; however this post isn't about National's peculiar brand of tax "reform". Rather, I thought I'd check up on John Key's committment to avoiding privatisations in his first term; another shallow rightist electoral promise.

Mister Key's words are not necessarily a prima facie prediction of privatisation by themselves, however they take on a worrying implication when read in context with recent remarks by Bill English. English recently declared in what can only have been an exceptional slip of the tongue that "one of the benefits of not having asset sales this term is that it's given us the time and the space to focus on all of the Government's assets and some of them are in good shape and some of them aren't in such good shape."

I may be guilty of a sin of interpretation, but I'm choosing to read that as a declaration of intent for the rest of this term - 'rationalising' state assets to make them more enticing for easy (part) privatisation from 2011 onward. This fits quite well with the pattern of events to date, ranging from recent moves on TVNZ to (more especially) Nick Smith's attempt to fully pre-fund ACC, and of course the succession of Taskforce reports urging exactly this.

In short, my attitude to the Key insistance upon a lack of privatisation plans can be summed up with another HW Bush quote from the same speach:"My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into."

Taskforce, Taskforce everywhere; but not a drop of sense

It was with considerable bemusement that I saw a "Capital Markets Development Taskforce" had issued its final report this morning, calling for (you guessed it) further privatisations.

This prompted three questions in my mind:

i) Why do we have such a profusion of task-forces (especially when they seem to generate suspiciously similar recommendations)?

ii) What has the cost to the taxpayer been to employ these ivory tower crystal ball-gazers for the last eighteen months?

iii) If we were serious about generating *good* ideas for developing our economy, might we not be better off asking *small* business owners, workers, students etc. (in other words, the very-real New Zealanders that'll be most effected by any taskforce's recommendations) what they reckon?

Call me cynical, but I believe that this succession of "reports" has two purposes. First, to provide a coterie of "expert" oppinion to draw upon as justification for the 2011 revelation of National's privatisation agenda. This is fairly obvious; the panels having obviously been set up to generate a pre-determined oppinion (one only needs to look at the chairman of the 2025 taskforce for compelling evidence).

However, it is their more insidious second aspect that causes me more concern. The idea here is to have numerous different voices saying broadly the same thing - that a particular neoliberal development path (featuring privatisations) is the *inevitable* way forward; and to construe any dissent to this as being promulgated solely by a *minority* of backward traditionalists. Suffice to say that this is a well-worn tactic in the circles of modern economics which we've already witnessed in action several times over the last quater century during both previous rounds of neo-liberalisation and the irrational exuberance that surrounded Globalisation (for a more elucidated discussion of this, check out John Ralston Saul's "The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World").

The easy provision of Government sinecures for Business Round Table associates is probably also a factor in this profusion of politicised pestilents.