On Sam Lotu-Iiga, Winston Peters Needs No Corrections

Another day, another somewhat less than ideally phrased Winston quotation that's been seized upon by the media.

This time, it's his assertion that Minister of Corrections Sam Lotu-Iiga has "got a slightly better understanding [of some of the issues in his portfolio] than many people think".

Due to his ethnic background.

Now before you all jump in and pour scorn upon Winston for what, on the surface, might seem to be a suggestion that there's an axiomatic correlation between being Polynesian and a criminal mindset ... consider this.

What if Winston had said he, himself, had a better understanding of some prisoners' mindsets by virtue of being Maori.

It's pretty much exactly the same claim. It's just that due to self-reference it does a bit of a better job conveying empathy rather than suggesting criminality.

And considering that one of the supremely important issues we grapple with in our Corrections system (and, for that matter, with the police) is the genuine and undeniable realities of structural racism ... I definitely feel that part of the response to this issue is empowering the perspectives of people from the demographics in question.

To put it in context: Sam Lotu-Iiga is a Minister of the Crown. He's got reasonably good name and facial recognition.

And yet, if we were to wind the clock back ten or twenty years while simultaneously downgrading his warderobe ... Sam could well have found himself in a situation wherein an employee of the state - or, heck, even a member of the general public - could have made unwarranted and unfounded assumptions about him and how he should be treated, based purely on his ethnicity.

Something rather unlikely to have happened to his predecessor in the role, Anne Tolley.

Or, phrased more simply: white people often have problems grasping the issues around structural racism. Which, when you're dealing with pretty much the archetypal exhibit-A of same within our society ... is probably not a huge plus.

What Winston was saying, in part, is that with Maori and Pasifika demographics *wildly* over-represented in our prison and criminal justice stats, having somebody FROM one of those ethnic backgrounds running the show might enable greater progress on FIXING those issues through possessing a greater understanding and empathy with those we're trying to help.

Now, to go even further ... we already recognize that a Maori perspective can be useful if not vital in the Corrections system, as represented by the Mauri Tu Pae rehabilitation program, for instance. This integration of tikanga Maori kaupapa has a proven track-record of reducing offending, and serves to demonstrate how useful incorporating such an ethnic consideration can be. Something similar exists for a more narrow range of Pasifika offenders with the Saili Matagi scheme, as well.

Indeed, it was launched by then-Minister of Pacific Island Affairs Sam Lotu-Iiga. So evidently, in that instance, he was able to use his background positively within the Corrections sphere.

In any case, while it might not have been the *greatest* choice of phrasing on Winston's part - it would nonetheless appear to be a reasonable and viable implication for him to draw.

Although personally, I would have been considerably less complimentary:

"Coming from a party of crooks, liars, thieves and fraudsters ... of COURSE Lotu-Iiga will have a greater degree of connection with the criminal mind. He's surrounded by 'em on a daily basis."

If that sounds harsh, it's because I disagree a little with my Chief about his take on this issue.

Yes, SERCO taking over Mt Eden Prison happened on somebody else's watch.

Yes, Anne Tolley deserves EVERY BIT OF POSSIBLE OPPROBRIUM heaped at her feet about how this has been done, the fact it was done in the first place, and how it seems set to continue to play out.

But as NZ First Corrections spokesperson Mahesh Bindra has pointed out, the bad decisions haven't exactly stopped under Sam, either.

Recently, it was announced that National would be adding an extra hundred beds to Mt Eden - continuing to fill to well over capacity an already hugely understaffed and outright dangerous prison. In addition to that, even after the Government takeover of Mt Eden, there has reportedly been no serious shakeup and improvement in staff-to-prisoner ratios - or an end to SERCO's fundamentally deficient management practices.

In other words, nothing's really changed except the name on the door - and the number of prisoners being negligently managed.

And that's not good enough.

I respect Winston for being up-front and principled enough to defend a man thrown in the utter deep-end of a mess not of his own making ... but I also feel most strongly that whomever's responsible - and that means both Tolley AND Lotu-Iiga - needs to be justifiably held to account.

Fortunately, as demonstrated by Darroch Ball in the House last week (and, obviously, by Mahesh throughout his Parliamentary career) - New Zealand First is doing EXACTLY that.

[my thanks to Andrew Paul Wood for his assistance with this piece]

Embedded At The NZ First Convention Part 3: Mark My Words - "In War, Amateurs Talk Tactics, Professionals Proffer Logistics"

The most interesting part of today (apart from the confused passage of a certain constitutional remit dealing with Schrodinger's Youth Wing) was unquestionably Ron Mark-watching.

We all know he's a solid and often stellar performer in Parliament. But the big question some observers had was whether the same man who'd recently come to command the loyalty of Caucus would be able to pull off the same feat with the broad mass of the Party faithful.

This matters, because as we've already seen, there is an emerging and evolving conversation about what New Zealand First might look like After Winston. And at this stage, it's less about "whom" and more about "whether". As in, wondering if such a thing is even possible.

We'll detail the case for Ron Mark in a future article on this site (the fallout from Part Two was kinda ... um ... epic) - but watching his address to our Convention this morning, I definitely got the sense there's hope.

The three essential things which any hypothetical post-Winston Party Leader absolutely *has* to have are i) the ability to motivate and coagulate the surprisingly disparate "family" of people (from an incredibly diverse panoply of political persuasions) which constitutes NZ First; ii) the mana, personnel-management and team-building ability to wrangle and get the best out of MPs and other Parliamentary-siders; iii) that extra ingredient of a genuine affability, charisma and relatability which will enable the Leader to carry his message beyond the Party faithful and out into the Electorate.

From what I've seen today, Ron Mark has all three in spades.

It started with his speech on membership and fundraising.

Now, as EVERYONE in ANY (voluntary, but especially political) organization knows ... the twin life-blood commodities of your entity are these two things. You can't do very much at all without money (although NZ First's highly impressive electoral return in 2011 suggests you CAN do a helluvalot with the right quotient of grit, determination, and borderline-crazy faith on your side); and more importantly, without members you quite literally do not have an organization in the first place.

Despite this, they are often two of the absolute least-sexy subjects to talk about - particularly at a political Convention.

We're here to discuss the big, weighty issues of the day (often thought to be policy remits) - and for many people, bog-standard-yet-essential humdrum logistical issues like the supply of men and materials to our operation just doesn't enter into that.

But if we are to continue to grow, thrive and survive as a Party - particularly post-Winston - these are the fundamental issues that are going to decide whether that's even possible to begin with.

I was therefore comprehensively amazed, shocked and surprised when Ron got up and delivered a speech which absolutely ELECTRIFIED THE ROOM about these twin themes.

Drawing upon his military experience to frame the issue in terms of "troops" and "ammunition" (otherwise known as "membership" and "money", respectively), he managed to sketch out in what can only be described as a uniquely compelling way why we had to get serious about both.

Politics, as he explained, is a war. Every day in Parliament (or, I suppose, in my case, on social media and in the blogosphere) is a battle. We are engaged in a fight for our Nation's survival, against well-resourced and numerous enemies.

The only way we stay in the fight is by ensuring a constant flow of manpower and munitions to the front. Our front.

Anything else, and we take the most valiant cause imaginable - with some of the greatest and most dedicated political warriors around ... and turn it into a somewhat forlorn hope.

Now I'm fully aware that this is not the most detailed, comprehensive nor inspiring rhetoric. It's not that I can't do inspiring oratical flourishes ... it's just that it's 3 a.m at the time of writing and I've just gotten back to our motel room after spending the best part of the evening hanging with some of the better elements of our Caucus, on top of a full Convention program from approx. 9 a.m this morning.

So pretend that the actual-authentic-Ron-Mark version of the above was sufficiently awesome that you feel like getting up and charging out of your seat to go doorknock the next three streets over while rapid-firing membership forms and donation slips ... and you won't be far off.

The idea of building New Zealand First into the genuine mass-membership Party we've always known it can be ... replete with a longevity such that our children and grandchildren are, themselves, able to vote for and seek election with same ... is an incredibly powerful one. And one whose time, I believe, has come.

But there's more to keeping the Party together and moving forward than just inspiring our infantrymen to excel at the basics. Hearing him introduce the other first-term MPs to the Convention for their intro-speeches, I got a sense of the teambuilding and cohesion he's been able to pull off in Caucus. Given MP-wrangling is a large portion of both a successful Deputy Leader and a successful Leader's job (for key evidence as to why, check what happened to NZF's Caucus in 1998 ... or why Tracey ain't Deputy Leader no more), I was immensely intrigued and relieved to see that this was the case.

Our new MPs all acquitted themselves handsomely - and it's getting increasingly hard to pick favourites. But two things stood out to me. First, of the ones I know well - and have, in many respects, grown up alongside - Darroch Ball and Ria Bond, it's genuinely satisfying to see their growth into and beyond being Parliamentary-grade orators. Mahesh Bindra, too, managed to really set the curve with his speech. And I was genuinely touched by his description of the tragic events which, in 2006, partially lead to him embracing the Party with as much faith, fire and fervor as he has.

But second, Ron had quite clearly sized each of them up and gotten to know the strengths, aptitudes and deployability of all his new assets. I was particularly impressed with his summations of these, and ability to seek out personal resonances and points of motivating commonality with all of them.

That's the mark of a leader.

It's somebody who knows how to get the best out of his troops.

And it really, really did come through that here stood a man who had, for several decades of his life, spent much time doing *exactly* that.

(Albeit, there's arguably a *sliiiight* degree of difference between a crack Special Forces unit and an NZ First Caucus of MPs ... although I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what, if anything, that might be)

Between this, and his (similarly career-Officer-informed) demonstrable expertise with logistics, I genuinely feel that with Ron Mark at our forefront ... we're in a remarkably competent pair of hands to take us forward into the next phase of our development, as a Party - and as a Movement.

Oh, also ... I noted with interest Ron Mark singling out Darroch as someone who'd be a future Defence Minister if he had anything to do with it. (The only first-term MP he introduced to receive such a high accolade)

It did cross my mind that Mark wouldn't have been so impolitic as to publicly stake out his future choice in Deputy Leader *quite* this early in overt terms. Particularly while the Leader position is still completely-ably filled.

But I'm calling it now.

Mark/Ball 2023.

Ares, out.

New Zealand First: "We've Always Been At War With Eurasia" - Embedded at the NZ First Convention Part 2

One interesting theme that regrettably resurfaces time and time again in politics is the comprehensive rewriting of history for strategic gain.

Or arse-covering.

Or, in some cases, as an act of retribution and revenge against a defeated (and therefore powerless) foe.

History, contrary to popular opinion, is not written by the victors - but rather by the literate. Hence why I'm sitting here blogging.

This morning's various executive officeholder reports featured a number of emphatic strategic rewrites of that which has gone before.

First up, the repeated claim that there were "no leaks" of the 2014 NZ First Party List prior to its official release during the last campaign.

This is clearly and demonstrably false - as detailed in my previous article chronicling Tracey Martin's rise and fall.

The only way to reconcile a claim that the List was not leaked with the fact that members of the media were contacting candidates with accurate copies of virtually the entire first half of the List within 24 hours of the Listing Committee's determination being reached ...
is to believe that pretty much *all* the candidates on said list first talked to each other, then talked to the media, who then contacted Andrew Williams, Asenati Lole-Taylor and Ron Mark - all within an *exceptionally* tight timeframe. And all, to a (wo)man in violation of the strict confidentiality clauses they'd each signed - which, let's remember, only Andrew Williams was ever actually pinged as having run afoul of.  

Now this is certainly within the realms of possibility. Albeit somewhat out on the fringes.

But I suspect there's a more plausible explanation: another name for a "leak" is a "strategic disclosure". And, from a certain point of view, if sufficiently implicitly authorized from On High, a "strategic disclosure" is not a leak at all - but rather something surreptitiously approved of.

But more infuriatingly, I also witnessed Party President Anne Martin's partner get up and pontificate about the "real" reasons why Andrew Williams was allegedly gotten rid of as an MP.

Not because he was an intensively hard-working and competent Parliamentarian who might have made certain other people feel insecure ... but instead, because he apparently gave "not a cent" in donations and had a sufficiently poor relationship with the Party President (Tracey Martin's mother), that he'd never invited her around to his place. I believe that's *actually* what I heard voiced to our meeting this morning.

Now, I can't comment upon the latter. And frankly, I have absolutely no desire to. That sort of claim is NOT something that belongs in a serious political form like a Party Convention - and I'll be *absolutely livid* if that's *actually* part of what motivated his demotion and shafting.

But the first claim - that he contributed nothing to the Party financially - is clearly and demonstrably false.

For starters, Tracey and Andrew used to share an office in Milford. Out the back of said office was a meeting room jointly paid for out of Tracey and Andrew's personal pockets, to the tune of $3600 each. I was also sitting with him at last year's NZ First Convention 21st Birthday Dinner and watched him put hundreds of dollars of his own money into a Party fundraiser auction. Here's a photo of the bottle of wine signed by Winston which he received for his efforts and coin.



Methinks what's going on here is the Martins are attempting to leave their mark on the official institutional memory of New Zealand First by once again sandblasting their fallen rival off the monuments - and taking advantage of their last weekend in pole position to do so.

How else to explain Anne Martin using her valedictory President's Report to fight back against allegations of "nepotism" and corruption, followed up very very swiftly by her partner getting up to buttress her defence - not by bolstering our positive impression of Anne. But instead, by making spurious assertions designed to literally cheapen in our collective imagination as a Party the legacy of someone they effectively conspired to get rid of.

It's infuriating. It's deceitful. It's politics.

And sadly, it's not the first nor the last time that powerful figures in a political party have engaged in an Orwellian sleight-of-hand in order to more "cleanly" dispose or distance themselves from somebody.

Anyway. While I've got your attention, I'd just like to say that I do, indeed, like Anne very much as a person. Throughout this weekend, she's been fundamentally decent to me. Her service to our Party remains extensive and arguably unparalleled - as Tracey was wont to point out in Parliament once upon a time, Anne effectively risked going to prison for us.

But I was not impressed with some elements of what went down this morning.

And I look forward with some interest to seeing which of Kristin Campbell-Smith or Brent Catchpole emerges victorious in tomorrow's Presidential election, with a view to taking us onward into the glorious Blacker Future.

Back In Black: Embedded at the NZ First 2015 Convention Part 1 - Fear & Loathing Of The Curwen Ares Rolinson Party

This weekend, I'm down in Rotorua covering the New Zealand First Convention for The Daily Blog.

I'm also, however, still a Party member (a fact which no doubt causes considerable consternation in some quarters) ... and am here representing the Epsom electorate as a delegate.

So it's going to be an interesting exercise in hat-swapping this weekend.

But on with the show.

At the moment, I'm sitting in our motel room tapping this out, having just spent the last five hours driving down from Auckland to the smooth sounds of Limp Bizkit and System. (I'm given to understand that "Prison Song" was put on especially for my benefit)

It's therefore *well* too soon to get a feel for the feel on the floor and see how things are going to play out.

But the state of play going into Convention appears to be this:

The Martinite "faction", if you could call them that, are marginalized. Anne Martin has stood down as Party President, and is instead running for Party Secretary. Previously this would almost have been an auto-win for her due to her demonstrable competency in this role over an extended period.

However, from people I've been talking to thus far, newcomer Hugh Barr would appear to have a serious shot at winning the Secretary position instead, when we vote on the Party exec on Sunday.

Alongside this, there would appear to be a Rotorua-Tauranga axis that's powered up around first term MPs Fletcher Tabuteau and Clayton Mitchell - and former campaign Director-General Kristin Campbell-Smith. Who's standing for Party President. With a better-than-even shot at victory.

The narrative at the outset, therefore, seems to be a transition of power away from the older generation of more Tracey-amenable administrators, and to a new - hopefully more pro-Ron Mark - crew of up-and-comers.

It'll be interesting to watch.

Of additional interest was an article on Stuff that's just come to my attention, detailing Anne Martin's  thoughts on her way out.

First thing that leaped out at me was her immediate reaction to the idea of Ron Mark as future Leader of our Party: "I don't think so".

That's unfortunate. Because from where I'm sitting, Ron Mark represents the best shot we have for a stable and decisive future post-Winston.

I wonder whom she had in mind instead...

I also found it amusing that Anne described her "greatest challenge as President" being the difficulty "dealing with people within the Party using public forums to voice their own opinions".

Like a certain well-read blog, one would imagine.

In any case, I'd have to respectfully disagree with Anne's assertion that "it doesn't do the Party any good" to have persons such as myself adding an insider perspective "out there in the open".

I know for a fact that my blogging and social media output has helped to contribute to changed perceptions - and for the positive - of New Zealand First. For one thing, people are now far more aware of the genuine and undeniable fact that NZF isn't just Winston - it's an entire living, breathing, thriving entity full of actual, real people

And, as Justice Louis Brandeis said .. "sunlight said to be the best disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman".

I am therefore proud to be an incandescent, fluorescent, thermo-nuclear powered agent of nationalist political illumination.
All in all, I'm gearing up for a very mixed reception when we hit the Convention floor tomorrow morning. (Today, by the time you read this)

Some will be warm. Others will be colder than Cocytus - and for much the same (perceived) reason.

In any case, the most telling part of Anne's interview was not what she said, but rather what she specifically avoided. I don't think there's ever been a complaint that Anne "went anywhere near the Caucus business". Indeed, the suggestion of improper influence has always been *strictly* the other way around.

Anyway. It's half past one in the morning here, and I've got a full day of dodging bullets, bouquets and brickbats to look forward to tomorrow.

Will let you know how I get on, and whether our constitutional remit to incorporate the Youth Wing into the main Party constitution passes.

Catcha on the flipside.

Ares.

Why Winston Got It Wrong On National Anthem

Oh dear. I'm going to do something I don't ordinarily do, here, and criticize my Leader.

Yesterday, he was reported in a number of sources as claiming he'd "never heard anyone sing our anthem when they are happy".

I reject both the statement and the sentiment utterly.

It's true that when compared to the heights of patriotism reached in both song and occasionally in fervor by other nations ... New Zealand can often seem a little lacking.

When you compare "God Defend New Zealand", it's hardly got the emotive gusto of arming up citizens to go participate in a revolutionary bloodbath, like The Marseilles (one of Peters' points of comparison).

But it's special. Sacred. Everything which we've heard Winston claim about the New Zealand Flag.

And to suggest that just because New Zealanders aren't *quite* so full with gusto when belting out our anthem at a rugby match as some of our podean cousins, that this somehow justifies potentially ditching same ... is pretty faulty logic and reasoning.

We are a naturally reticent people, sadly. Our habitual demeanor is gloomy and dour. We are not overly given toward flashy, grandstandy statements of patriotic fervor in the manner of, say, the Americans.

Instead, our faith in our nation is quiet, understated and reserved. This is natural and normal for us - even as I, personally, attempt to stir up the fires of nationalist sentiment in the hearts of my countrymen with a view to cranking the latter up to eleven, where possible.

Changing the anthem, therefore, will not necessarily change the volume or level of enthusiasm with which we sing it before a sporting fixture.

Instead, it would undermine decades of familiarity and support for the extant status quo. (Which, to be fair, is not always a bad thing - although given the ghastly results of our efforts at designing a new flag ... I can only assume that any attempt to come up with a new national anthem would basically be "New Coke" in lyrical form)

And as for Winston's statement that nobody sings the national anthem when they are happy ... I know I'm an exception to just about *every* rule ... but I do. I'm just that much of a nationalist.

But more to the point; as somebody said on my wall while debating this issue: "Look into the tearful eyes of the veterans on ANZAC Day when they hear that anthem - and tell them they/we hate it"

Yup, that's pretty much the strength of it.

About the only positive thing I can say for Winston in this instance is, as somebody *else* on my wall put it "[at least he's not] forcing a referendum onto people (that nobody asked for) just because it's an issue which interests him personally".

Quite right.

Let's flag this issue and instead get to work on making our Nation great again - not just our national anthem.

The Devaluation of 50 Cent

The rapper Curtis James Jackson - better known as 50 Cent's - declaration of bankruptcy last week was as sneaky as National’s selloff of state housing. But we all heard about it. Largely through the inevitable cavalcade of cringe-worthy quips across the twitosphere which then ensued. “50 Cent’s value now literal”. “50 Cent says he’s outta change”. “50 Cent wishes he had 50 Cents”. And our favourite, the puntastic “50 Cent has filed for bankruptcy - that makes no cents”. 

All through social media and the popular presses, people seemed to queue up in their thousands to make light of what’s ultimately a pretty sad situation.

But why?

In a musical genre which lauds the pursuit of fame and riches (the title of Cent’s first album – “Get Rich or Die Tryin” being the archetypal exhibit A), what is it about failure that appears to be so exceptionally appealing for ringside commentators to mock?

More worryingly, why is it that the harpies and harridans who’re hounding Cent through the hunnet stacks appear so singularly unconcerned about fiscal failure elsewhere in the business world – like investment banking, for instance? Or the personal (and political) life of Donald Trump.

What, in a nutshell (or, if you prefer, mixtape) does this tell us about our society? And should we even be concerned – either about Cent’s personal circumstances, or about the fact that we seem to be singling out failure and holding individuals profoundly responsible for their own biographies?

But before we leap into the deep sociological critiques & commentary, let’s wind the clock back and re-trace how we got here in the first place.

Our story begins in the early 2000s. People everywhere are answering phones with directives to find them In Da Club. A much younger version of one of us (we’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess whom) is enthralled by the idea of being taken by 50 to an entirely and un-abstractly literal Candy Shop, and is singing along accordingly. Cent himself was yet to Self Destruct himself down to being a mere Window Shopper and was in the phase of his career where Straight To The Bank was a hit single rather than something he had to do in order to refinance his debt obligations.

Instead, he’d navigated a meteoric path from bullet-ridden obscurity through to an enviable  - if brief - position as arguably the world’s most popular rapper, selling somewhere in the region of ten million albums a year during the first phase of his career.

Success outside the musical realm soon followed too – making the transition from MTV-screen stardom to a semi-fledged (if small-scale) acting and television career.

But it was the rapper’s non-musical business dealings which propelled him towards true financial prosperity. First, by commodifying the G-Unit brand (replete with clothing lines, $2.99 ringtones, sneakers, and other accouterments) ... and then, much more bizarrely, by going into the vitamin water business. Hawking a product called Formula 50, and with a ten percent stake in beverage company Glaceau, 50 Cent hit the half-billion mark in terms of his personal wealth when Coca-Cola bought Glaceau for $4.1 billion dollars in early 2007.

Now, call us old-fashioned, but we can *vaguely* remember the days when rappers used to attempt to get rich via the more traditionally musical means of record sales and concert revenues – or, in past lives and sotto-voce, drug-dealing. The idea of men from underprivileged backgrounds first selling big and then selling out in pursuit of, as Kanye West puts it “hood dreams – big fame, big chains” is not especially controversial. And as applies moving from album-sales to selling hoodies and sneakers with one’s face on them ... well that’s arguably just musical promotion by an altogether other means.

But vitamin water? Stock trading?

That seems less deal-with-Ecko than outright Gordon Gecko.

And yet, for all that jarring quasi-cognitive dissonance between the way he got rich and his previous lifestyle of “die tryin’”, it wasn’t that which caused Cent’s career and personal finances to suffer.

Instead, this newly corporate savvy approach to securing wealth served to propel the last of his notable hits. On 2007’s “I Get Money”, he obliquely spells it out: “I took quarter water sold it in bottles for two bucks / Coca-cola came and bought it for billions – what the fuck”.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Gangsta rap about setting up a vitamin-water brand and selling stocks.

Truly an appropriate soundtrack for the health-conscious stock-market apocalypse of the late 2000s.

At first glance, this may reek of inauthenticity. Here, after all, is a man whose initial career was largely built upon an extensive and semi-stereotypical “street” resume: shot nine times, three convictions to his name, and with the only thing approaching ‘shrewd business competency’ being his adolescent experience as a drug dealer. And yet whose stretch through stardom seemed to have more to do with pursuing more conventional opportunities as a ‘legitimate businessperson’ rather than engaging in acts of crime.

Somehow, “Get Rich Or Go Bankrupt” doesn’t have *quite* the same ring to it.

Still, instead of looking at Cent as a sellout or a betrayer of the hallmarks of the musical form, we instead prefer to view him as what he actually was: a genre-defining artist.

While the intersection of money-making and rap music is not new (consider the Notorious B.I.G. “countin’ them benjamins” with the Bone Thugz – albeit in less salubrious surrounds than the “restaurants with mandolins and violins” which Cent now presumably frequents) ... the manner and enthusiasm with which Cent embraced clear and naked capitalism – even using it as a literal selling point – definitely was. Big L might have been “out buyin’ the finest shit money can buy [...] while y’all be on the corners bummy and high” ... but he certainly didn’t do it through investing in a high-end premium underwear venture. (Yes, 50 Cent’s *also* done that)

 And, as the true mark of a genre-innovator, instead of it dying away, it’s become the new normal. Consider, for instance, Lil Wayne’s hit A Milli. Or, for that matter, the name of Weezy’s record label: Young Money. Hell, where did we think Chamillionaire got his name from? And for that matter, how much money has Dr Dre made off headphones recently.

With this in mind, rather than undermining it, 50 Cent in all his musical and business ventures has instead expanded the mass understanding of what it means to be a hip hop artist. And as a mark of empowerment, we have to admit (despite Curwen’s crypto-socialist distaste for the end result) the idea of a black man rising from poverty to not only entice the masses with his music but also carve a unique niche for himself in the fiscal/business world has a certain potency.

Critics love to tell us what “real” hip hop should be – that it should be stern, intelligent and political. Bandz Make Her Dance is no match for this criterion.

But political content and critical reflection has never been the exclusive preserve of the lyrics of a song themselves. In redefining what it means to be a successful rapper – as well as the public’s image thereof – Cent has left a large metaphorical footprint in the archives of hip hop history. We may not personally agree with the idea that becoming a successful businessperson represents the apex and apotheosis of what it means to live an influential and meaningful life ... but by successfully making the transition from street-corner to Wall Street, Cent has arguably helped to put a chink in the bullet-proof glass ceiling of aspiration for many subaltern listeners.

Whether you agree that capitalist aspirations – and, hell, the phenomenon of Capitalist Rap all up - is a desirable thing is, of course, another matter altogether.

Unfortunately for Cent’s financial status, however, along with his mainstream economic success he’d also kept one of the oldest traditions in hip-hop alive as part and parcel of his career and stardom.

The Feud.

The precise ins-and-outs of Fiddy’s feud with Rick Ross don’t need to be gone into here; except to note that it all escalated when Fiddy released a voiceover’d sextape of Ross’s ex-girlfriend, Lastonia Leviston.
This is what’s resulted in the bankruptcy filing, given the demonstrable shortfall between Cent’s $4.4 million dollar net worth and the $5 million dollars worth of damages he’s been ordered to pay to Leviston.

Wait ... what?

“I thought you said 50 Cent’s net worth was in the hundreds of millions?”

Yeah, we did. And so did Forbes magazine. They’d had his net worth pegged at around $155 million dollars earlier this year. A figure whose credibility was bolstered considerably by his ostentatious displays of wealth. We’ve all heard, for instance, about the $1.6 million dollar bet on Floyd Mayweather Cent allegedly made; and he’s often taken great pains to show off his car collection and taste in bling.

But it turns out that this has all been an illusion. The fancy cars were rented or traded in. The diamond-studded gold chains were “borrowed”. The lifestyle, in other words, was all an illusion – created, as 50 Cent told a packed courtroom recently, for “entertainment” purposes as part of his brand.

The pervasive impression we’re left with, then, is that of an inverse-Macklemore. Somebody who raps about wealth yet finds himself having to take his peacocking items back to the thrift shop.

This is probably the biggest reason people are queuing up to cast aspersions in Cent’s direction right about now. Nobody likes a failure – but when one’s image is based so excessively and overbearingly on financial success and wealth, the sudden revelation that it’s all been for show is especially jarring.

Worse, the idea that we’ve all been fooled about this for some time evaporates our sense of sympathy. Nobody likes feeling duped.

On top of this, there’s a certain sense of karmic justice about what’s just happened to 50 Cent. The lawsuit which brought him low financially was, after all, the act of a woman justifiably and deservedly seeking retribution and remuneration for the exceptionally ugly way in which Cent had dragged her – as an innocent bystander – into his feud with Ross.

We hardly need to state our revulsion and anger at 50’s indulgence in revenge porn to try and tangentially slur a rival.

And yet, that doesn’t seem to be *quite* what’s motivating many of the armchair-bound keyboard-manipulating LCD-tanned aspersion-casting commentators on this issue.

Instead, there’s a certain sense of satisfaction in some quarters that a figure from outside the respectable trappings and upbringing of the financial elite has tried and failed at playing “their” game. Those former crack-dealers can’t be Armani-clad multi-millionaire shrewd investors, and that 50 Cent’s fall into (presumably temporary) financial ruin represents a “setting right” and reasserting of the natural order of things.

If you don’t think there’s a pervasive strain of racism, classism, or some other form of arbitrary discriminatory sentiment against an “other” inherent in this; ask yourself one very simple question:

Why did people react so differently when, say, Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy.

Possibly because Trump’s popular name doesn’t lend itself so readily to lampoonery; and maybe due to the fact Trump’s pop-culture presence and image was already so self-evidently ridiculous that nobody in or out of their right mind could take him seriously enough for there to be a noticeable transition in his social status on any of the four occasions he filed for bankruptcy. 

Or, more likely, deep down we all implicitly recognized that bankruptcies are something that happen to modern businesspersons – and, more importantly, that they’re often only temporary setbacks which allow their sufferers a breathing space to re-organize their affairs and get back on their feet.

We’re not used to thinking that way about rap-stars.

On a certain level, we still seem to think the logical result of a flame-out in a rapper’s pursuit of fame and fortune is the “die tryin’” bit, rather than something that gets mediated by accountants.

Fortunately for Fiddy, however, (and we can’t believe we’re saying this) Trump’s example is instructive.

Trump himself has declared corporate bankruptcy no fewer than four times – and yet today sits on a personal fortune measured in the billions of dollars while leading the Republican pack as its most popular presidential candidate. (Not, of course, that that may be saying much)

Bankruptcy is merely a financial statement on a bit of paper. It’s not actually some woeful and deep piercing indictment of who or what you are. You don’t suddenly loose your creative attributes, your force of personality or your panache thanks to dire financial circumstances.

Now we’re not suggesting #FiddyForPrez as the right man to take on Trump by any stretch of the imagination. But here’s hoping Cent gets his life and career back on track as a result of this.

Only this time, without the fake lifestyle and revenge porn, please.

Curwen Ares Rolinson was recently shocked to find out that, due to his criminal record, he appears to have more actual-gangsta credibility than Rick "Prison Officer" Ross. Khyati Shah can be found reading Foucault and dancing to T-Pain. Occasionally, at the same time

Clayton Mitchell Wins My Coveted Political Troll Of The Week Award

Meet Clayton Mitchell. One of the rising stars of NZ First's 2014 intake, he's recently become a bit annoyed - as I have - about the extent to which both National and Labour are (badly) imitating our policies ... without giving us any of the credit.

However, innovative man that he is, yesterday in Question Time he hit upon a solution.

He hand-delivered each of John Key and Andrew Little sign-up forms to become members of New Zealand First.

Now personally, I'd feel a little odious sharing a political party with John Key ... but then again, perhaps it's better to think of it not as "I'm locked in here with him" but rather "he's locked in here with ME!"

I am therefore tentatively supportive of this bid to re-nationalize the Prime Minister.

Perhaps he'll pick up some morals, principles and values while he's with us, and then we can release him back into the wild.

Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister wasn't playing ball.

As you can see from the above screenshot, he's acknowledged that National does, in fact, borrow our policies from time to time ... but then proved his ignorance and irascibility by asking us if we're in favour of wasting $26 million dollars on a flag-change (we're not); and more worryingly, labeling the flag-change as a "progressive" move.

I'm not surprised in the slightest that the Prime Minister doesn't know what the word "progressive" means. It certainly shows in his party's approach to taxation. And, as somebody on my wall pointed out, changing the flag is less a step forward than it is "running on the spot, at best"

In any case, Clayton's point is clear.

On everything from opposition to the TPPA's excesses to free doctor's visits for under-13s ... New Zealand First did it first; with Labour and National respectively adopting each stance from well in our slipstream.

While Mitchell does have a point when he claims that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", I've nevertheless always believed that inferior workmanship on a copy is something of an insult to the originator.

Still, as long as democratic politics exists as a co-operative enterprise, other parties supporting our policies is something that ought to be welcomed rather than eschewed out of hand.

Just provided they acknowledge whom it is that they're supporting ... while also refraining from watering down our good ideas to meaningless exercises in symbolic concern.

Rather like a flag-change, in fact.