All the news that's shit to print.

Xtra’s home page this morning lead with the “news” that there still had been no charge laid against the four English rugby players who had allegedly raped a woman in Auckland. It seems to me a strange lead. With all that has happened in the world, why would you lead with something that has not happened? The fact that those players will be subjected to an internal enquiry by the English Rugby Union may have some news purpose and that could well have been the lead. But it wasn’t. And nor, in my view, should it have been. The whole story seems fatuous from the start. It smacks of xenophobic prurient interest by our media who seems to have time as well as something else on their hands. Yes, I guess there is a place for that type of thing in our media, and readers and viewers for it, but I can’t help thinking that the investigative expertise of the reporters involved could be placed better elsewhere. For example they could investigate how a country of 4 million, akin to a small city elsewhere, can afford to shell-out almost $500 million to a small sector of society while many in our community suffer and the welfare system disintegrates around us. The “Treelords” deal, the latest but not the last in a long line of multi-million dollar so-called Treaty settlements may or may not be morally justified. But, looked at realistically and altruistically (neither of which seems to have much to do with Treaty settlements), could not have Maoridom who negotiated this deal with a compliant government have said, “look you have $500 million in assets and back-rental, we’ll drop the claim if you ring-fence those funds for an injection into our heath system, in putting more police on the beat and resourcing our schools—in helping the total community”? But no. Instead we have something like “open up your coffers, we’ll see how much you have to spare, add 10%, take it and later come back for more. And wile we are at it we have a couple of cousins lining up behind us.” I don’t think that lady was raped, no matter what inference the media take from what happened, but I think the country is.ow many more police the $400 million spent on the “Treelords” settlement would put on the beat or doctors in our wards.

----------------
Now playing: Johnny Cash - The Wall
via FoxyTunes

Fitting the Bill

I can’t say I am sorry to see the back of Hilary Clinton; I find it much preferable to her front. Bill probably does to, given that he spend much of his time these days tagging along behind. But in the final numbers before the national convention it is Hilary who is behind though it is, gratifyingly for her and no doubt Bill, quite a small behind. She may well be still in a position to pull it off with and for Barack Obama. The size of Obama’s constituency is of concern to him and Hilary’s ability to pull off many thousands of blue-collar workers will no doubt appeal to him, as it no doubt does to them. If Hilary can spread what many see as her best asset and sweetly pull in a huge constituency seeking instant relief she will be giving Obama the hand he desperately needs, while blowing off McCain at the same time. She has already demonstrated she can get down deep and dirty, though not perhaps as visibly as husband Bill. Obama is yet to do so, or even to give any indication that he likes to do so. Which is probably why, when I think about it, he hasn’t gone down, and Hillary has.

----------------
Now playing: Tony Joe White - Catawalling Alley In Nice
via FoxyTunes

How Now Brown Brow

I know someone who devotes her life to improving that life. She devours every course and book on self-improvement, self-assessment and self-recovery she can find. The problem is she has been so busy planning her voyage of self-discovery, she has never actually embarked on it.

Nevertheless, earlier this week, with a little time on my hands, I decided to try something similar, though with less conviction and with more modest goals. I began with addressing the big questions of the Universe—questions of Life and purpose; questions that in many cases had led to wars and, less often, had halted them; questions that had taxed, indeed plagued, greater minds than mine, questions such as: why do we have eye-brows?

Well, let me say at the outset that nothing else in our lives, short of the existence of my wife or if you live in Canterbury Robbie Deans, epitomises a Higher Being at work than eye-brows. They are a miracle of nature, an extraordinary evolutionary retainment after much else has been expelled. And for good reason; those tufts of hair, it has been ordained, serve great purpose and have therefore been retained. Eyebrows, it seems, are there to help keep moisture out of our eyes when we sweat or walk around in the rain. The arch shape diverts the rain or sweat to the sides of our face, keeping our eyes relatively dry. The most obvious advantage of this is that it lets us see clearly when we're sweating a lot or out in the rain. Without eyebrows, getting around in these conditions is a little more difficult. The shape of your brow itself diverts a certain amount of moisture, but eyebrows make a significant difference in your ability to see. Diverting the sweat away is also good because the salt in sweat irritates the eyes, making them sting a little. That at least is what sweaty-scientists tell us.

Of course the arching of eyebrows is also a very significant sign of disapproval or questioning. And this is used to frightening effect by our present prime minister and more recently by John Key, though the latter has not yet mastered the technique. Of some interest also is that the World’s most famous Italian widow, Mona Lisa, had no eye-brows; Lisa Presley, conversely, has them to excess.

There you go: in a short few words I have succeeded in enriching your life and without a book or course in sight. Say thank you Fryday.

Monkey see, monkey do

“Using only its brainpower, a monkey can direct a robotic arm to pluck a marshmallow from a skewer and stuff it into its mouth, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.”

This Reuters story from Chicago put me in mind of Dr Cullen’s budget presentation last week. The analogy of the good doctor being the monkey and the Prime Minister being the robotic arm is inescapable. Increasingly, we are finding that the Prime Minister and much of her party are on auto-pilot as their third term in office winds down. Only Dr Cullen, that master Machiavellian manipulator, shows any of the fire that in the past so consistently trounced a permanently frustrated and insular National Party. And it has to be said, in Fryday’s view, the National Party has not changed with the advent of John Key. If anything, it seems to be more confused and conflicted than ever. So, The National Party can take no credit and no complacency from the state of the Labour Party. National could still win the election in October, but that may be because Labour lost it, literally and figuratively. And here is an interesting point—does Labour want to win? Of course they do. And for the most superficial reasons: the perks of power. But with a recession coming on, inherent tiredness (even exhaustion) there already and the prospects of highly-paid jobs in the private sector or international stage already lined-up it could it be suggested that Cullen and Clark want to go and to leave it to Goff, et al. There is no doubt that even at this late stage Cullen in particular can pull something out of (and of) the old fire. The question is whether, with what he sees in prospect, he will do it?

This week we honour the Queen. R.I.P. Freddie.


----------------
Now playing: Queen - Queen - Crazy Little Thing Called Lo
via FoxyTunes

The Kahui Code

So Chris Kahui has been found not guilty with, what some will see as, unseemly haste in terms of jury deliberations? That is unsettling. Fifteen minutes? Deliberations deliberately delayed until after the free lunch? Did this jury have something better to do? Did they all decide after the lunch that a quick decision was necessary so that they could all rush away and, instead, deliberate on Dr Cullen’s budget? Or replays of State of Origin?

It is not for me to comment on the jury’s finding. I wasn’t there and didn’t hear what they heard. Nor do I know enough about the case. But the haste in which they arrived at their not guilty question begs some further questions:

• Should the Police/Prosecution have brought it to court in the first place?
• Was there a single point/evidence in the trial that swayed the jury and after that all else was academic?
• And costly?

And mostly…

• If not Chris, who?

The last is what I find most disturbing. That and the fact that the Police have already announced they are not seeking anybody else or intending to lay any further charges in relation to these murders. Let’s recap: two babies died. Chris and Cru Kahui, twins, were fatally injured on June 12, 2006, and were admitted to Middlemore Hospital the next day, dying five days later at Auckland's Starship Children's Hospital.

They had severe brain injuries, broken ribs and Chris had a broken leg.

And nobody is to now be blamed? Yeah, I am pissed. This is SO wrong! Do you remember when Arthur Allan Thomas was “pardoned” for the murders of the Crewes? Police effectively closed that case, also without further investigation.

Therefore…

§ If we don’t get our own way, first up, we give up?

And two children die, and nobody, nobody, is held to account.

It stinks.

----------------
Now playing: John Lennon - Woman
via FoxyTunes

It's Fun Being Green

Yesterday for reasons that chose not to reveal themselves to me but, sadly, seem to be intrinsic to my current character I chose to look up the official definition of the word malcontent. Webster defines it as “someone who bears a grudge through grievance or thwarted ambition,’ Dictionary.com describes such as a person as “someone who is chronically dissatisfied.” Some of you perhaps thought after reading last Fryday that I too was a malcontent. Believe me, I am not. I know many malcontents—well, three actually—and I am not one. Far from it. I am a realist and, paradoxically, yet understandably for those who know Maggie, a romantic. Still, my ease of mind and equilibrium has been tested of late when I go the website of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance http://www.royalcommission.govt.nz/, look up the public submissions and put my name into the search field. Nowhere I think will you find a more comprehensive or indeed better example of the term malcontent or a life orphaned.

Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat.—Horace.

----------------
Now playing: John Lennon - Woman
via FoxyTunes

They're strange, folk.

The job I am in is to be “disestablished” early next month. Now, I thought I knew most euphemisms as passing acquaintances but disestablished is new to me and, from my research, new to most dictionaries. And therein lies the problem, this rather awkward but nevertheless crucial word is so full of ambiguity that there is no clear definition of what it actually means. In vies with Monty Python’s Dead Parrot sketch as a trove of synonyms. You remember that sketch, don’t you? How many ways could you say that the parrot was dead? Here’s the relevant part of the script:

CLEESE: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

I am told by the Online Dictionary that disestablish means my job is to suffer something akin to either circumcision (“to alter the status of something established by authority or general acceptance”) or reverse excommunication (“to deprive {a church} of official support). That’s the verb. Even more daunting is the noun. Yes, there is one: Disestablishmentarianism. That’s not so much a word as a journey! Even worse: antidisestablishmentarianism.

But there other words and phrases just as strange and they have taxed my brain of late. Here’s a few to share with you.

1. What does lipstick stick?
2. Can we actually feel like crap?
3. Why do women’s problems start with menopause or men for that matter?
4. What does “I’m stumped” really mean?
5. How do you actually wrap your head around something?
6. How do you “peel” your eyes?
7. Could you really “care less” or simply not at all?
8. Do teeth really have skin?
9. Does toothpaste only handle one tooth?
10. If “at the end of the day” is your final thought aren’t you wasting the night?
11. Bob must have a bloody big family if he is uncle to so many.
12. Does wishing someone “a good weekend” mean you don’t give a shit about the rest of their life?

---------------- Now playing: Tony Joe White - Closing In on the Fire (with Lucinda Williams) - (The Heroines - 2004) via FoxyTunes

Skirting the Issue

There is on the Internet a particularly deviant and devious genre of images called Upskirts. These images, photos taken looking up a woman’s skirt, fall into three categories: those that are clearly posed with the knowledge of the woman, those that are taken deliberately but illicitly without the knowledge of the woman, and those that are a “mistake” such as a shot taken as a skirt-clad woman (usually a celebrity) extricates herself from a car or is on a low seat. In this last category there is a photo of Hilary Clinton taken I think during a TV interview. It is not a particularly pretty picture. And that may well be the reason Mrs Clinton has taken to wearing those dreadful pants suits. Conversely it could be that she is simply demonstrating metaphorically who wears the trousers in the Clinton family. Then again she might simply be trying to replicate the political success of our own Helen Clark who also has a propensity for pants suits. Helen of course also looks dreadful in them, but she at least looks better in them than anything else, short of aluminium. Whatever the reason for Senator Clinton’s pants suit pilgrimage, somebody should tell her that that mode of dress was mercifully put to sleep in the 80s along with “power-dressing”, waterbeds and American artistic integrity. If she persists I despair of her becoming President. Helen AND Hilary? My god! The only thing that may save us is Hilary’s husband Bill. Bill, the next time Hilary asks, as all wives do, “Do I look fat in this?” For God’s sake lie and say “Yes!” You can lie, can’t you? Have a good weekend. Maggie’s home Saturday.

----------------
Now playing: Amazing Rhythm Aces - The Beautiful Lie
via FoxyTunes

Nipple Lust

Each age brings forth men and women who, from force of action or possibly personality, live on in our memory and mindscape. I exclude here of course all Americans, whose contribution to the hero list has largely been the product of nipple-lust and the need to grab hold of anything to justify their existence and lack of history. But elsewhere we have had genuine colossi such as Alexander, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, St Paul, Williams Blake and Wilberforce and, in our own age, Keith Locke.

Of late I have been reading of Cicero, an impressive Roman orator and successful lawyer from the First Century BC. He is appreciated primarily for his humanism and philosophical and political writings. His voluminous correspondence, much of it addressed to his friend Atticus, has been especially influential, introducing the art of refined letter writing to European culture. Cornelius Nepos, the 1st-century BC biographer of Atticus, remarked that Cicero's letters to Atticus contained such a wealth of detail "concerning the inclinations of leading men, the faults of the generals, and the revolutions in the government" that their reader had little need for a history of the period. Very much like Fryday, now that I come to think of it.

During the chaotic latter half of the first century BC, marked by civil wars and the dictatorship of Gaius Julius Caesar, Cicero championed a return to the traditional republican government. However, his career as a statesman was marked by inconsistencies and a tendency to shift his position in response to changes in the political climate. His indecision may be attributed to his sensitive and impressionable personality; he was prone to overreaction in the face of political and private change. Very much like John Key, now that I think of it.

Which is why I am drawn, sadly, to the conclusion that Mr Key and National will not now win the next election.

----------------
Now playing: John Starling - The Other Side Of Life
via FoxyTunes

Let There Be Daylight

Yesterday I was accused of being part of an assiduous group that this year had allowed summer in Rodney to extend beyond prudent levels. I pleaded guilty. The insidious group is the Rodney District Council and it is true that they/we made the conscious decision after the last election that we extend summer and smiles in Rodney to unprecedented levels. We succeeded in the former; we are still working on the latter, but it will happen. Next week.

English builder and outdoorsman William Willett invented daylight saving in 1905 during one of his pre-breakfast horseback rides, when he observed with dismay how many Londoners slept through the best part of a summer day. An avid golfer, he also disliked cutting short his round at dusk. His solution was to advance the clock during the summer months, a proposal he published two years later. He lobbied unsuccessfully for the proposal until his death in 1915. Germany, its World War I allies, and their occupied zones were the first European nations to use Willett's invention, starting April 30, 1916. Britain, most of its allies, and many European neutrals soon followed suit; Russia and a few other countries waited until the next year; and the United States adopted it in 1918. Since then, the world has seen many enactments, adjustments, and repeals. There are hold-outs, most prominently and with most effect to us Queensland.

However New Zealand has adopted daylight saving enthusiastically and this year extended it by a further three weeks. Some advocate retention of daylight saving 365 days a year, and there is some merit in that. But we in New Zealand have never been great savers, and when we do against all expectations succeed, as we have with Dr Cullen's current surplus, we are so wracked with indecision about what to do with those savings we eventually lose them all together. Besides where do we save all that daylight? The poet and the lover would say, "In our hearts, we store it in our hearts." We cynical would say, "No good! It would only come up with the vomit from that 'heart' line."

We have indeed had a long and enjoyable summer with even farmers, who incidentally have never advocated for daylight saving, being neither poets nor lovers, getting their long needed rain just at a point when the drought was going into the beyond recovery state. But I am over it. I am happy with my coming winter of content and I take to my heart Benjamin Franklin's famous pronouncement that "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise." In this, my 57^th winter, I am hoping that Franklin got at least part of it right.

A Comfortable Existence

I have never fully described or indeed subscribed to the adjective “creative.” I don’t know what it means, but I do know what the trappings mean. They mean that as long as I describe myself as a writer I can get away with most everything. I can be moody, sullen, non-communicative and sexually rampant. That’s what “creative” people are supposed to be (unless you are John Grisham) and it covers in delightful obscurity a multitude of sins…or at least explains them. A comfortable existence. But it’s also a crock of shit. Last night I enjoyed the company of good people, two of whom are professional writers. But…each of whom (in this case) is also a husband, lover and friend to a spouse. And somehow the pretensions, elitism and wankerism just kinda faded away under scrutiny, assessment, and…quiet smiles one of which would be Hemingway’s in a quiet grave.