When To Apologise

I have often pondered to what extent a nation, or a group of people within a nation, can be held responsible for the actions of previous generations.

And what I also want to know is this: when does it become acceptable to make a joke out of a historic grievance or atrocity? Does it ever?

Our own country has struggled to deal with historical grievances. Very few people would argue that the treatment of Maori in the 19th century wasn’t a disgrace, or that the confiscation of their lands was not an abominable injustice. Some have argued, however, that the current generation owes no duty to Maori, and that the recognition of any duty at all merely perpetuates the “grievance industry”.

That argument overlooks the inconvenient truth that we (and when I say “we” I am talking as a Pakeha) continue to enjoy the fruits of those land confiscations, and so continue to profit from historical wrongs. And that the current appalling Maori crime and health statistics are attributable, at least in part, to the loss of economic viability and social cohesion that arose from Maori land dispossession.

This blog post and discussion thread today on Public Address today got me pondering further. The guest writer, a German, gives her views on the recent controversial German-themed party held by students at Lincoln University. The event is reported here, and if you caught the footage on TV you would have seen a predominance of Nazi uniforms, and numerous tasteless references to the Holocaust. News of the party caused a stir, with opinion in the media, talkback-land and the blogosphere divided over whether the students had done anything wrong.

Saying sorry

Being a German means carrying war guilt. Most of us would agree it is right for a nation to renounce the evil ways of the past, but at what point do the crimes of the past stop becoming your responsibility? It is clear that for some people no apology will ever be enough. If an apology is given it is picked over for signs that it might not be sufficiently fulsome or self-abasing. Is compensation being offered? Is it enough? Is the person giving the apology personally sorry, or merely expressing regret for the deeds of a few bad people?

At what point is it okay to stop apologising? And what should a nation be expected to apologise for? Demands are often made for Britain to apologise for its history of slavery. Many of the splendid buildings that adorn London and other English cities were built using money earned from West Indies slave labour. And yet it was so long ago. Is an apology owed? And if so, should reparations be paid? Because surely for an apology to be meaningful it must be followed by reparations. But who would be eligible for compensation?

And how far back in history should we go? To me it seems reasonable, for example, that Russia ought to apologise to Poland for the dreadful things it has done to Poland this century. But it would seem plain silly if the Italian PM were asked to say sorry to France because of the slaughter Julius Caesar inflicted on the Gauls in the first century BC.

I don’t know why one feels right and the other wrong, other than because one event happened long ago. These are not easy questions to answer.

Offensive?

Back to the Lincoln party.

Most people (I think) would agree that attempting to depict a concentration camp inmate in comedic terms is likely to offend. And yet it can work. The Roberto Benigni film Life is Beautiful told the story of a father who hid his son from the Germans inside a concentration camp. It is hilarious in places, while still managing to retain a desperate sadness.

There is also a long history of Jewish comedians (think Mel Brooks of Jack Benny) making jokes about Hitler or the Holocaust.

There is nothing remotely funny, however, about what appeared to go on at Lincoln University. It may be arguable that dressing up in Nazi uniforms is okay, because let’s face it, the Germans did have the coolest uniforms in WWII. The SS, as ghastly and murderous as they were, were natty dressers. And TV shows like Hogan’s Heroes have presented the Germans in WWII as bumbling harmless fools. So it may be that you can get away with a uniform at a party without being grossly offensive. Yet the Swastika is such a powerful symbol for evil that anyone who wears it, no matter why, risks being branded as a racist Nazi anti-Semite. Even though the Swastika has a very different symbolism in India.

If the Swastika is an icon with just too much “baggage”, what other symbols might qualify for such treatment? Most who understand 20th century history would agree Joseph Stalin was at least as awful as Hitler, and that Mao deserves a pedestal in any pantheon of monsters. So why is it “cool” to adorn yourself with badges or icons from those regimes? You have probably seen t-shirts displaying the red star, or the hammer and sickle. And the iconic propaganda posters of the Soviet regime are still popular - and yet what do they represent? The face of a totalitarian regime that was responsible for the murder of millions.

When I was in Berlin several years ago, memories of the Berlin Wall were still fresh. But there was a thriving market supplying Cold War trinkets to tourists, and buying a fragment from the Berlin Wall was de rigueur. The locals didn’t seem traumatised by this dark period in their history, at least outwardly. During my stay in Berlin I acquired a Ukrainian Communist Party banner from a dealer in memorabilia. Here is one side of it.

And the other.

But I’m hesitant to put the banner up in my house, or on the wall of my office. I certainly can’t bring myself to display the side in which the face of Lenin appears. He was not the monster Stalin was, but nor was he a very nice person. Am I being unnecessarily sensitive worrying about this, particularly when you can see similar things in many Russian-themed bars and clubs?

I really, genuinely, don’t have the answers to many of these questions. My gut usually tells me when something is “wrong”, and yet as a supposedly intelligent person I should be able to rationalise why. Why is it okay to joke to a Scottish friend that it’s a pity his ancestors weren’t all mown down on Culloden Field (and, actually, is it okay?), while any kind of joke about the Holocaust is, rightly, grossly offensive? No doubt it has something to do with the passing of time, but how much time must pass? Must all the survivors of the tragedy/genocide have died? If so, why are calls made for the UK to apologise for its slave past?

Like I said, I don't have the answers to many of these questions.

I'M ALIVE!

Fear not, readers. This brave blogger has survived the Tsunami.

I will describe the horror and carnage all around me once things have calmed down where I am, at the very centre of the chaos (the Auckland CBD).

But I'm alive. That's the important thing.

The Tragedy of Polanski

The outrage over Roman Polanski's arrest grows louder, but also sillier.

Here's what American actress Debra Winger (and President of the jury of the Zurich film festival) has said:

[The arrest] is based on a three-decade-old case that is all but dead but for minor technicalities.

Would they be the "he committed a sex crime, pleaded guilty and then fled the jurisdiction" technicalities?

The Wet Bus Ticket That Really Stings

Mathieu Bastareaud probably wishes he'd been born under another name.

Because the headline writers are just loving the current story.

Some are calling Bastareaud's punishment the equivalent of a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket. And that is probably true. The penalty appears no worse that a light corrective smack of a transitory or trifling nature.

But on the other hand it would be a surprise if Bastareaud's international career is not finished. And who would want to go on tour with the guy? Team management will have to get every hotel the team stays in to remove all solid furniture from Bastareaud's room.

Perhaps that is why Bastareaud recently spent time in a mental health facility: he was truly safe there amidst the soft furniture and bouncy walls.

For those who think Bastareaud's punishment is light, remember that the damage to his reputation will remain forever.

Do Artists Get Immunity?

Does justice have an expiry date? And if you do something truly monstrous, does being a great artist absolve you of responsibility?

I confess to being bewildered by the controversy over Roman Polanski. In particular I cannot understand why so why many otherwise sensible people think he is this victim in this affair.

I've never paid much attention to the man or his work, though I've always been aware of the grisly fate of his wife and the fact that he was unable to return to the US because of historic sex charges. I don't think I've seen many of his films (the overrated The Pianist is the only one that springs to mind), though I'm prepared to admit (as some people claim) that his films might represent high art.

But not until today did I appreciate quite what the charges related to. The victim was 13 years old. Polanski pleaded guilty, then fled the US. From what I have read today it would appear the victim has moved on from the past events and does not welcome the intrusion into her life.

Most of the apologists for Polanski have focused on how much Polanski has already suffered.  And his life story is one scarred by misery and death: his wife and unborn child murdered by the Manson gang, and his mother killed at Auschwitz during the war.

The Swiss Association of Film Directors and Script Writers has also called the arrest "a slap in the face for the entire cultural community in Switzerland". But why is this? Should aged sex offenders be given a free pass if they produce good work?

The only mystery about the arrest is why it has taken place at this particular time. Polanski has travelled in and out of Switzerland many times, without previous difficulties. It is tempting to think the Swiss were leaned on by the US authorities, and saw some political advantage in selling Polanski out.

But even if the motivations for the arrest are dubious, one can hardly have much pity for the director. His victim was a young girl, and he has admitted the sex occurred (even if he claims it was consensual). It is right that he faces up to what he did.

There is some suggestion that irregularities with the original trial procedure may lead to the charges being thrown out. But that will require Polanski's presence in the US. He will probably fight the extradition moves, however. But if he gets off this time, will he be able to travel again?

He might, of course, do the right thing, not fight the extradition, and have his day in court. If he truly regrets what he did then that would be a good start.

Was Hitler A Lady?

Tests on a skull fragment thought to be from the body of Adolf Hitler, appear to show it is from a woman.

The fragment, complete with bullet hole, was dug up by the Russians in 1946 outside Hitler's bunker.  Test results show the DNA is that of a woman. An examination of the fragment suggests she could have been no more than about 40 years of age.

The generally accepted story of Hitler's death is that both he and Eva Braun took cyanide, and he then shot himself for good measure. Their bodies were then apparently carried outside the bunker, doused in petrol and burned.

But the evidence of what happened to Hitler is actually quite thin. So the test results raise a number of intriguing possibilities:

• the Russians simply dug up someone else's remains, and mistakenly thought they were Hitler's. No big deal. Some of his remains may still be in the area (though rumours have long circulated that the Russians found the still-smouldering remains in 1945 and send them back to Russia)
• Hitler escaped the bunker and died somewhere else, probably during the fall of Berlin
• Hitler escaped Berlin and died in cosy retirement in South America
• Hitler escaped Berlin and still lives in cosy retirement in South America (he'd be about 120 years old though, but the Lizard People might be keeping him alive with their secret technologies)
• Hitler was a woman and was much younger than everyone thought.

My own view is that there's not enough evidence to doubt the accepted story of Hitler's death. The fragment changes nothing. It would hardly be astonishing to find in Berlin in 1946 a skull fragment with a bullet hole in it.

But it might give Dan Brown a plot idea for his next book. An evil dictator living in secrecy in the bowels of Rosslyn Chapel, his lifeforce extended by drinking daily from the Holy Grail, and only one man can stop him etc etc...

Herald Shock: Headline Misleads!

Has anyone else noticed the new tabloid style of the Herald?

The new headline style is in keeping with the direction the paper is heading.

This is the new headline style:

An example is:

Clearly the story below the headline is supposed to SHOCK! The horror! The horror!

In this case the headline is misleading, because a headline that tells us a lawyer has been suspended would suggest the lawyer's been struck off or been subject to disciplinary proceedings.

In this case the lawyer concerned has been suspended from a list of legal aid lawyers. That means she's not able to claim legal aid for her clients. It's serious for her, as it appears most of her income is legal aid related. But it's not a disciplinary proceeding.

Still, the Herald has not of late been well disposed towards lawyers, especially those working in the legal aid area. So it's no surprise to see this kind of treatment.

I don't know anything about the story, although I vaguely know the lawyer at the centre of the story (I worked with her many years ago). But the headline misleads.

Was anyone else frightened by the recent meteorological events in Australia? Eerie red skies over Sydney caused by dust.

It reminded me of that famous adage:

Red skies at night, sailor's delight
Red dust at dawn, OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! IT'S THE APOCALYPSE! DOOMED! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

Talking of the Apocalypse, there's a good article in Salon about various previous predictions about our demise. So it might just be premature to suggest the dust will do for us. We've seen these predictions before. And after all, if anything's going to get us it'll be the Muslim-Obama-Reptile-Socialists (once they've finished gorging on our children).

Fraudster Targets Lawyers: A Nation Weeps

There's an interesting scam doing the legal rounds at the moment. The scammer is targeting lawyers, of all people. Top marks for balls, at least.

The scam is a clever but simple one. The law firm receives an email from an overseas company asking if the firm will act as the company's lawyer to assist with collecting debts from the company's customers in the region. The firm agrees to act and shortly afterwards receives a cheque from the "debtor", which the firm banks. The "client" pressures the firm to forward the funds, less a retainer, to the "client" before the cheque has cleared. The firm does this and the cheque subsequently bounces.

LawTalk, the fortnightly magazine of the New Zealand Law Society, reported yesterday that a couple of firms in New Zealand have almost fallen for the trick, and apparently an Australian firm got caught out.

My own firm got such an email yesterday, so the LawTalk warning was timely, though frankly the email from the "client" would set alarm-bells ringing in most firms. Here's what the "instruction" email looks like.

When you take instructions by email from someone you've never heard of before, you have to be careful. You could start by googling the person concerned. If you search "Michael Blair Royal Power" this comes up as the first hit.

And the email itself: nobody writes to a lawyer like that, especially not if the writer is the GM of a supposedly reputable firm with an international presence. The email refers to "your region", rather than New Zealand, the grammar is poor, and there is a section cut from the second paragraph (a poor cut and paste job). So this particular variant of the scam looks to be a pretty clumsy one.

However, even where the email is more sophisticated the scam should still not succeed. Lawyers should not pay money out to clients until the proceeds they are relying on have cleared.

Goofy Goes To New York

John Key clearly enjoys being in the limelight. He's like a goofy kid that suddenly got noticed by the important people. He fawned over Barack Obama, and allowed himself to look like a grinning fool when delivering the "Top Ten" on the Letterman show yesterday.   And what an unfunny batch of jokes they were. Key should have flat refused to deliver them.  My respect for Key would have been enhanced if he'd walked over to Paul Shaffer and given him a slap. I don't normally advocate violence as a solution to problems, but when it comes to Shaffer's incessant and annoying commentary I think we could make an exception.

Key has enjoyed this limelight so much he now wants New Zealand to seek a seat at the Security Council. Having a seat at the big table sounds fine, so long as there's no international crisis at the time putting pressure on us to lean one way or the other. It will also give Key (or his successor) the opportunity to strut about the world meeting more important people. Something Key clearly enjoys.

The contrasts between Key and Helen Clark are striking. Clark was always something of a dour figure, at least publicly. She would attend All Black games and sit in the stand looking bored, whereas Key clearly enjoys such occasions. But on the international stage she had a real presence and command. Key still looks like he's dazzled by the bright lights. For example, when Key met Obama I thought our PM was going to wet himself or have an attack of the vapours.

I don't intend this to be an outright attack on John Key: he seems personable and approachable, and that's a useful political asset. But I like my leaders to have a bit more substance when they're on the international stage. Key needs to work on fixing this image if he wants world leaders to take New Zealand to seriously.

Obama's Latest Groupie

From the Herald:

Mr Key and the president met for the first time when Mr Obama approached the prime minister unexpectedly at a lunch hosted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

The pair chatted for two or three minutes.

"Well it was great, he came up, I was sitting at my table and he came over and said `look it was great to see you, fantastic to have a chat on the phone, (I) look forward to seeing a lot more of you."

"Who me? Ohhhh... Mr President...."

Reality time: nobody in the US cares about Key, his visit, or New Zealand. That's not the PM's fault. It's just the way it is. We're nobody on the global stage.  The Key-Obama meeting was one of many the President had, and Obama probably forgot about it immediately afterwards. So why is it so newsworthy?

It's a big deal because of the cultural cringe factor. NZ on the global stage is like a small insecure child desperate for the big kids in the playground to like us. Whenever a foreign expert comes to NZ and says how much he/she likes our country, we go all gooey. When someone dares to criticise us over anything we get offended, outraged and hurt.

The fact that we care deeply what strangers think, rather than having the self-confidence to not worry, suggests there is still much to do before this country can ever call itself mature.

I'd care more if Obama visited NZ, because that would actually expose the most powerful person in the world to more than a handshake and polite pleasantries. But these short meet/greets, while useful, are hardly front page news.

Five Headlines We May Hope To See Tomorrow (Updated!)

Here are my picks:

I'm sorry: Mayor Laws

Sue Kedgely slams "nanny state" food regulation

Colonel Gadaffi admits accusing other countries of supporting terrorism "ironic"

Nick Smith: We'll make polluters pay

And my favourite:

Obama remembers name of NZ prime minister

What are yours?

Update!

Kiwiblog community thanks Sue Bradford for her contribution to politics

We're Still Number One!

The Imperator Fish Blog Rankings are out again.

AND WE'RE STILL ON TOP!

In case you've forgotten, here's how the ranking methodology works:

Take the overall page hits for the blogsite and add them to the total number of postings made.

Add flour and eggs and beat until the mixture is soft and fluffy.

Place the mixture in a metallic bowl and microwave for two minutes.

Have your local soothsayer or village crone examine the wreckage for signs.

Divide the result by nine. You now have your blog ranking.

This Month's Top Ten

Here are the top ten blogsites in New Zealand (previous month's rankings in brackets):

Imperator Fish (1)
The Stranded (3)
Kiwipelicano (13)
Pubic Address (4)
Assaulting Harold (4/5)
Rictus Kate (666)
LogBlog (<>{}*)
Red Panic (@)
Panned-it (-4)
Kiwibog (banana)

But But But!

Is it time to break open the champagne? Because things are looking up!

• we're technically out of recession, with actual GDP growth
• the Cullen Fund bounced back from its earlier losses to post healthy gains in the later part of the financial year
• Fonterra announced an increase in the payout forecast, meaning dairy farmers will have more cash in their pockets
• Our current account deficit has shrunk significantly.

But...

• the GDP growth was only 0.1%. Better than negative, but still flat
• imagine how much happier the taxpayer might have been with the Super Fund result had the miserable Nats not suspended all contribution payments. They say they can't afford to put money into the fund unless they borrow. There are two schools of thought on this issue. One says you never borrow to invest, ever. The other says you buy up big when the market's at the bottom. This "recovery" might prove to be a false one, but if it really is the beginning of something, the Nats may well be ruing their decision to suspend contributions
• the Fonterra payout is a projection only. Dairy prices are still highly volatile
• the shrinkage in the current account deficit was partly due to a large one-off tax payment by the BNZ, and due to lower returns on investments by overseas investors. Hardly matters to get excited over.

And here's why we're really up the creek:

• the NZ dollar is way too high. It was trading above US73c earlier today. Exporters are suffering enormously, and this affects every sector of the economy. The dollar rises and falls, staggering about like a drunk man. And the NZD is one of the top eight currencies traded in the world, even though we're a miniscule economy by world standards. Clearly we're at the whim of currency speculators. I don't know what the answer is, not being one of those fancy-pants economologists, but surely we need to look at some form of currency control, or at pegging our currency to a less volatile one. But that won't happen - not in the short to medium term. Our PM used to buy and sell money, and is unlikely to support any form of currency control. But we should at least be prepared to talk about the idea
• we're addicted to real estate. There's no easy fix to this. A capital gains tax might help, but it's unlikely to itself be enough. And it would be political suicide for any party to introduce, unless the other main party agreed to go along with it. Labour has indicated it's prepared to talk about the issue, but John Key has more or less rubbished the idea
• there are few incentives to invest in research and development. The R&D sector has been starved for years. And both political parties are at fault. Labour at least had the sense to introduce an R&D tax credit, but the accountants who run National Party policy squashed that fast. The Government's approach to innovation has, it's fair to say, been underwhelming.

So maybe we'll not pop that cork just yet.

We'll probably muddle along, as we always do. The trouble in this country is we don't have the visionaries in power prepared to lead us in the right direction. And that's not a dig at the Nats, because Labour didn't exactly shine a light.

Even if the recession is over (and I'm yet to be convinced), I predict a long period of minimal growth and tepid business confidence.

But then economics is basically crystal-ball gazing, so I could be hopelessly wrong. If I am, don't be too hard on me. I'm not paid a cent to write this stuff. Most of the economists we hear daily in the news media are hopelessly wrong all the time, and yet we still listen to them.

But I'm not personally worried. Powerball's at $20 million this Saturday, and I'm pretty sure I have the winning numbers.

The Disgrace That Is Formula One

It is almost impossible to believe that, after one of the most outrageous cases of cheating in sport, the team responsible has been given the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.

I am of course talking about the race-fixing charge laid against the Renault team in Formula One. Renault didn't even contest the charge.

Motorsport officials have argued that the people responsible for the race-fixing were former team principal Flavio Briatore and former executive director of engineering Pat Symonds, and that they are the ones who ought to be punished (Briatore got a life ban, Symonds five years). That is supposedly why Renault escaped with a suspended sentence: a lifetime ban from the sport, suspended for two years.

But that is absurd. When the head of an organisation is caught up in corrupt practices, as occasionally happens, we expect the organisation to be punished, especially if that organisation has benefited from the practices. If the CEO of a major company colludes to fix prices, or to dump toxic waste in a river, we expect that company to face massive penalties.

So why not Renault? It's hard to see anything other than politics at play. Formula One is run by two of the most unlikeable men in sport, Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley. It's a venture that is less about sport than money.

Clearly, punishing Renault might cause significant harm to the competition, and Formula One simply can't afford to hit Renault too hard. But for how long can Formula One's masters continue to act so disgracefully? At some stage the fans may just start moving towards the door.

More Insensible Sentencing

It's official: we imprison more people than ever before, but still it's not enough.

Let's look at some of the more "interesting" ideas to come from the Sensible Sentencing Trust conference this weekend.

Judges should be elected

I assume this would involve a popularity contest, with the candidate who promises to hang the most offenders getting the job.

But ask yourself what attributes your ideal judge would have. For most people those attributes would be competence, a good legal brain, a commitment to justice, and a reputation for honesty.

Then ask yourself how likely it is for an elected person to have those attributes. How often is it said that the people who seek public office are usually the worst suited for the job?

But these considerations are of little importance to the folk at the SST. For only one quality matters to them: he/she must be a bastard towards crims.

Abolish right to silence

The right to silence is one of the fundamental rights of the accused. It goes hand in hand with the presumption of innocence.

But the SST want that changed, and they want the defendant forced to take the stand during criminal trials.

Stephen Franks, lawyer for the SST, said:

At present judges warn juries against drawing what are sometimes obvious conclusions from the defendant not taking the stand. This has been changed in Britain for a long time and we’d like to see it done here too.

Franks is right that the rules in England and Wales are different to those here. But the circumstances in England and Wales where a judge may draw inferences from the silence of the accused are quite limited. No such limitations are suggested in the SST's proposal.

The SST press release indicates there is little concern about the rights of the accused:

Brian Brown, whose daughter Natasha was killed by Michael Curran in 2005 said it was unfair the defence could cross-examine anyone on the stand pursuing some rubbish explanation while their client could not be made to answer questions on the same topic.

“Natasha’s husband was grilled by Curran’s lawyer during the trial until he broke down. Why should a slick lawyer be able to answer on behalf of the accused when everyone else has to tell their story in their own words?

“If the person charged with the crime is so certain they are innocent then why won’t they stand up publicly and say it? It’s because they are guilty and don’t want the jury to see them caught out in their lies,” said Mr Brown.

So it would seem abolishing the right to silence (unless done very carefully) will put the onus on defendants to prove they are not guilty.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?

Three Strikes Law

This is not exactly new, but the flaws with ACT MP David Garrett's bill have been written about so widely, it's a wonder he continues to advocate for this law change.

The real problem

Victims of crime deserve our sympathy for the horrible things they have been forced to endure. I can only imagine the utter rage I would feel if someone hurt one of my children. No doubt I would want the person responsible for the deed killed. And yet I don't believe in the death penalty.

That is the problem with letting victims influence sentencing. Sentencing involves a myriad of factors, with the need for societal retribution being only one. If we give our system over solely to the needs of victims we may as well just bring back hanging, because that's logically where it has to end.

If we let emotion and anger rule our judicial processes, and if we do away with the checks and balances that currently exist in the system, we will only succeed in creating more injustices. And remember, the families of people in prison for crimes they did not commit are also victims.

Chris Finlayson On The Profession

The Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, has hit out at the legal profession, claiming that incompetent lawyers are responsible for stringing out court cases.

He made these claims on 12 September in a speech to the New Zealand Bar Association.

His audience appears to have greeted the claims with a degree of hostility. This is to be expected. When a group of people is attacked in this way, they tend to circle the wagons.

Finlayson's comments were directed towards the criminal bar.

Too many lawyers practising at the bar are incompetent, or worse, and there is no proper means of assessing their competence or requiring them to be properly educated.

We're breeding a class of barristers who don't even know how to address the court, much less know how to cross-examine, write submissions and act in a professional manner.

I haven't seen the full text of the speech, but the extracts I've seen suggest a fairly blunt assessment of the legal profession.

In my own career I've come across a good many incompetent lawyers. It is relatively easy for someone to get a law degree, and those who practice in small firms often don't get the support, training and mentoring they need. It's no surprise then that a good number in the profession are probably not fit to be in practice. 

But I'm not a court lawyer, so I cannot speak definitively about the standard of the Bar. However, I'm sure it cannot be so different to the rest of the profession - there will be the vast majority doing a good job, and a few letting the side down. 

In some countries lawyers are required to undertake regular continuing-education activities. Such activities may include attending legal seminars or writing papers. The New Zealand legal profession has no such requirement, though proposals to introduce continuing-education requirements are discussed from time to time.

Not all of the delays with court processes and hearings can be attributed to the legal profession.  It is a common tactic of police to "overcharge" offenders, in order to pressure them to admit to a lesser charge. And police will often drop a charge at the very last minute, even though the matter may already have been set down for a hearing. And let's not forget more and more people are being put through the courts. The ongoing beating of the law and order drum means more offenders and more pressure on the courts.

But that aside, Finlayson is a smart guy, and is generally well-regarded in the profession. His concerns need to be taken seriously. Any move to encourages an improvement in the quality of the legal profession must be a good thing.

Oh Chris, Not Again!

Chris Rattue must have the memory of a goldfish.

Because I'm sure the Herald sports writer spent much of this year and the last telling his readers how awful the All Black coaches are, and how much better Robbie Deans would have been as coach.

The ledger in All Blacks-Wallabies games since Deans took over the Australian team stands at 5-1 in favour of New Zealand.

Rattue is also clearly incapable of giving credit where it is due. The All Blacks were superb on Saturday, dominating in every area of the game. But according to Rattue, the reason for their victory is the awfulness of the Wallabies, and All Black cheating.

He gives grudging credit to a couple of New Zealand players, then continues to blast Henry and co.

My longtime readers may recall this article, where I said of Rattue:

You are the print version of Murray Deaker. You are to sports journalism what Michael Laws is to sensible political discourse. You express opinions loudly, and castigate anyone with a contrary view. I just don't know how you can hold any informed opinions about the state of New Zealand rugby when you admit to being too bored to watch much of the Super 14.

Nothing has changed, has it?

I know in that article I also vowed I was finished with Chris. I am ashamed to have gone back for another look. I have cheapened myself...

Rhodes vs MacDonald: Orly Taitz Is Humiliated

Anyone who follows US politics will know who Orly Taitz is.

She is a lawyer, dentist and real estate agent. But if that sounds like a wacky combination, it's not as wacky as some of the things she has been saying about President Obama.  Because Orly Taitz is the High Priestess of the "Birther" Movement.

In Orly-world Obama is a Fascist-Stalinist-Kenyan-Muslim. She has accused Obama of everything from hiding his true identity, to murder and fraud.

Orly Taitz

Rhodes vs MacDonald: Round One

Taitz was behind a recent lawsuit by Connie Rhodes, a US Army captain. Rhodes sought a court order preventing her deployment to Iraq. Rhodes had trained as a medical doctor. In exchange for the taxpayer funding the bulk of her training, she agreed to serve for two years in active service in the army. She began active service in 2008, but it was not until she received news of her deployment to Iraq that she decided to question the orders given to her.

Rhodes' case was based on an argument that her orders were unconstitutional and unenforceable, because President Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be Commander in Chief of the army. 

Unluckily for Rhodes, Orly Taitz represented her in the proceedings.

Judge Clay D. Land tossed the lawsuit out on the grounds that it was frivolous, and warned Taitz that the further filing of frivolous lawsuits would lead to sanctions against her.

That alone was humiliation for the woman called by many the "Queen Bee" of the Birthers.

But Judge Land wasn't finished with Taitz. His judgment is both entertaining and scathing of Taitz:

She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is "an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter."

Judge Land savaged Rhodes' claims that Obama's birth certificate could not be relied on and should be presumed as a fraud:

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his "natural born" status. Thus, Plaintiff's counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to "prove his innocence" to "charges" that are based on conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.

Judge Land gave no weight at all to the "facts" alleged by Rhodes:

To the extent that it alleges any "facts," the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff's individual constitutional rights. Unlike in "Alice in Wonderland," simply saying something is so does not make it so.

Post lawsuit reaction

Orly Taitz was unable to contain her outrage over the result of the case. Of Judge Land she said:

somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama.

And:

This is so outrageous what this judge did -- it goes in the face of law and order... Not every judge is as corrupt as Judge Land. Some judges believe in the Constitution. And some judges believe in the rule of law.

And:

Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime -- just like in the Soviet Union.

Her comments have so outraged some that she is now the subject of a California bar complaint.

Rhodes vs MacDonald: Round Two

Taitz then filed an emergency request for stay of deployment late last week. This too was dismissed by Judge Land, in another colourful and scathing judgment, that begins "it was deja vu all over again".

This filing contemptuously ignores the Court's previous admonition that Plaintiff's counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda.

Judge Land was not amused, and ordered Taitz to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for her misconduct.

He went on to blast Taitz:

Remarkably, in her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not even attempt to distinguish the legal precedent cited by the Court in its order of dismissal. She simply repeats the same bare and conclusory allegations that the Court found frivolous in its previous order. A motion for reconsideration that does not address the legal basis for the Court's previous order is frivolous.

And:

Finally, it is clear that Plaintiff's counsel seeks to continue to use the federal judiciary as a platform to further her political "birther agenda". She has provided no legal or factual basis for the Court to interfere with deployment orders of the United States Army.  She supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation and conjecture, which have never been sufficient to maintain a legal cause of action. She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the President as a "prevaricator", alleges that the President's father was "disloyal and possibly treacherous" to the "British Crown", accuse the undersigned of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are "subservient" to the "illegitimate" "de facto President".

Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff's counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.

The conduct described above warrants that sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff's counsel, Orly Taitz.

A Final Twist

How much trouble is Orly Taitz in? A lot.  She has a bar complaint to handle, and almost certainly a $10,000 fine to pay.

It now also appears Rhodes never authorised Taitz to file the appeal. Rhodes has written a letter to Judge Land, stating “I did not authorize this motion to be filed." The letter goes on to say:

Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.

Taitz is probably the worst kind of lawyer to have: unstable, driven by her own agenda, and blind to reason or contrary evidence. Her supporters will probably claim this is yet more evidence of a vast conspiracy. But for Orly, her courtroom days may be numbered. At least there's still dentistry and real estate.

Judge Me By My Clothes, Not My Actions

Possibly the silliest thing I read last week was an article in the Listener by Douglas Lloyd Jenkins.

His article, entitled "A guy thing - or a gay thing?" asks why New Zealand men dress so badly, and then proposes some answers.

We Kiwi guys are largely an unfashionable lot, and most of us are content to slouch about in any old clothes, so long as they are comfortable. That hardly seems a problem, does it? Should we care what we wear?

According to Lloyd Jenkins, we should:

Learning to dress ourselves counts as one of the key indicators of child development - later, the ability to make individualised decisions around how we dress is one of the key experiences of adolescence. Experimentation with clothes is one way we determine who we are and discover our fit as an individual within society.  How then did New Zealand men get to the point where access to individual self-expression through clothing has essentially been deleted as an option? The answer lies in recognising that the fashion choices made by Kiwi men are the direct result of the way masculinity has developed in New Zealand.

Apparently, because women and gay men are more interested in clothing than heterosexual men, the confidence of heterosexual men around clothing has receded. Men apparently don't want to "look like poofs":

Clothes are a gay thing and Kiwi men know it.

Lloyd Jenkins explains the way men dress as a "sustained case of Gay Panic."

But if that is a stretch, Lloyd Jenkins then heaps all the woes of mankind on a failure to dress in a way that presents a confident and individual expression of men's deeply masculine selves.

Perhaps it's too long a bow to draw to suggest the boy-racer culture, road deaths, rising violence, vandalism and out-of-whack youth suicide statistics are the result of young Kiwi men failing to use clothing as a simple mode of self-expression. But it seems men who can't dress individually for fear of being ridiculed as gay are left with an increasingly limited and potentially more lethal list of activities with which to experiment.

And so it goes on.

So why do men dress badly and does it matter? The why is pretty simple. We have evolved from a society of farm labourers and shopkeepers. The working man of our past had no need for "fancy clothes": his wardrobe was purely functional. And New Zealand society, until quite recently, was socially conservative. If you had nice clothes, where would you have worn them? The bowling club? The RSA?

That is a more a sustainable argument than a "gay panic" one.

Some men probably won't dress in loud clothing for fear of being perceived as a "homo". But I suspect most men just don't care about the clothes they wear. Most of us want to fit in and be "normal", and this governs the clothing choices we make. That's why most of us also have sensible haircuts, drive Japanese cars and mow our lawns regularly. 

Lloyd Jenkins is also way off the mark when he insinuates many of the ills besetting young men can be put down to poor clothing choices. It's an outrageous thing to suggest, and because he offers no evidence in support, his theory can be easily dismissed.

For most men clothing really isn't a big deal. A man who dresses well may be self-confident. But could he not also be excessively vain? When we judge people by the clothes they wear we are likely to end up misjudging.

By Popular Request: Another Fool

Jordan writes:

Scott, a suggestion for the next fool of the moment: Garth McVicar, for his advocacy of elected judges in New Zealand.

Jordan then links to this Herald story:

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is to campaign for judges to be elected rather than appointed, an idea the attorney-general has called "unthinkable nonsense".

Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the policy had been raised during the trust's annual conference in Taupo yesterday.

"We need to make judges more accountable, and the only way that can be achieved is to move towards a system where judges are elected," McVicar said.

Elected judges would bring a world of troubles to our system. Candidates would inevitably stand on a "law and order" platform and promise tougher sentences. And don't we want our judges to be the smartest people in the legal profession, rather than the most ambitious?

When even Stephen Franks says "I wouldn't favour it myself", that tells you the idea is so out there it's frankly bonkers.

I find it hard to believe McVicar hasn't yet been inducted into my shabby Hall of Shame, but better late than never. Just for Jordan, Garth McVicar is the new Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment.

All Blacks Shock: Some Players Like To Spend Time With Their Kids

The Herald has been on the hunt. And this time it appears the All Blacks are in its sights.

To be fair to the Herald, it's not as if the national team haven't been criticised in every other form of media.

But there is something potentially troubling with the Herald's coverage. In the paper this morning is a story critical of the team, and suggesting heads may roll if they lose tonight's game. In the online version of that story All Blacks Rodney So'oaialo and Ma'a Nonu are pictured with their children.

So what? I'd have normally thought nothing of it too. But earlier in the week the Herald asked readers what needed to be done to stop the rot in the team. Pictured with the "Your Views" story online (though it doesn't appear any more) was All Black Mils Muliaina with his young son.

I can only assume someone wants us to think our boys are soft because they spend too much time with their children.

Thankfully that is not the only view at the Herald, as this story would suggest.

But it indicates someone at the Herald has an "interesting" attitude towards men and their families.

Let's Vote On It

Since it appears we're going to have a referendum on MMP on 2011, it's time we looked at some of the alternative voting systems that could be offered to us.

And Germany is a good place to look.

Here are a couple of models for us to consider.

The Baden-Württemberg system

This system is used in the German state of Baden-Württemberg to elect members to the state legislature.

The official site of the Baden-Württemberg parliament explains how the system works:

The electoral system is a combination of proportional representation and direct or personality election. The number of seats of the parties in Parliament is determined by the votes they obtain throughout the electoral area (proportional representation). The allocation of seats to the parties' individual candidates is determined by the number of votes these candidates receive in their respective constituencies (direct election). There are only constituency candidates, that is, each candidate must run for election in one of Baden- Württemberg's 70 electoral districts. In contrast to federal elections, each voter has one vote under this system, which he casts for a candidate in his district. However, this vote is counted twice, once in order to determine the number of seats going to a party in Parliament, and a second time to determine the candidate of a party to whom these seats will be allocated.

The total number of direct mandates is 70, one from each of the electoral districts. At least 50 more mandates are secondary, allotted to those candidates who, while not winning a direct mandate, obtained the largest number of votes in a district in relation to their party's other constituency candidates. This results in a minimum number of 120 Members of Parliament. With the so-called "over-hanging" mandates allotted to a party and because of the necessary adjusted compensatory mandates for the other parties, the total number is much higher. Presently there are 139 Members of Parliament in office, each one representing on the average 77,300 inhabitants of this state.

Got that?

The Schleswig-Holstein method

Everyone gets two votes. Your first vote goes towards your favourite party, while your second can either be used to choose a particular candidate, or can be used at any Shell or BP store to get discounts on fuel.

Your party vote is then counted and put through a random-number generator machine. If the number is 10 or more your vote is discarded. If the number is 5 or less your vote carries over to the following weeks' draw. If the number is more than 5 but less than 10, your vote is fed back into the machine.

The army then takes over and installs its own puppet PM.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau approach

Everyone gets a number of votes. The number they receive is determined by a formula.

Simple really.

Other voting systems

Mixed-up Member's Transferable Post

This is what happens when your NZ post mail redirection goes wrong.

As a result of some mix-up at the post office, you don't receive your electoral enrolment information, so don't register to vote and miss out on having your say. Before you know it you're living in a state of misery, crushed under the jackboot of oppression.

Thanks NZ post.

The Rhythm Method

They tell you this system is foolproof: the best and easiest way to avoid having your life ruined by a noisy tantrum-throwing attention seeker.

Then you find Rodney Hide holds the balance of power.

No No No!

Another petty rage at the media

I direct this rage at TV3.

Here's a picture from tonight's news:

Spot the problem? Yes, provocation is not a defence. It's a partial defence.

Why does this matter? Because if provocation were a defence, Ferdinand Ambach, the subject of the provocation story, would have walked out of court a free man. A legal defence is exculpatory. A legal partial defence merely reduces the offence - in Ambach's case from murder to manslaughter.

I probably wouldn't be so grumpy had the reporters not also constantly referred to provocation as "the defence". Don't they do any research?

This is not up there with the Holocaust or the Manson murders in terms of evil. But it is sloppy work. The ongoing use of the term "the defence" suggests the subject is not understood by 3 News or its reporters.

Grump ends.

Principles For Sale Here: Any Takers?

Isn't it odd that Maori can't have seats on the new Auckland supercity council because it would show favouritism toward Maori...

And yet... they can have free home insulation if they live in Northland or the East Coast.

John Key has tried to argue that the free-insulation scheme does not favour Maori, because anyone in the relevant areas who has a low income may apply.

That's disingenuous, however. After all, the low income people in those areas are predominantly Maori.

The scheme was a deal worked out with the Maori Party in order to get the Emissions Trading Scheme law through. But the trade-off seems to go against core National Party principles.

At least we know now that potentially all of these core principle are capable of being traded away.

Pete Hodgson Joins The Birther Movement

Sometimes, rarely, you hear a good political interview. And Sean Plunket is one of the better interviewers.

He does, unfortunately, have a tendency to go in too hard, and the results can often be an unpleasant slanging match where he just ends up badgering and harassing the interviewee.

But that aggressive style has its place, and is best used when confronting a mischief-making politician.

This morning his target was Pete Hodgson [I'll post the link to the interview later].  Hodgson was on air to continue his ongoing public questioning of Bill English (The Standard has a summary of the questions asked by Hodgson in Parliament yesterday) about English's claim not to have a pecuniary interest in the trust that owns his residence in Wellington.

It is pretty clear that, regardless of whether English's behaviour was legally justified, from an ethical and moral perspective English was on shaky ground. The Finance Minister has more or less acknowledged as much by agreeing to pay back some of the money he claimed.

But Hodgson continues to chip away, no doubt in the hope of inflicting a "death by 1000 cuts", the kind of ongoing assault on a politician's character that saw the demise of Benson-Pope and Worth.

Hodgson's argument is that English should disclose details of his trust, to prove he is doing nothing legally wrong. In the interview this morning Plunket asked Hodgson if he had any evidence English broke the law. Hodgson confirmed he had no real evidence, but refused to say English had not.

That led to a delightful series of exchanges, in which Hodgson continued to demand full disclosure of English, to prove he had not done anything legally wrong (even though Hodgson had no proof of wrongdoing), while Plunket continued to demand proof of wrongdoing and accused Hodgson of smearing English.

Hodgson's argument reminds me of the arguments the Birthers use to attack Obama, i.e: "I think you were born in Kenya. Prove you were not". Shouldn't the onus of proving something be on the person making the allegation?

It was pure gold, and Hodgson went away with his tail between his legs, sounding like a fool.

Hodgson would have been safer had he simply attacked English's "moral" failings.

Memo to aspiring politicians: if you're going to suggest someone is in the wrong legally, have some proof.

We All Like A Good Bit Of Murder

The main news story for the last couple of days has been, predictably, the Clayton Weatherston sentencing. For his efforts in butchering Sophie Elliot he earned a minimum non-parole period of 18 years.

As many media commentator were quick to point out, that’s one month for each stab wound inflicted. Though somehow I doubt that's how the judge worked out the sentence.

The Herald was quick to post pictures of New Zealand’s worst criminals as soon as the sentence was announced. Weatherston is clearly in distinguished company. I wonder who collated the list. Maybe it was a group effort at Herald head office. I would love to have been there to observe:

“Oh this guy killed his wife”

“So what? This guy not only killed his wife, he cut her into pieces and ate her kidneys in front of their three children. Smackdown! You lose!”

But then the media revels in tastelessness when it comes to law and order issues. Nothing beats a good murder: an evil sneering killer, a grief-stricken mother, and a shocked nation. But the hysteria incited by the Weatherston case can only go so far in excusing this opening to last night’s news bulletin on 3 News:

When Clayton Weatherston was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in jail, tears were never far from the surface.

From his family of his victim Sophie Elliot, from her friends, even the judge, and Weatherston himself shed a quiet tear when his father spoke.

But none of that’s going to bring back Sophie, who was 22 years old when she was stabbed to death in her Dunedin home by her former boyfriend.

I’m old-fashioned when it comes to stuff like news. I want to know the what, then when and the how. What I don’t need is this pap masquerading as news. Of course the Weatherston sentencing is news. So, please, TV 3, treat it like news and spare us the embellishment. Tell us who said what, what happened and when, and leave the rest for us. I think we can work out for ourselves that a whole pile of people are pretty upset.

With this kind of hysteria about, it’s no surprise what the results of the Herald poll on the topic were. The question was "What do you think of Clayton Weatherston's minimum sentence of 18 years?" About 87% of the respondents said "too little". I assume that’s because the only thing that would satisfy them is for Weatherston to be executed, and for his head to be put on a pike and paraded around Dunedin.

But the typical Herald poll respondent has anger issues. Here is a template for your typical Herald poll:

The lurid nature of our crime reporting is a symptom of the tabloidization of our mainstream news media, a process that is now upon us. Its advance is irresistible, as newspapers and other media outlets cut back on journalists and look for cheap and easy stories. Proper analysis takes effort and resources. But a good crime is a breeze to report, and in the case of a case like Weatherston's, the script practically writes itself.

Fairly soon the only things reported, apart from these grisly murders, will be how horrible and feral young people are (for the older generation: e.g. Dunedin riots, South Auckland "yoof", boyracers) and celebrity news and gossip.

We’re already well on our way.

Why Are Ghosts So Camera Shy?

I love tales of the supernatural.

Especially when there's photographic "evidence" of ghosts or monsters.

Isn't it funny though that the evidence is always blurry, or the spectre is seen from a distance?

Aren't there any vain ghosts?

So I loved this story:

A property manager got a fright when a ghostly figure turned up in a photo she had taken.

Brigid Curran used her cellphone to take some pictures of a rural Helensville property she oversees, and it was not until she returned to her office that Brigid saw what appeared to be the figure of a woman standing in the background by the fence.

"I thought, hang on. There was no one standing there when I took the photo," she says.

Brigid sent the photo to the tenant, Janet Stansfield, who replied saying she was unfazed.

"Oh that’s just my Maori lady, she likes my garden," she told Brigid.

The evidence is this photo:

Underwhelmed?

What, you were expecting something more shocking? Maybe a pair of glowing eyes peering from a white sheet? Or a ghastly gruesome face to make your blood chill?

The person/thing is blurry and indistinct. It certainly has the shape of a person's upper body. So is it:

1. a live person who just happened to be peering over the fence at the time?
2. some kind of joke/stunt by someone desperate for attention?
3. something else on the fence that just happens to resemble a person?
4. a spectre from the pits of hell come to suck our souls away?

Being something of a sceptic, my money's on 1 or 2.

Feel free to speculate. Aliens? Nazis?

Herald Headlines 'Misleading', Says Jesus

The Herald headline reads "All Blacks 'disgraceful', says Fitzpatrick".

Wow! The former All Black great must be about to lay into the team big time...

Wait... it appears he is talking about the lineout, not the team.

The correct headline should have read: "All Blacks lineout 'disgraceful', says Fitzpatrick".

Not as catchy, but more accurate. But is accuracy important anymore?

******

Here's another headline designed to get the blood pressure up:

"Rich keenest on hand-out for insulation".

It turns out that high income earners are more likely to take up the Government's home insulation subsidy.

Well duh...

Could it be something to do with the fact that it still costs a lot of money to insulate, even with the subsidy? People with more cash are going to be able to afford to spend money on their houses.

Perhaps this headline should have read: "Rich people have more money to spend on renovations".

Again, not so catchy.

******

At the time of my writing this over 90% of Herald readers want the "Undie 500" rioters to be convicted, rather than diverted.

Maybe they should have had a third option: "killed". Then we would have seen a drop in the number seeking a "mere" conviction.

I wonder how many of the Herald's lynchmob did silly things when they were young. Did they have too much to drink and maybe make a tit of themselves? One or two of them may have even thrown a bottle or two.

Do they really believe convicting these young people, making criminals out of them, will make a difference? Well it may, but not a positive one. It may destroy the career prospects of a good many.

I don't condone idiotic behaviour, but let's put it in context. Most of the people arrested were probably just kids who had too much to drink and got carried away with the moment. So divert them if they're first time offenders. Everyone deserves at least one chance to screw up.

Other Interesting Titles You May Have Missed

  

What I'm Reading

Sunday Grumbly Sunday

... in which I realise my recent work is beginning to resemble a column by Bill Ralston or Joanne Black

Cameron Slater continues the revolving door policy towards bloggers on his site Gotcha.

He has now recruited serial attention-seeker Lisa Lewis.  Her desire for fame and attention is such that I can't imagine an event she wouldn't take her clothes off for, especially if TV cameras were nearby.

So how does her blog rate? Well, it's pretty dire. Whatever attributes she has, they do not include proper sentence construction or coherence. Read it yourself if you have the patience or fortitude.

That's yet another side of Lisa Lewis I have no desire to see more of.

******

I had a bad day yesterday. Thanks to the delights of parenthood, sleep has been a rare commodity of late. This has made me tetchy and grumpy, as well as fatigued. So I was hoping the All Blacks would give me a lift.

I had a lingering bad feeling about the game before kickoff. I've had bad feelings about this team all year,  but I was hoping this particular bad feeling would prove unjustified. Alas, it was not to be.

At halftime I thought "this sucks. Go to bed." Not just because we were losing, but because as a spectacle the game was a nothing. I admire good goalkicking, but when players are taking penalties from inside their own half you know you're in for a tedious game.

But I held on to the end. And the game at least got interesting, even if we continued to follow the same "brainless rugby" prescription we've been adhering to all season. With 20 minutes to go Richie McCaw turned down a  penalty kick, almost straight in front. It was a dumb decision, and almost everyone else (apart from the guy that mattered) must have known it too.

After that I knew we were stuffed. We came close in the end, but it never felt like we were really in it.

It's typical, though, that the mud hadn't even dried from the players' boots before people were calling for the coaches' heads. But who exactly is there left to take over? All the other good coaches are overseas. And when the game-turning moments happen because your senior players let you down (Carter's pass being intercepted, McCaw turning down a shot at goal), how do you fix that?

SA's two tries came from bad stuff-ups: a lineout we should have won and an intercept pass. If we can sort out our lineout and cut out the brainless rugby we'll be okay. Hell, we may even come within 10 points of Australia this week.

******

When your party's down in the polls, when there are questions about your party's leadership, and when the guy in charge of the Other Party appears unable to do anything wrong, how do you go about regaining credibility?

How about announcing a policy of subsidising condoms?

(Update: Oops, apparently it's not official policy: just a proposal. Will the public appreciate the difference?)

I'm not saying the policy's a bad one. But the timing, when Labour's trying to rid itself of some unwanted "nanny state" baggage, is unfortunate.

And it gives the Right some new talking points for the next few weeks.

Will anything else important or interesting come out of the Labour Party conference? Probably. But will we hear about it? I doubt it.

******

Why do the two main newspaper groups think we care about the lives of drug addict twenty-somethings?

I simply don't care what Millie Elder and her friends smoke, imbibe, inhale, swallow, snort or inject.

Nor do I give two hoots about their legal difficulties.

Perhaps the publicity these vacuous people crave serves a purpose. I'm sure the obligatory New Idea and Womans Weekly tell-alls to inevitably follow will help pay their legal costs.

Have You Brushed Your Teeth Tonight, Voters?

It is the end of a long week, and I have neither the stamina nor the mental faculties today to write anything profound.

So I'll just string together a series of gripes and complaints and call it a post.

******

The headline reads "'Horror House' murder accused revealed".

I know the crime the guy is accused of is an ugly one, but can we at least try to give him a fair trial? Enough of the "horror house" claptrap.

Grrr!

******

That Simon Cowell has an ego the size of a large Mediterranean island is hardly a secret.

Now he's suggesting the Fab Four would have only been the Fab Three, if he'd had his way.

I'll agree Ringo is the least talented of the four. But you don't break up a successful band just because someone else might be technically more proficient. The magic that was the Beatles might have been lost.

In ten years time nobody will remember who the supremely dull Cowell even was. Whereas most people will still regard the Beatles as the greatest pop/rock act of all time.

******

Can we agree that a drunk cop behind the wheel is not the biggest news story of the day? So why lead with it tonight, TV3?

******

Did the Crafar family really think they would achieve anything other than lasting public contempt by going on TV and talking to journos this week?

In their case saying nothing would have been the wisest course of action. Their whining over having to follow the same rules that almost every other farmer has to, would not have moved many. Especially since the real reason why they're selling up is that they're up to their eyeballs in debt.

We like a good villain, and they played their part for a day. But will they please now piss off into the sunset?

******

Jim Anderton, what is the point of you?

Why would anyone want membership of two political parties? They can only cast one party vote.

Admit you're finished and just retire.

******

Nanny state! Now Peter Dunne tells me I have to brush my teeth!

This would never have happened under Comrade Klark.

Good and Bad Sports

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but why is it that three days after telling the media that referees picked on his poor players, Springbok coach Peter de Villiers is now refusing to meet with the IRB's refereeing boss?

The success of his team cannot be questioned. But I often wonder if that success is in spite of de Villiers' efforts. Because whenever he talks to the media he comes across as an oddball. Whether that oddness translates to innovative coaching, or whether someone else in the coaching team is doing all the work, is a mystery to me.

******

And while we're on the subject of sport, would the NZ netball team please get some attitude?

I wonder if there is a complacency problem within the Silver Ferns squad, because nobody in the squad ever seems that upset when we lose.

Maybe it's time for some changes in the coaching staff. The current coach has been there a long time, and there has been no noticable improvement in the performance in the team over the last couple of years. Is it time for Ruth Aitken to go?

******

It's a different a story for the Black Caps. After all, unless they're playing Bangladesh they are expected to lose almost every time they play.

I saw a clip of Vettori on one of the cricket shows on Sky Sports. He was in the changing room taking his team to task for their supine efforts in the last test. He was clearly upset. I liked his honesty.

Vettori was the only NZ player to perform consistently in the test series and to show some fighting spirit. We won a couple of the 20/20 games (who cares though?), but now with the ODIs on it's business as usual.

******

Finally, since we're on the subject of sport...

My boy is fast becoming a golf fanatic. This worries me because:

• he is only two and a half
• I can't play golf to save myself
• golf is an expensive sport
• I don't particularly care for the sport.

I'm not sure where his obsession for golf, or "ball in the hole" (as he sometimes calls it) came from. But he'd rather watch golf on TV than kids shows. He watches more sport than I do.

And he loves the sports news on TV. He gets a fix of cricket (another passion - at least that's a shared one), "ball in the net" (soccer), "ladyball" (netball), "ruggy", tennis and racing cars in one hit.

Is this normal?

The Mask Slips?*

(Picture from Auckland Stuff. Hat tip: Red Alert)

* Yes I know he's not really a Nazi. But funny still, no?

On The Tron

So the South African rugby team don't think much of Hamilton, and prefer to complete their test preparations on the Gold Coast.

However, as Hamilton local body politicians and tourism types have been telling us, there's plenty to see and do in Hamilton.

As a former Hamilton resident I can now reveal my seven all-time favourites.

#7. The fine art

#6. Waitomo Caves (i.e. not in Hamilton)

#5. Raglan (i.e. not in Hamilton)

#4. The river (i.e. sailing out of Hamilton)

#3. The wildlife

#2. Fine dining (but not since Georgie Pie in Frankton shut down)

#1. THE ROAD NORTH

Afghanistanian Democracy

So why are we in Afghanistan? Clearly it's not because we want to see democracy flourishing there.

A UN-backed commission has declared it has "convincing evidence of fraud" in Afghanistan's elections.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has tried to bat away allegations of vote-rigging:

As far as the elections are concerned, there was fraud in 2004, there is today, there will be tomorrow. Alas, it is inevitable in a nascent democracy

Alas, it is also inevitable that when you try to impose a "democratic" system on a people more used to being ruled by warlords and tribal leaders, the guy who ends up in power will be corrupt.

Most of the alleged vote-rigging has occurred in the south of the country, Karzai's political base. There can be no question that Karzai's faction is trying to secure his election without needing a further run-off poll.

All of this should be of concern to the West. We cannot be seen to support a government in Afghanistan that has no legitimacy.

Of course, it may be that the war there is already lost. I don't know, because I'm not an expert in the area. But the reports coming out of Afghanistan are less than encouraging.

Right now there must be a few Russian war veterans quietly smiling to themselves and thinking "told you so".

Small Island Nation Moves To The Left

The people of the small island nation of Aotearoa faced a daunting task this morning, as a new law forced them to move their political affiliations to the left.

The law came into effect at 6.00am local time.

As expected, there was chaos as people jostled towards the left, and with internet traffic on various left-leaning blogsites backing up.

The law change came into effect with the Prime Minister of the small idyllic nation, John Key, issuing final instructions over the radio.

"After this announcement you will all be permitted to move to the left to begin this new era in our history," Mr Key told his people.

The law change has caused uproar in this normally sleepy island nation. Proponents of the law change argue that it will bring Aotearoa into line with other utopias, such as North Korea. But critics claim it will lead to a flood of tired and clapped-out old socialists into the island nation.

Sellers of kaftans and incense are expected to prosper under the new regime, while others have complained that the change has destroyed their livelihood.

One man, who wanted to be identified only as "David", said the law change was likely to destroy his lucrative online forum. "I have to start singing the praises of the Left now", said David. "There's only so much lauding of Sue Bradford my readers will tolerate."

David said that his community of followers would be left adrift and leaderless. "Nobody cares about the real victims here. Good honest, slightly rabid, angry white guys with issues. Who's going to take care of them now?"

But of David's followers have already seen the light. One, who wanted to be called "Red", said he had opposed the law at every stage. But having tried the shift to the left, he was now in favour of it.

"This loony socialist leftist communist brainwashing is all-right by me, man," said Red as he lit a large cannabis joint and proceeded to sing Keep the Red Flag Flying.

Are We Stupid Enough To Get Rid Of MMP?

What are we to make of the news that Cabinet are preparing for a referendum on MMP?

And why the sudden announcement? Especially after the mauling Key has received in certain sections of the media, after he ignored the results of the silly smacking referendum.

Here are my theories:

Distraction

The economy's stuck in a hole and someone's run off with the ladder. There won't be much good economic news for a while. Key must be wondering how he'll fight the next election. Well why fight it? Make sure the main issue for debate in 2011 is the electoral system. Do that and people might just forget how bad things are, and give Key three more years.

Bolster power of Nats

A First Past the Post election would probably wipe the Greens out. Rodney Hide would survive, as would the Maori Party and Peter Dunne.

Against them would be Labour and some old guy in Christchurch who must be thinking about retiring soon anyway.

Result: the Nats remain securely in power for several more years to come.

Of course, that presupposes the Nats will campaign against MMP. Key will probably play the statesman, so it will be left to other senior National members to attack the current system. And I predict they will.

John the champion of democracy

Maybe Key just wants some heat taken off him. He wants to be liked, and the recent claims he is anti-democratic for ignoring the recent referendum must hurt. By announcing that the MMP referendum result will be binding, he may convince people he's listening to the masses.


Anyway, what I really want to know is this: what actually is wrong with MMP? When it was introduced many of its opponents predicted we would have a succession of unstable governments where nothing would get done. We would have legislative paralysis.

Instead we've had a series of stable governments clinging mostly to the political centre, and politicians have actually talked to people in other parties. 

But I'm sure we'll hear how awful the current system is in months to come. MMP will be portrayed as bad for business (they won't tell us why: we'll just have to trust them), bad for stability (again, trust them), allowing minorities to hold governments to ransom.

And if we're stupid enough to give them what they want we'll only have ourselves to blame when we discover the party in power can do what it likes, despite the wishes of the majority. Remember the'80s and early '90s?

Isn't that why we demanded a change to MMP in the first place?

Where's Robbie Williams?

The Herald has released the results of its "Your Views" poll on the most overrated bands and singers.

I find myself agreeing with much of what the Herald’s readers think. And, really, when you consider that most of the respondents to a recent question on Michael Laws' behaviour thought he was a top bloke, it's a frightening prospect.

Thankfully, there is much to disagree with.

So here's the top 20 most overrated bands/singers:

20. Lady Gaga:  Has she been around long enough to be a musical phenomenon? In a year we’ll probably have forgotten her. Hardly deserves to be on a list like this.

19. Neil Finn:  One of the elder statesmen of NZ music. He doesn't really deserve this place.

18. Britney Spears:  Supremely untalented, relentlessly uninteresting. But doesn’t everyone know that? Can you be overrated if nobody actually rates you?

17. Madonna:  Probably fair. She’s done some good work, but probably gets more airtime than her work deserves. Brand over substance?

16. Shihad: A poor call. The epitome of the hardworking solid Kiwi band. Some great tunes and a good live act. What exactly are they doing in this list?

15. Miley Cyrus:  Yep.

14. Amy Winehouse: Wait, she sings? I thought she was just some celebrity drug addict.

13. Mariah Carey:  Yes. I got given a CD of hers once as a prize. I can’t remember if I just binned it, or attacked it with tools first.

12. AC/DC:  I can’t stand their music. I just don’t get it. All their songs sound the same. What’s the appeal?

11. Celine Dion:  Pure torture. I suspect the War on Terror has seen a boost in sales, because this is just the sort of music to soften up any terrorist suspect. Deserves to be on any list of worst things.

10. Nickleback:  Hard rock for tweenies. Just awful.
 
9. Abba:  I’m not a fan. To be fair, though, they were enormously successful in their day. And they have influenced the annoying-pop-ditty genre hugely.

8. The Beatles: Huh? Didn’t they basically invent modern rock/pop?

7. Pink Floyd:  This just pissed me off. Okay, I’m a fan, a big fan.  The original link to the question had a picture of Dark Side of the Moon next to it. It was rigged, dammit!
 
6. Nirvana / Kurt Cobain:  Hugely influential in the US rock scene, to this day. Harsh, man. Harsh.

5. Michael Jackson:  This one's a bit rough. Maybe it was funeral fatigue?

4. Oasis:  Dull, execrable music by a bunch of Beatles wannabes. The Beatles had talent. Oasis had a couple of catchy tunes and a succession of crud albums afterwards. And the whole “attitude” thing is boring.

3. Dave Dobbyn: Maybe too many hearings of Nature's Best? he's on almost every second track. Hardly fair for a guy, some of whose tunes are Kiwi anthems.

2. Coldplay:  The navel-gazing twaddle they spouted upon the release of their latest album made me want to be ill. I have a couple of their old albums and a couple of their tunes are passable. But they are up there with U2 for tiresome self-importance.

1. U2:  Yes! I’ve been saying for years they’re the most overrated and overhyped band on the planet. They had some good tunes early in their career, but everything since the Joshua Tree has been average at best.

Feel free to share your opinions. Are there any glaring omissions?