Marxism, New Zealand Style

As you may or may not be aware, New Zealand is to host the Rugby World Cup next year, and the food and service workers' union, Unite, is going to use the event as a political football, pun intended. I have heard their president, Matt McCarten, on the radio quite often, and he is an unabashed, dyed-in-the-wool leftist, obviously.

Union threatens action during Rugby World Cup

Unite union is threatening industrial action to coincide with next year's Rugby World Cup.

The union's general secretary. Matt McCarten, said the union is planning "a big push" on behalf of its members in hotels, SkyCity Casino and other entertainment venues.

Interviewed for TV3's The Nation, he said current employment agreements had been "lined up" so they were due for renegotiation at about the time of the World Cup.

"We don't want to wreck the World Cup, of course not. But we certainly are going to be lining up the employers at that time and saying: 'Well, you're going to make a lot of money, what's going to be the workers' share?'."

Mr McCarten said he expected employers to be "more focused" ahead of the World Cup.

Unite hoped to be able to convince the public that it would be unfair for foreign-owned hotel chains to charge between $1000 and $2000 per night while continuing to pay workers the minimum or minimal wages.

The union said it would be unacceptable for people to work for less than $15 per hour, and in addition it wanted 10 percent of higher room rates to go into a special fund to be shared amongst workers.
Mr McCarten said millions of dollars of taxpayers' money would contribute to the World Cup's success, and it would be wrong for all profits to go offshore.

Now, those of you in the US need to know that the minimum wage in NZ is already $12.75 per hour, and that is still not enough to get a good number of people off their ass to get a job because in many cases one can get more money by being on a welfare benefit.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, indeed.

ANZAC DAY - REMEMBRANCE TO ALL WHO HAVE SERVED

Introduction
Anzac Day in New Zealand is held on 25 April each year to commemorate New Zealanders killed in war and to honour returned servicemen and women. The day has similar importance in Australia, New Zealand's partner in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps at Gallipoli. The ceremony itself has been continually adapted to the times, but has also steadily acquired extra layers of symbolism and meaning.
The Dawn Service

A typical commemoration begins with a march by returned service personnel before dawn to the local war memorial. Military personnel and returned service-men and -women form up about the memorial, joined by other members of the community, with pride of place going to the war veterans. A short service follows with a prayer, hymns (including Kipling's 'Recessional' or 'Lest We Forget'), and a dedication which concludes with the last verse of Laurence Binyon's 'For the Fallen':

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

The Last Post is then played, followed by a minute's silence and Reveille. A brief address follows, after which the hymn 'Recessional' is sung. The service concludes with a closing prayer and the singing of the National Anthem.

Another ceremony takes place later that morning, with returned service personnel wearing their medals, and marching behind banners and standards. The veterans are joined by other community groups, including members of the armed forces, the Red Cross, cadets, and veterans of other countries' forces.

Anzac wreath.
The march proceeds to the local war memorial, where another service takes place, including the laying of wreaths by various organisations and members of the public.

This service is a less intimate and emotional ceremony than the dawn service, but serves as a more public commemoration. The speech, usually by an important dignitary, serviceman, or returned serviceman or woman, tends to be of a conservative nature, with much stress on nationhood and remembrance. After these services, many of the veterans retire to the local RSA club or hotel, where they enjoy coffee and rum (in the case of the dawn service) and 'unwind' after an emotionally and, for elderly veterans, physically exhausting event. At the end of the day, the ceremony of the 'Retreat' is performed.

1915: Gallipoli Remembered
The first public recognition of the landings at Gallipoli took place on 30 April 1915, after news of the dramatic event had reached New Zealand.

For the "rest of the story" go to NZ History/Anzac

Paul Henry: Public Enemy #1?

OK, I know most of you are asking yourselves, "Who the fuck is Paul Henry?" For the record, he is NOT Taliban or Al Quaeda; he is NOT a pedophile or a serial killer.

Paul Henry is the co-host of the Morning Breakfast show on TV NZ Channel One. Although not a regular viewer, I think he can be quite funny, and, because he isn't a lefty, Paul is quite refreshing with his mince-no-words, call-it-like-he-sees-it style and good use of sarcasm. But NZ is so PC that, it just seems like the guy can't cut a break because he is always allegedly offending somebody. All the liberals hate him and want him fired from his broadcasting job. That's good enough reason for me to like him.

Here's the latest "offense" that has too many people's knickers in a twist.

BSA complaint over Henry's 'schizo' call not upheld

NZPA March 29, 2010, 1:53 pm

 Controversy-baiting broadcaster Paul Henry has escaped another broadcasting standards complaint -- this time over his use of the term "schizo".

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has declined to uphold a complaint relating to his use of the term on an episode of TV One's Breakfast show last September, while interviewing an employment relations expert about different personality types.

Though the complainant alleged the term was unfair and derogatory to people with schizophrenia, the authority found Henry's use of the term was deliberately ambiguous.

At least most of these complaints have not been upheld. Here's one that was, however, followed by the offending segment. Keep in mind that Paul was merely commenting on what a viewer had written in an email.

Earlier last year, the authority upheld complaints against Henry for his comments about Greenpeace spokeswoman Stephanie Mills' moustache.

I'm tellin' ya, these thin-skinned, perpetually offended, liberal PC assholes just need to STFU and get a life.

Here's the thing. I'm sure this broad knows she has a moustache, and she obviously knows she's going on TV. If she was worried about it, she would have shaved it or waxed it or something, but, I'm willing to bet she keeps it around just to get a reaction, like she's daring you to notice it and say something. I'm sorry, but like Paul, if I see a chick with a "mo" I'm going to notice it; hell, I'll probably make a comment about it...especially if she's a fucking greenie dyke. I don't avoid the big elephant in the middle of the room.

The way I see it is you have the right to say or do what you want to do and be what you want to be, but I ALSO have the right to say what I want to say. This PC, hate speech bullshit has to stop. You cannot legislate "niceness." Sure, it would be great if everybody was "nice", but I believe that people have the right to be assholes, too. If they offend you, you avoid them.

It seems so simple to me. I just don't get it.

Excessive Force

**This incident goes back over a year ago and has been saved as a draft since. Only a few things have been updated from the original text.**

It always takes someone, an incident, or, in this case, an incident to get me off my lazy backside to type a few words as a form of release, so here goes.

After this long I have forgotten how to type, however, I do have the advantage of Joe smirking over my shoulder in disbelief of bad typing and grammar. Just distract him with bouncing boobs would be the solution, but I really need the aggravation to keep my rant alive. So rant I shall.

All those who have children will understand they tend to stretch one's limits of tolerance at least once a week during the tiresome teenage years. The years where they proudly beat their chests that they are old enough to know all and parents are just too old to remember or appreciate anything. In short, parents are just boring, obsolete, old know-nothings.

We are the parents of not one but two darling teenagers: The youngest, a boy of 15 (now 16), who, if I use an animal analogy, would best be described as a big, good looking, muscular, goofy puppy; the older, a very attractive young woman, a lover of education, the proud owner of the sense of entitlement affliction, with the attitude of no-one is as important as herself - a perfect budding liberal.

Over the past two odd weeks a series of events occurred, you know the kind, those that disturb one's inner peace.

The disturbance? Our son's school. The history revealed:

He was walking along a pathway eating an apple during lunch hour break when he was shoved in the chest by a student accusing him of throwing a sandwich. Our son who is approximately 190 lbs. of muscle and 5' 11" (now at 16 he is 6'1" and floats between 210-220 lbs.), known as a jester, told this student he didn't know what he was on about and took it to be a joke, and continued walking away. The student chased and shoved him in the chest again. So my son, without using the hand holding his apple, tossed the offender on his backside and once again tried to walk away when a second student of the same height attacked him from the side, grabbing him by the throat, and threatened our boy not to make him use his martial arts training against him. Needless to say my son reacted by dropping both his apple and the attacker. Our boy then punched him two more times in the face when he hit the ground. To put it in his own words: "He's lucky. I tried kneeing him in the head first - but I missed - so I punched him to make sure the idiot knew never to try that with me again cause he sure isn't any good at martial arts."

To use a Chris Rock statement: "I'm not saying he should have done it..butttt I can understand." He used the "pissed off defense."

Our boy comes home, sits down with Joe and me, informs us of the scuffle, adding that the deputy principal had told him he could be arrested. That last statement there pissed me off severely, so we made the decision to go to the high school principal the next morning (a Friday) to discuss the incidents, as no one had contacted us about anything. We immediately got a meeting with both the principal and deputy principal in attendance, and they agreed the incident happened as our son had described it and as witnesses had reported. Their main concern, however, was not how it began but the "excessive force" our son had used. They needed to assess whether this "excessive force" was grounds for expulsion from the school. The fact that our son had been assaulted not once but twice - and by two students - that they were the instigators, did not shift their opinion. Shit a brick, their response was that our son should have had more "self control" over his "aggressive reaction", been a better person, just ignored it, and that by not doing so was "how people ended up in prison."

To shorten this rant, our son was suspended from school for 9 days as the principal had placed the decision in the hands of the board of trustees. Nine days of pure torment awaiting the next board session. 9 days of knowing that the two students that had assaulted him had not received any punishment. 9 days of knowing they were happily attending school having review classes for the December final year exams. 9 days of Joe and I getting rapid fire questions from our son about fairness and justice.

The board meeting day having arrived, the meeting was running smoothly, and our son agreed that he should not have tried to knee a person in the head. One board member asked if they could arrange a more suitable course to enable him to "embrace his cultural heritage". I saw red and inquired as to which part of his heritage they intend to develop, considering the majority of my heritage derives from Scotland and Ireland with a touch of Maori from one grandmother, and that Joe is American. Quickly back tracking, the question turned to what schools had our son previously attended, the inference leaning toward maybe he is not use to being around rich super brats. I queried the relevance of such a question, adding the final blow that, if they were so interested, to look into his junior years where he attended one of the most expensive private schools in New Zealand. Our son was quickly asked by another board member if he had any questions. Our son asked, "Why am I being punished for being attacked by two people? You know, the one that grabbed me by the throat has already hit another student over the head with a bat and got no punishment at all."

Things went pear shaped from there, and the board member yelled, telling our son that he was the one who was too aggressive. Joe had been so good until then, but he just let rip, offering to grab the board member by the throat so he could show Joe this control that is needed. Joe, then showing supreme self-control, told them to shove their meeting up their arses, stormed out, slamming the door behind him. The look of pure horror was frozen on the board members' faces, and my son and I looked at each other, bursting into laughter. Why did we laugh? Why not? They had deserved to hear what was voiced and what had been offered. The reaction of the board was they were convinced by Joe and his less than subtle verbal opinions of the whole event, that we must be offenders of domestic abuse. I simply stated, "No, we are not physically abusive in our family, however, as you heard, we are very passionate about rights and wrongs when pushed beyond tolerable levels." Our son added, "Yeah, you don't want to see mum lose it." Smiling I asked, "What is your decision?" Answer: "He can return to school if he attends anger management classes next year."

As is the case in many Western nations, New Zealand has a BIG problem with youth offenders of various criminal acts ranging from theft to murder and everything in between. Is it any wonder, then, that one reason for the occurrence of this trend is the mixed messages being sent by those in authority? The message being sent in this situation is that the person in the wrong is the one who inflicts the most physical harm regardless of whether or not it is a matter of self-defence. In other words, it is OK to attack another person physically - as long as you are the one who receives the most physical harm, you will get away with it. With little or no consideration given to who was initially in the wrong you will be considered the "victim".

"A Clockwork Orange" society developing, anybody?

PM John Key on Letterman

I thought it was cool that while in NYC Mr. Key took the time to stop by Letterman and do the "Top Ten Reasons to Visit NZ". It's good PR for New Zealand.

And I'll translate the "Kiwi-isms" in #5:

1. whanau (pronounced "fah-know") - Maori for "family".
2. bach - vacation home or weekend get-away cabin.
3. chilly bin - ice chest; cooler
4. jandals - flip-flops, thongs, or whatever you call cheap sandals.

Obama-Care: What You Can Look Forward To

Ok, I said I would try to stay away from politics or almost avoid it. This is the "almost".

Let’s break it down into language we can all understand. As many of you know, I am an American living and working in the socialist haven of New Zealand, and I have some personal and vicarious experience in the system that is in place here. The model is the same, with a few differences, in just about every other socialized Western Democracy.

Here is an all too common scenario faced by patients in socialized health care systems such as what we have in New Zealand.

You plan ahead and go to your GP (general practitioner/family doctor) for a regular physical or check-up. By the way, only surgeries, hospital and emergency care are “free”; you pay out of pocket $40-$50 to see your GP, plus whatever blood work or prescriptions you need. Only infants get free GP coverage. Now, let’s say the doctor finds something wrong, and he/she refers you to a specialist for further evaluation.

Here’s where the fun starts.

You call to set-up that appointment and get put on a waiting list, and that can be as little as a couple of days to as long as 8 or 9 months – or longer. There is no negotiating or haggling on that. It’s done based on category of severity which is assessed by the district health board, and YOU have NO SAY in that matter – you are what they tell you you are, and that’s that. You finally get to see the specialist, and if further treatment is needed, you get put on a priority list which is, again, assessed by the district health board.

Now the REAL fun starts.

When it comes down to it, the older you are (once you’re over 50 or 60), the further to the back of the line you go. There are only so many resources available (it’s called rationing in any other universe), and the bureaucrats at the district medical boards decide who will get what first based on what value you have to the system. In other words, if two people need, let’s say, a hip replacement, heart surgery, cancer treatment – whatever – and one of them is 20 and the other is 65, the 20 year old will most likely get it before the 65 year old will. Why? Because as a 65 year old, you’re already retired, collecting your retirement, and basically, your days are numbered as a contributing tax payer – the state isn’t going to get any more production out of you. The 20 year old, well, the state looks at him or her as a cash cow with a whole life ahead of them that the state can milk for taxes to pay for all the other shit the state pays for.

Now, you can jump up and down, write letters, protest all you want, but it won’t likely get you anywhere. Here in New Zealand you can’t sue. There is only so much money to go around when the tax base is so limited in a small country like NZ, and there are so many government entitlement programs competing for funding. Doctors and nurses and every other state-funded health care provider are on a fixed salary, and to top that off, they all have unions, so it seems almost every other week one group or another is going on strike.

But do you know what the real problem is? The bureaucracy. Inevitably what happens is that any time there is an increase in funding or expanding care in the form of treatment and/or facilities, who gets a big portion of that funding? The bureaucrats – mid level administrators to oversee the programs, commission feasibility studies to determine cost effectiveness, and all the other bullshit. In other words, people with job titles and no real job get their money first, leaving little left over for the front-line healthcare providers, the facilities, the pharmaceuticals, etc., where the money SHOULD be going. Regarding prescribed drugs, the state has a list of approved drugs and providers, and you have little or no say in that matter either.

As a result, we are facing a constant shortage of quality people to work in this country’s health care system because so many New Zealand-educated doctors and nurses leave here for greener pastures overseas in places like Australia (which has socialized health care but can pay a better wage and is close to NZ), Canada, the UK (not much better than NZ) – but guess where a lot of New Zealand’s best medical professionals end-up: The US of A. So we have a lot of doctors from India and other parts of Asia and other parts of the world, many of whom, despite having to qualify by New Zealand standards, have questionable qualifications and slip through the cracks. The big saving grace are the professionals (and not just in medicine) who come from South Africa – and they aren’t the ones who are of the same skin hue of Nelson Mandella, if you know what I mean. I’ll say it right here: Thank God for the white South Africans or Afrikaners coming to New Zealand because without them this country would be severely fucked, and as long as things in South Africa remain as fucked-up as they are, the Afrikaners will keep coming here to fill the void left by quality New Zealanders leaving.

If all that sounds good to you, then by all means, support Obamacare, because that is what you’re going to get – or something very close to it.

Life in New Zealand: What's It Like?

I guess that after nearly four years living and working in New Zealand it would be a good time to tell you all a bit about some of my experiences here. I'll gloss over the general stuff and just tell you that the natural beauty of the country itself goes without saying. I have only seen a tiny, tiny portion of the country personally, and what I have seen is beautiful. I would love to see more of the country, but trying to arrange my vacation time with Mae's and the kids' in order to do that is nearly impossible. Combine that with the increasing cost of fuel to actually drive anywhere, like to the South Island (which involves driving to the bottom of the North Island and taking a ferry across Cook Strait) and the task becomes financially daunting and virtually out of reach. Public transport is almost non-existent - only buses and air travel for now, and trains are only now being revived (the government sold off the rail system years ago and the purchasers bailed after several years, leaving the infrastructure in tatters, all as a result of a terrible contract that allowed it all to happen that way). Needless to say, the cost of living here is quite high, so there really is never any money left over for us to do much.

What I really want to talk about today is the people and the prevailing political culture. Let me say right now that most Kiwis are very friendly people on a person-to-person basis, and any criticisms that may be expressed herein are not meant to be an indictment nor should they be taken as "Kiwi bashing." They are my opinions based on personal experiences and observations stemming from personal interactions with people I have met and work with, as well as from watching TV news, listening to talk-back radio, and reading the various print media. Based on what I have encountered in most all forms of media, there is no doubt an anti-American sentiment that runs through the culture here. It ranges from outright hatred of all things American (especially US foreign policy) from the far left (which, trust me, makes even the most far left wing-nuts in the US look like patriots) to sarcasm, by which I mean a kind of glee whenever the US appears to stumble or not "get it right." In other words, the media and people, in general, love to gloat at anything they perceive as a failure on our part, the two biggies that come to mind are Iraq and Hurricane Katrina.

A lot of this anti-American sentiment goes back to the mid-1980's when New Zealand declared itself a nuclear-free zone. New Zealand's Prime Minister was David Lange (Labour). The US President was Ronald Reagan. As well as being NATO allies, there is the ANZUS Treaty Alliance (Australia, New Zealand, US). With Lange having declared NZ "nuclear free" the US destroyer, USS Buchanan, was in February 1985 denied entry into NZ waters. As a result, the US suspended its obligations under ANZUS, declaring NZ "a friend, but not an ally". There has since been a big rift between the US and NZ governments, which in recent years has thawed considerably due in large part to a good working relationship between US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and NZ Foreign Minister, Winston Peters. Many New Zealanders are very proud of their stance against a major superpower.

And then, of course, there is President Bush: I would have to say that 9 out of 10 people here think that Bush is a complete, bumbling idiot. And, let's face it, if we are completely honest with ourselves, based on the way the man speaks in public, as many times as he stumbles and fumbles and mangles the English language, you can't blame them. Even you Bush supporters out there, be honest: If he were a Democrat, you would be making the same criticisms. The leader of the free world, regardless of whether or not you agree with his performance or policies, should be able to communicate better than he does. And like it or not, people around the world judge America based on how they perceive our president: They perceive this president as an idiot, and they perceive us as idiots because we elected him. It's that simple, and while it may not be correct, we all know that perception is reality. Let's just say that a great many people here are looking forward to Obama becoming our next president, and the media are pushing that idea very hard. I have called into a few national radio talk shows to give them the other side of the story because far too often they are partially or completely misinformed.

So, how do I handle it, you may be asking yourself? I have quite often been confronted with quips like, "Man that Bush is a real idiot;" "What do you think of Bush?" and, in reference to Katrina, "How does your president let all those people in New Orleans suffer like that?" If I have the time, I try to educate them on how our government works in terms of the division of responsibilities of local, state, and federal government. You must understand that most countries around the world, whether they are "democratic" or not, do not have multi-level government like we do in the US. Most governments have singular, centralized authority, and New Zealand is no exception. A lot of it has do do with mere geographical size - most nations are not anywhere near the size of the US. Which leads to my next point: Most people I talk to have no idea of just how large the US is, and they look at things through the prism of this tiny nation of New Zealand which is about the size of Colorado in terms of square miles. So I have to put it to them in that way; that the US is about the size of 50 New Zealands and has a population about 75 times that of NZ's, that we have half a dozen cities with as many or more people than in all of New Zealand. Then they start to understand.

The one big difference, however, whether people "like" the US or not, is how people view the role of government. Although I have met quite a few people who believe in smaller government, less government regulation, and who want less government interference in their daily lives, most people, especially those under 40 years of age, look to government to solve everything. They believe it is the government's job to engineer society for the overall public good. And that makes for a perfect segue into the next post...