Have now archived the last 300 posts, but am worried about the impact beta is having on the level of comments. If there are commenters out there having problems please do email me, if only just to let me know you are unable to comment: spanblatheratgmaildotcom.
I have a bit of an icky response to news of affairs amongst politicians. As someone just the other side of the Beltway, I often hear about these things a few days before they become common knowledge.
Several moons ago (at least) I wrote about politically legitimate reasons to leave your partner - in response to the Graham Capill conviction, but also covering affairs. Even longer ago I wrote about Richard Prebble's affair and whether it mattered.
I feel uncomfortable about the cheating, Don Brash's in particular, for two reasons:
1. I'd like politicians, and really anyone in the public eye, to be entitled to a private life. If I were in their shoes (as the target or the partner) I would not want media camped out on the lawn, in amongst the rose bushes, taking pics of my hand pulling the curtains closed against their prying. It wouldn't help resolve your private matters, to be forced to do so in the hot squinting gaze of the public eye, as represented by the relentless cameras and microphones of a frenzied media.
2. But I wonder about the gender politics of this. The stories you hear about cheating politicians (cheating on their spouses, I clarify) are almost always the husbands having affairs, not the wives or same-sex partners. What does it say about a man that he has, possibly repeatedly, shown little regard for the commitment he has made to a woman, for the hurt he will cause her when she finds out? What's the feminist response to news of any serial adulterer whose attitude to women is thus suspect? I don't really know. But it makes me feel uncomfortable, to put it mildly.
It seems an apposite coincidence that all this Brash stuff is going on at the same time that Frankie has found out about Danny's affair on Coro St in NZ. One can imagine the conversations between Brash and his wife being similar to those between the junior Baldwin and the woman he cheated on with his first wife and later married. For those not watching, Danny claims he has a weakness and that it meant nothing, all of the normal mouthings we're all used to seeing on the screen in relation to discovered affairs.
Idiot/Savant is firmly of the opinion that the affair doesn't matter, and the identity of the woman doesn't matter either. I've already detailed above why I'm conflicted over whether the affair matters, but in regard to the Other Woman, I think who she is does matter because, if true, this was a political relationship too.
Red has also pointed out some of the money quotes from Brash about marriage that have resulted in many labelling him a hypocrite in recent days. I would also add that if this allegation is true then we know of two times that Brash has disrespected not only his own marriage but also the commitments of the two other women he has cheated with, as both were also hitched to other men during the affairs. Personally I don't think we need to overly respect the institution of Marriage, but we should respect the individual commitments people make to each other. Brash, and many of his backers and supporters, have gone on and on about the importance of Marriage, not least during the Civil Union flip-flop, and so the yard stick can be applied to them now in turn.
One final point. For all those bloggers who have ever made nasty comments about the fact that Helen Clark preferred not to marry, or has not had children, or have judged any of those MPs who identify as lesbian, gay or transgender (in or out of the closet), you risk the H label too. You cannot criticise some MPs for what happens in their personal lives and yet insist that those on your team are immune to scrutiny. As you sow so shall you reap.
For your edification (and mine - I didn't know some of this stuff either):
Received an email earlier this morning alerting me to a poll on the Northern Young Nats webpage about support (or lack thereof) for Wayne Mapp's 90 Day Bill.
Forwarded it on to others I thought might be interested - at the time I voted there were 50 votes cast and it was a dead heat. Now, a skant couple of hours later, the page has mysteriously disappeared, as you'll know if you clicked on the link above to try to vote.
Is this a continuation of the trend set by Family Integrity of pulling polls that don't return the result the organisation wants?
I've had some feedback by email that there are problems with the comments now that the blog has shifted to beta. This would seem to be backed up by the low number of comments, given that the hits have been quite healthy.
If you want to comment but are having troubles please email your comment to me, (spanblather@gmail.com) along with the name you want me to post it under and any url you want in the post, and I will put it up when I get a chance. Yes, even the people I disagree with.
Hopefully Blogger will complete the transition to beta soon and these kinds of bugs will be squashed, but in the meantime I guess it's all just yet another lesson in patience.
Thanks again,
Span
Idiot Savant has set up a pledgebank for those interested in supporting the locked out distribution workers at Progressive Enterprises, who've now been without pay since August 25th.
Yes a tiny number have gone back to work - the economic pressure of having no income is rather extreme after all. They've had to agree to quit the union to make this return, from what I've heard, which is not something they would do lightly, given the commitment they'd made and how long they've gone without money already. Not to mention the knowledge that they would be letting their workmates down. Not a nice place to be in, but one many families are having to face as the company shows no willingness to return to negotiations after several weeks of this.
So let's help the remaining workers, over 500 of them, to stay out for as long as they need to. There are lots of ways you can make financial donations or show your support, including supporting I/S's pledgebank by clicking here.
Every little bit will make a big difference to these workers' everyday lives - right now and for the future.
Let's hope Beta Blogger doesn't go the way of Betamax...
Anyway, apologies to those who are having problems commenting as a result of the shift to beta. My advice is to use the Other or Anon functions if you are finding you can't use your normal profile.
My main motivation for shifting to beta was to get myself some shiny labels. I've got nearly 600 posts to categorise, since June 2004, and I've done approx the last 50. It's slow work.
Alas my recent comments hack, so generously provided by AL* many moons ago now, doesn't seem to work in the beta format. I'll hopefully manage to hunt down one that does at some point in the future, but any hattips on this gratefully accepted.
Also I hope to be blogging a bit more on politics in the next week or two. I've got a post about the future of the NZ Left in draft form, including covering the Alliance, as requested in recent comments, which will hopefully be up by week's end.
Any feedback about the new look most welcome. And thanks for reading!
Span
* Is it old news that Aaron Bhatnagar has returned to the blogosphere on Sir Humph's? I note that former figment of everyone's imagination, AJ Chesswas, is also commenting there. All that's really required is for some of the About Town team to join their number and surely we have a conjunction of the constellations of the NZ blogosphere that signals the beginning of the End Times? Or perhaps I need more sugar.
And here we go, another post that indulges my new new Dr Who obssession.
Part the Third - The Doctor Finds His Heart(s)?
The burgeoning love interest side of the Doctor has been at times uncomfortable (for me anyway). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first time that Mr Fancy Tardis has been portrayed as possibly being a sexual being - someone who might be physically attracted to others and want to act on it at some vague future point. There's certainly been an awfully lot of hugging in this series, if you ask me.
Also that the companionship between Doctor and assistant could be more akin to an unrequited soapie-type relationship (Moonlighting anyone?) than the usual platonic jolly good chaps (and chapettes). We even had Rose and Sarah Jane competing for the affections and attention of the Tennant incarnation (with K9 mercifully in only a bit-part). Gotta love the Who You Know competition between them - "Daleks!" "Met the Emperor!" etc.
Now Rose is my all-time favourite companion to date. I am going to cry buckets when she goes and I believe that may be quite soon. I do not want to know what happens in advance, thanks all the same. If the Doctor was going to fall for anyone I can see why it would be her - spunky, smart but not in a ridiculous way, and she's a chav! I hear she can sing a little as well.
But it all sits a little uncomfortably for me - this series, more than the Eccleston one, has investigated what happens to the companions after the Doctor has moved on without them, through Rose, Sarah Jane and Micky (or was it Ricky, I forget already), not to mention poor run-down K9. If the Doctor were to have an icky-boy-and-girl-germs-mingling relationship with Rose then it throws things out of whack a fair bit. He's never done it before, and what would it bode for the future if he did? Would he spend the rest of the Tennant incarnation being a grump after she goes/dies, refusing to find love again, and making all sorts of crap judgement calls as a result? Will he go on the piss and try calling her in the middle of the night when he's drunk just to tell her he's really over her this time? Or will he stoically soldier on, as a good Timelord ought to?
In short - is there anyway out of this plot direction, other than a sharp swerve away sometime very soon, that doesn't tend towards Doctor Who becoming more like The OC In Space/Time?
---
Others in the A New Lease on Life series:
Dear oh dear, Progressive Enterprises appear to be determined to win the coveted Business Round Table award for worst employer of the month (both August and September), the well-known Tin Arse Award.
Or perhaps it should be called the Ostrich - Progressive Enterprises seem to have their head in the sand about some of the realities of modern employment. (To continue to uplift slogans from other times and campaigns and mangle them to my own doubtless nefarious uses) National collective agreements: they're here, they're fair, they're in your workplace!
Let's be clear about one thing - this is no longer a strike, this is a lock out. What that means is rather than the workers holding the company to ransom, as some would have you believe, the reverse is in fact true. The boss is now saying, has been saying for some days, if you do not drop your claim to a national collective agreement then you can not return to work. No work = no pay. No pay = not much to live off (in fact nothing to live off due to Work & Income stand-downs periods).
And what's so scary about national collective agreements anyway? They're becoming more fashionable, not just across one company like Progressive Enterprises but as Multi-Employer Collective Agreements (MECAs) as well. National agreements are more than capable of providing for different work arrangements in different parts of the country, which is the argument the employer has put up against them. Of course we all suspect that the real reason they don't want a national agreement is that Progressive Enterprises knows that with numbers comes strength, and if those workers are on a single agreement then there won't be anymore playing them off against each other come negotiation time because they will stand united.
The distribution centre workers are standing united now, even without a national agreement. If you want to stand with them on the picket line, be it in person, electronically or with your wallet, here are some ways to show your support:
And here's some linky love for those who aren't satisfied with my blatherings and require more more more:
- The National Distribution Union (NDU) website about the campaign Shelf Respect
- Maia's Lies Management Tell
- Joe Hendren's Progressive Enterprises are being loose with the truth and Christchurch Solidarity March for Locked-Out Progressive Enterprises Workers
- Idiot Savant's Empty Shelves
- Russell Brown's Hard News column which mentions this situation around the half-way mark for those who prefer to scroll. I disagree with Brown however about the Auckland premium for two reasons: 1) you can recognise this in a national agreement, 2) however the highest paid workers under the three separate agreements are actually those at the Palmerston North distribution centre.
- Indymedia also has extensive coverage, including pictures and stories directly from the picket lines. (Added 8th Sept. 7.48am)
(If you've written something on this that is sympathetic to the workers and I haven't picked it up please post a link in comments and I'll add it to the post when I can).
Update, 8th Sept. 7.55am: Andrew Falloon has criticised my point about this being a lock-out over on his own blog. It seems to me that there has been a lot of confusion amongst media and bloggers that this is still a strike, where the workers determine when they return to work, when that's not the case at all, as I've said above. That was my point. Am I outraged that the workers have been locked out, as Falloon claims? I wouldn't go so far as to say outraged. I'm not surprised, and usually I have to be surprised to be outraged, but maybe that's just me. Anyway, locking out workers is not the choice that a company looking for compromise or settlement makes. Yes the company will be feeling some pain in terms of loss of sales and public goodwill. But the workers have been losing their entire wages (not just some of their income, as is happening to Progressive Enterprises, but all of it), indefinitely since August 25th. At first this was their choice but it is not anymore, as they have been locked out. Of the two groups it is quite clear to me who is the underdog here, and who is the bully.
Update, 11th Sept. 8.25pm: A few more supportive posts to add to the list:
- Asher's Locked Out Won't Shut Up (Hattip: his fine self, in comments)
- Auckland's Burning - John's dedicated to covering the ongoing ructions, in pictures and words
- Idiot Savant's pledgebank post, seeking donations for a good cause (this cause)
As no doubt every person who has ever read this blog (except ferringers of course) already knows, the MP for Mangere has been stood down on full pay* while the police investigate various allegations and complaints. I'm not even going to bother linking to a news article on it because surely it is the talk of the town (plus I'm lazy).
I've written about this a few times before, but what I wanted to focus on in this post was something Idiot/Savant brought up:
Meanwhile, I hope the smaller parties are lining up their candidates for aWell that's an interesting thought.
by-election, just in case...
And here comes another post about the wonderfulness of the new new Doctor Who...
(The first, which examines Eccleston as the dark and Tennant as the light, can be found here.)
2. I wasn't sure about this young David guy at first. I really liked Eccleston's Doctor and was sad to see him go. I'd also erroneously heard that Eccleston had found out he'd been rejuvenated by media statement so I felt offended on his behalf and thus grumpy about the new guy. But what really sold me on Tennant was the Arthur Dent homage in an early episode. I know he didn't write it, but he carried it off. Any show that recognises the existence of other cult series, particularly one written by another Doctor Who writer, is all good. Similar good things from the casting of Anthony Head as an alien mastermind in another episode.
The Man With No Lap, my rather frequent correspondent in Wellington, has pointed out to me the following quote from this Stuff article on the Field debacle:
Miss Clark said she had not talked to the Labour party president Mike Williams about Mr Field and his Labour party membership.The Man With No Lap claims he has some magic beans that may be of interest to anyone who believes that.
Scene: Dark yet smoke-free room in the deepest recesses of Fraser House. Curtains pulled tight against prying eyes, a picture of Michael Joseph Savage in working class wooden frame presides over an oval table at which sit the Prime Minister and the Labour Party President, and no doubt sundry other
minions...Clark: (Voice of steel-type tone) I'm sure I don't need to talk to you about Phillip and his Labour Party membership.
Meaningful look from Clark to Williams, possibly involving the raising of one eyebrow.
Williams: (Jovial yet slightly chilled) I'm sure you don't either.
Clark: (Grimly pleased) Right then, let's move on. What's the current level of preparedness within the Party for a by-election?
So what about that new new Doctor Who then?
Mr Stupid and I have taken to discussing his (and Rose's) latest exploits by text most Thursday nights. Sometimes this dialogue even flows over into Friday, so intensely interested are we both. In my household the phones are no longer answered on Thursdays between 7.25pm and 8.30pm. No interruptions please, I'm at the Doctor's.
I thought I'd share some of the textual analysis Frank and I have been engaging in, in the hope that readers may also blather about my new old favourite telly show. Here's the first:
1. The Eccleston Doctor was much darker than Tennant's interpretation. At times in the last series it felt like Eccleston was extinguishing a species an episode, often with little regret. In contrast Tennant paused when confronted with a means to kill off the cybersuits last week and it took another character (the fantastic Mrs Moss) to point out that there really wasn't much choice. Mr Stupid has wisely compared Eccleston to Peter Davidson and Tennant to Tom Baker.
Discuss.
Well I've wanted to write about a few things but two major barriers stand in my way:
Maia's dang nabbit gone and tagged me, in a very "only if you want to" manner, which is fine and dandy by me cos I'm on a fake sugar high now and thus in a very obliging mood.
1. One book that changed your life?
There are few non-fiction books that I've read. But I'd like to nominate two of them (yes I know I'm cheating, but Maia cheated first). The first one is Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, which was depressingly revealing about the nature of media. I've looked at the telly and the newspaper quite differently every since.
The second is Andrea Ashworth's Once in a House on Fire, which I recently re-read and previously recommended to Apathy Jack. While I found the writing less exhilirating than when I first read it, the impact remained - it is a powerful and yet commonplace story about growing up poor, and growing up in a violent household, in what became Thatcher's Britain. It jolted me out of my safe North Shore existence, at least inside my head.
2. One book you have read more than once?
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, amongst others. Yes yes I know Heinlein and I aren't on the same side of the spectrum, but within this novel are the seeds for how to run a successful destabilising campaign and bring down a system. Plus I rather like the strong female characters (notably missing from some of his other books), not to mention good ol' tanstaafl.
3. One book you would want on a desert island?
I'm going to throw a little bit of a curveball here and say The Bible (although possibly not the King James version). Two reasons. One, I'd like to actually perserve and read it, I imagine some of the stories are quite good although I've always got bogged down in the bit with the long long long whakapapa (I'm thinking of skipping that, just like I always do with the damn poems and songs in LOTR). Two, I can't forget the Firefly scene where River tries to fix it. I think if I was stuck on a desert island that might be an amusing pastime.
4. One book that made you laugh?
I'm going to have to copy Maia, but I swear I would have given this answer even if she hadn't! I still remember vividly the first night I read the first chapter of h2g2. I'd never known that books could be laugh out loud funny, and I must have been about 12 and I swear it's changed my life, although I've put it here because I already had two books for that section. DNA was responsible for my first online presence, he inspired me to try my hand at writing fiction myself (and then despired me because he was so good and I was so lame), but most of all his books are like a hot water bottle to me, they always cheer me up. I'm forever grateful to my dear friend Flang for the introduction, and also for giving me one of my most treasured books - my illustrated h2g2, which is shiny indeed.
For the record, my all time favourite chapter is Number 18 in Life, the Universe and Everything. Be afraid.
5. One book that made you cry?
I can't think of one right now, but plenty have. I suspect I bawled when I read The Bronze Horseman, and Memoirs of a Geisha, and The Diary of Anne Frank, but it hasn't happened for a while so maybe I'm hardening up?
6. One book you wish had been written?
Returning to the DNA theme, I really really wish he'd finished The Salmon of Doubt. The extract they put in that book of his writing that they put together posthumously was appalling and just showed how long it took him to cut and polish his raw gems so that they were flawless and luminous.
7. One book you wish had never been written?
The third book of the Queen's Quarter series, by Midori Snyder. I wish it had never been written simply because I've been hunting for it since I read the first one, from the library, when I was approximately 9. After a very long search I found a copy of New Moon for myself in my late teens. Then a fair distance further along my lifeline I unearthed Sadar's Keep. But Beldan's Fire still eludes me. I scoured every bookstore in Hay on Wye earlier this year, and still no dice. Not a happy camper.
8. One book you are currently reading?
I can only read one book at a time. Never really been able to abide those multi-book readers. Stupid wide attention spans. Anyway, right now I'm reading The Golden Key by a trio of female fantasy writers (Melanie Rawn, Kate Elliott and Jennifer Roberson). I'm quite enjoying it although I'm only a few chapters in and it's a long book (plus I'm a slooooow reader). I'm trying to get back into reading more sci-fi, but I keep vearing back towards the fantasy section in my weakness for books that are on special.
9. One book you have been meaning to read?
So many books, so little time. I could lie and say something worthy by Bruce Jesson but I'm crap at reading true stuff, especially when there's no narrative. I've been meaning to read the Finn's Quest series by NZ writer Eirlys Hunter - I've even got Coldkeep Castle (Book 2) and I gave The Queen-stealers (Book 1) to my niece but I keep forgetting to ask her if I can borrow it back. Would it make me a bad aunt if it took me ages to return it?
Ok, I passive agressively tag Apathy Jack, Mr Frank Stupid, Maria Von Trapp and anyone else who happens past and feels like engaging.
Lots of debate about public funding for political party campaigning, which The Red Letter has summarised well, including links to other key posts about this issue. No Right Turn brings up a point though that I would like to discuss further.
Why is the assumption that funding should be handed out proportionate to the support a party currently has (whatever formula you use)? Surely this just reinforces the status quo, makes it easier for National and Labour to remain unchallenged as the core components of any government, and generally heavily discourages new ideas and new policies from being promoted in our democratic debates?
I raised this the other day with a Labour member and was quickly slapped down with the claim that if there was significant funding for low or no polling parties then everyone would start up a political vehicle to get some of the dosh. Now that's easily dealt with by having criteria about how long a party has been established, minimum levels of membership, minimum numbers of candidates etc. Not to mention an auditing process at the end where the party would need to account for how the money was spent to support their election campaign.
So what really is the objection to a method of funding that is based not on incumbency but on giving New Zealanders, the actual voters, a fair chance to hear from a wide range of political perspectives?
Update, 8.51pm Thurs Aug 17 2006: Jordan has a post up about the reasons to support public funding, and the reasons National opposes it, which I largely agree with. Can anyone guess which bit I don't think is fabbo?
Maia's got a post up about our generation and activism. One of the things that struck me about her post was something I'd never really thought all that much about before, not consciously anyway:
I think individual action is a useless form of protest, because it's only through collectivity that we have any power. But that's not the only problem - not buying clothes made in China, or buying fair trade whatever isn't just uselss - it also frames political action as something you do for other people. I actually ended up agreeing with one of the apathetic people they interviewed when he said - I might get involved if I thought there was something in it for me. If people believe that the only reason you paticipate in poltical protests is personal goodness then we're all screwed.I'd often thought, in my secret socialist heart, that I was somehow a Bad Leftie for being able to find the selfish angle in most political causes I've ever felt inclined to support. Now I know that I'm not the only one, and that in fact it's probably a necessary part of my motivation.
A while back I posted about my frustrations with Labour, my sense that it isn't going to deliver any radical changes to the unjust society we live in, in a post entitled No Heart. Thanks to everyone for their comments on this post, I think it has been an interesting debate.
One of the things that is clear to me about Labour (both its leadership and many of its activists) is that it is wedded to an incremental approach, or "gradualism" as Jordan Carter explains it.
That's all well and good, and I can see the value of making slow changes to our capitalist society and economy, to make New Zealand more like a social democratic state, or even head towards socialism.
But I don't think that's really the Labour vision. Evidence is that as the leading part of this Government they don't in fact have much vision at all.
Idiot/Savant lays out exactly how Labour has failed the poor, in a post examining a survey on poverty in our fair isles. It's shocking reading.
I'm not suggesting there are overnight solutions to these things, but I do feel that Labour doesn't actually intend to address many of these problems. Maybe they do and they just aren't very good at communicating it.
Labour doesn't appear to be committed to a system of fully publically funded and publically controlled education for example. There seems to be no plan to bring in universal student allowances or abolish tuition fees, although there has been significant softening of the student loan scheme. But that just makes it more palatable and gives ROC Labour MPs excuses for not taking action on the causes of that mountain of debt. Not to mention the fact that school fees are becoming commonplace, kindergartens are starting to charge fees, and there is a great deal of confusion within the early childhood sector about how exactly the 2007 20 Hours Free is going to work, with less than a year to go now.
Labour has been doing better in health, to some extent. But there are massive deficits in many DHBs and apparently no intention to address this. Shouldn't deficits at public institutions send a message that they aren't being funded to an adequate level to deliver on Government's expectations?
What depresses me most is the failure of leadership I so often see from Labour. There seems to be an inability to communicate the vision thing, to take on the Opposition about some of their silly proclamations and policy ideas, and clearly state what Labour's plan is. Too many times I've seen Labour back down and mount a pathetic details argument when it should fight the big picture stuff. Tax is a good example - the Labour tacticians seem to think, despite years of evidence from the NZES, that any suggestion that our tax system needs overhaul to fund the aspirations of our nation will result in endless terms in the wilderness for Clark and her allies.
Sometimes you need to trust the public (more often than not I believe). You need to trust them with your vision, argue it honestly and clearly, and debate the big picture not try to sell it on the little details. A Labour party that did, with the left-wing values and policies I believe the bulk of its membership and supporters would be in favour of, that would be a Labour party I could consider giving my ticks to.
This post has been about eighteen months in the making. That's roughly how long I've been pressured by various people, some related to me, some not, to somehow make them happy, rather than myself, by producing a baby.
I have to write about this. I've tried not to because it is so personal. But it just makes me so angry, and is so indicative of the broader ownership people seem to often feel of female bodies*. Even other women - they have been the worst so far at telling me I ought to breed at their convenience rather than mine.
When The Piano came out everyone told me I had to see it. I didn't, just because of the pressure; to be contrary. In fact I've never seen that movie, although I've read the book they reckoned Campion ripped off for the plot. I mention this as a matter of warning.
I have taken to asking people who ask me if I am pregnant "why, are you?". Even grandmothers long past their fertile years. If it isn't rude for them to ask me, why is it rude for me to ask them? Just as it is none of my business to inquire of their reproductive wishes and plans, it is none of theirs to ask me. My attitude isn't making much of a dent though.
For all they know I could be trying and trying and their questions are barbs enlarging the hole slowly growing in my heart. Why does it even matter so much to them whether or not I have a baby? Are there not other ways by which to judge the worth of a woman, ways that do not exclusively focus on her role as a mother?
How can I stop them? Should I get a t-shirt made that says "None of your damn business"?
GRRRRRRRRR!
* Yes this is a common theme at the moment. I don't know why I'm particularly hot about it right now, I guess it's just a confluence of things I am experiencing on- and off-blog, which compel me to write it all out in a bid to understand it better and to find some solutions that will banish my frustration at being in a women's body which so many people seem to think they have more right to control than I do.
