...

[labellementeuse]

I am horrified and revolted by the letters in today's paper. Just... god, I knew people like that existed but I try to avoid thinking about it and these were in your face. I desperately need to make a reply to each of them but I don't think the papers would take it so...

In order to understand the following rant, if you wish to, you need to know that...
... John Tamihere, a member of the Government (who I support- the Gvt, not John-), is one of those politicians who is sometimes perfect and sometimes terrible. But just recently he went off the deep end in a sort of shady magazine, referring to his colleagues in the government variously and creatively as queers, butches, smarmy, etc etc etc. Rather revolting all told. He also made reference to what is known in certain circles as the "lesbian cabal"- referring to the fact that most of the top governmental positions in this country are run by women, some people (mostly men and idiotic women like Rosemary McCloud. Die, die, bitch) assume that of course they must be lesbian, because any woman who, you know, has an important job simply MUST be "a dyke." Gah.

Anyway, these letters are in response to his comments and the furore that arose after they were published. I picked the two that horrified me and the sensible one- so there were others in there but they were pretty bogged down in NZA politics so wouldn't make a lot of sense anyway. No names are attached because gah.


A Straight Answer, Please
I note with interest Prime Minister Helen Clark's response- "I have been happily married for 23 years"- to being questioned about her sexuality.
Instead of a confirmation or a denial, she cleverly changes the subject by making a statement of fact that does not necessarily answer the question.
An unequivocal and straight answer is in order as the public has a right to understand the motives behind the radical social engineering that this Labour government has undertaken over the last 5 1/2 years.


Dear Sir,
Firstly, what a clever title to your letter- obviously you much admire petty witticisms, to go with the petty content and tone of your letter.
Secondly, and relating to your content, it seems to me you have missed the point entirely. Surely what is important is not the sexuality of our Prime Minister but the fact that she has been married for a number of years and has never succumbed to the temptation of an extra marital affair, or divorcing and trading the legal spouse for a younger model. The leader of the Opposition, however... well, let's not go into that, shall we?
Lastly, fool, if the Prime Minister were lesbian do you think she would have been happily married?

Fuck off and die.
Love,
Me.

GAH GAH GAH. *so annoyed* This, frankly, is a dumb and irrelevant rumour helped along by the undeniable fact that Helen looks and talks like a man. Which, wierdly enough, doesn't make her lesbian- but people seem to have serious issues grasping that fact.



Tamihere Should Go
Labour MP John Tamihere has shown by his extraordinary outburst that he has neither the temperament nor the politics to serve in a parliament of the 21st century and certainly not within the Labour Party.
By his own admission, he is incapable of representing the interests of women, Maori, gays or working people, whether men or women. He should go.

Dear Madam,
Thank you for being the only sensible correspondant in a paper full of idiots. Many, many thanks for leaving me some vestige of faith.

Love
Me.



A Disruptive Influence
A nation's social wellbeing is measured not by the degree of individual freedom to do what one pleases, but by the degree of harmony engendered by equitable social policies that encourage the populace to go about their daily lives with a feeling of self-worth and achievement.
Society today is encouraged to be self-centered and do what its members want with little or no regard for acceptable social norms.
Labour MP John Tamihere has recognised the disruptive influence the Labour coalition has had on society and finally voiced those concerns.
If anyone needs concrete evidence of the way such self-centered ideology can destory the fabirc of society, they need look no further than the Roman Empire. Society today is plagued by any of the very attributes that led to its demise.
These include apathy, bureaucracy, complacency, degeneration of intellect, excessive aging of population, homosexuality, creeping inflation, lack of qualified workers, moral decline, pacifism, political correctness and interference, rise in secular society and usurpation of powers by the state.

Dear Sir,
You horrify me. I simply have no words for how sickened I am by this piece of invective you call a letter. I almost find myself unable to comment but aware as I am that this merely suits your own purpose, I must ask you a few questions.
The Roman Empire also encouraged slavery, denied the vote to women, engaged in the barbaric Circus, and so forth. Strangely you do not mention these as factors in its downfall- nor the gluttony that they practiced. Were they then not a problem in the Roman Empire? Was the size of the Roman Empire and lack of effective leadership not, then, a problem? What prrof, in other words, have you that it is the things you suggest that caused its downfall, rather than the things I suggest?
Also, if the Government is doing what its constituents want- surely a part of democracy, although perhaps you would prefer a theocracy?- how can it then have "no regard for... social norms"? I think that social norms are represented by the feelings of the constituents. Rather, I suggest, the Government is acting counter to your own, personal, private idea of an "acceptable social norm", one not shared by the rest of the country or government- thank god.

No love.none.
me.



Yeah, I saved the worst for last. I feel ill now.

Comments

Classics Student.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

If anyone needs concrete evidence of the way such self-centered ideology can destory the fabirc of society, they need look no further than the Roman Empire. Society today is plagued by any of the very attributes that led to its demise.

Ah, this should be good...

These include apathy,

I'm wondering how this has been measured. Maybe they mean the way the Romans realsied they should stop because if they tried to hold too much they couldn't hold it all.

Clearly our pushing the boundaries of space, exploring the entire world, fighting to understand the world around is is lazy and shouldn't be tolerated.

Or maybe it's the fact that we are all lazy lazy bums on the dole, with our low unemployment rate being a sign of... um... hmmm...

bureaucracy,

Well I've got to agree there, the more layers of bureacracy that creep in the more difficult governence can become.

complacency,

I think this is related to the apathy? WE are happy with what we have which is why so much is changing?

degeneration of intellect,

More university students, more literacy, more skilled people. How on earth do they see this in our society?

I think the only way this affected Rome was in that they conquered more and more peoples who weren't as advanced as them so the population included lower levels.

excessive aging of population,

?!

Quick, kill the elderly!

How the fuck does this letter writer think people being ABLE TO LIVE is a bad thing!? I can see how they might see it as a burden but fu-u-u-uck.

homosexuality,

Yes, those nasty Romans with their homosexual ways falling a mighty empire... Waitaminute. Sex had nothing to do with their empire failing, the barbarians invaded and the Romans were too spread out.

And Alexander conquered the known world.

And the Greeks were seen as a pinancle to aspire too.

creeping inflation,

Not an expert on economics, even classical economics...

lack of qualified workers,

Again, we have plenty of people working but more jobs than people. I wonder what this person does? And how they suggest we solve such a problem. By briubing people to take certain training? Seems a bit socialist doesn't it?

moral decline,

Absolutely no way of measuring this. We don't wage war on countries because they are a different religion or simply where we would like to be. I'd say that's good morals. Also we listen to everybody in society and give people a chance. Seems like good morals again.

pacifism,

Because War is the true sign of empire.

political correctness and interference,

I'm never sure what people mean by this sort of phrase...

rise in secular society and

I really don't see that in Ancient Rome... Seeing how the later Emperors enforced Christianity it kinda works against a lot of the inherent implications here.

usurpation of powers by the state.

What!?

What powers did the Anceint Roman government NOT claim? Being God-Emperor means everyhting you say is law. This jsut boggles me.

--

It's one thing to claim these things are bad for us. It's quite another to claim that they caused the Fall of the Roman Emprie....

I still don't know what to think of Mr. Tamihere (is that right?) as I haven't seen the original articles or seen much reporting on it.

However, people are stupid. Individuals can be clever...

Re: Classics Student.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:-/ Thank god for you and the voice of reason.

Yeah, you finally spelled it right. ;) It's not a difficult word, even...

As for what to think of him, I haven't read it but I found some fairly revolting excerpts from the article on the NZ Herald website, I think. >:(

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Reading these makes me feel stupid because I don't have much opinion on any of them. :(

But perhaps that's because I gave up on politics years ago??

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

If you don't have an opinion on those, Miriam, you horrify me, I have to say. Fine, disagree with me, but don't not have an opinion on some of the foulest invective I've read in a mainstream publication for a while. Not having an opinion? What a cop out, what a way to back away. This is not an abstract political issue here this is about people and society and judgement and what's important.

God.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Oh god.




What I realised I meant and tried to say was that I'm so disillusioned with politics now that nothing has an impact on me any more. No matter how insane and offensive it is. I hate it all so much I've turned apathetic. One, that scares me, two, it makes me think I've lost most of my intelligence. I'm disgusted at MYSELF.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:-/ Okay, relax, I don't hate you, I was just... sort of surprised? Yeah.

I dunno, I guess my reaction when I hate something is an urge to get up and rant about it- it's probably no more contructive than what you do, but... I dunno.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

And don't kill me but I agree with the last one right up until it gets to the Roman Empire bit. Then it descends into lies and bad logic. But the first paragraph seems reasonable. (Like Hitler.)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

But it's.... bullshit? It uses the word "populace"?

... what?

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

You know. The Nazis started off with their election campaign seeming relatively resonable but got weirder as they went along. or so I hear.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

A nation's social wellbeing is measured not by the degree of individual freedom to do what one pleases, but by the degree of harmony engendered by equitable social policies that encourage the populace to go about their daily lives with a feeling of self-worth and achievement.


That sort of makes sense. The rest of the letter is stupid.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

actually it doesnt make sense wtf? you're right.

[insane-ophelia.livejournal.com]

I am so glad that I'm not the only one.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:-/ Yeah.

[shoeless-girl.livejournal.com]

Just to play devil's advocate, it's the editor, or at least someone from the paper who comes up with the titles for the letters, not the authors themselves.

I have to agree with you on the general stupidity and narrow-mindedness of letter writers though. I don't know if you ever check out local papers (the kind that are delievered free sort of thing), but they REALLY get me going.

The first letter is obviously some moron trying to be smart. I don't know if I can even really be bothered addressing this one.

The second one, as you point out is good. Short and succinct (sp?)

The third one bothers me a lot, yet I am obliged to think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and they have the full right to be able to state said opinions. Saying this however, whenever I see someone mention "acceptable social norms" I shudder. Why is it always homosexuality that is picked out? I just don't understand why the end of the world will be caused by people having sex with people of the same gender. *shrugs*

People baffle me.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know. :p But I couldn't resist being snarky about it.

Yeah, I sometimes read the Wellingtonian and the letters vary wildly between extremes- occasionally there are very good ones but the others tend to be, um, either totally daft or infuriating. :-/ I was just mildly surprised to see them in a less off the wall publication.

Hah. People Are Stupid. Let's all adopt it as our motto.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

People. Are. Stupid.

But the Roman Empire thing? Gah. Just....gah. We studied this in Medieval History, and...um, hello, huge fucking theocracy being invaded by whole peoples and suffering from decades of misrule /=/ TINY SECULAR DEMOCRACY.

Plus the homosexuality thing? Um, ignoring the whole Romans having laws that favoured marriage and...just...gah. GAH.

Am so going and writing a letter to the paper RIGHT NOW.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

GOOD ON YOU.

I would have done it, except I never did the Fall of Rome and my thoughts on it are, er, nebulous. But thanks anyway. :)

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Here's the letter:

As a student of history, and a young woman, I am appalled by the ignorance and bias shown by two letter writers over the John Tamihere issue. We have Mirek Marcanik (April 8) telling us that New Zealand is following the path of the Roman Empire to collapse. I would question the wisdom of comparing a small, secular democracy to a sprawling theocratic empire built on slavery. Unlike present-day New Zealand, the Roman Empire was anti-homosexuality, aggressively military, theocratic, and relied on slavery to support a rich male elite.

Peter McKeefry (April 8) wants "a straight answer" from Helen Clark on her sexuality - would he prefer Don Brash, a confessed adulterer, to a woman who has been happily married for over two decades? This whole debacle, begun with Tamihere's description of a "lesbian cabal", reeks of misogyny and the attitude that women who aren't barefoot and pregnant must be "dykes". I can only console myself that the people who still hold most positions of power in this country and make up a majority of MPs - old white men - feel so threatened that they are resorting to this sort of desparate attack. Perhaps there is hope after all.

It probably won't get published, but I feel good having written it.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Apparantly it has to be under 200 words.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

That was exactly 200 words. I counted. Or Word counted for me, anyway.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Ah, I sisn't count at all, jsut wanted to let you know. In that case, I hope it gets in!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Rockage. Send it in!

[deinacrida.livejournal.com]

Ahh politics... like 5th form all over again. GO LIBERALISM!!! GO HOMOSEXUALITY!!! I hope that's straight enough for them!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*grins* You're awesome.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

UGH I'm not only suddenly apathetic and stupid (my opinion, nobody elses) I'm also turning into a slippery slope arguer or some such GARH. FULL FUCKING EXPLANATION BECAUSE I AM DRIVING MYSELF INSANE.

Can't agree with the lefties because I've been lectured at by my Act parents all these years.
Can't agree with the righties because it's all reactionary shit.
Can't like the current government because it all looks like it's running on personal agendas with not very much concession to democracy, and in my eyes that's not much better than Brian Tamaki-style nutjobs.
Can't like any of the other parties because they mostly all suck.
Therefore the tiniest whiff of New Zealand politics shuts my opinion-making centres right off whether I want it to or not.

I do think calling women in powerful positions dykes is misogynistic and ignorant, but I also have noticed that feminists of the generation that these women come from have a tendency to favour women practically to the point of misandry. So I can see where he got it from. Doesn't mean I agree in the slightest though. I only see buddy-buddy cabal. Which I don't like coming from any side, but which is inevitable in any administration.

I don't know what else John Tamihere said.

The first letter is just silly. I read it at interval and didn't know what to think. The last letter is a case of somebody thinking they know everything and bending the truth to make it fit their view of the world. Politicians do that too. Left, right, purplemonkeydishawasher. Politics pisses me off.

The second letter is truth.


The moral of the story is, I may or may not have got my brain back since this morning. The other moral of the story is Miriam is sickened by politics.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Okay, honey, relax, I can see you're in a bind. :(

Just briefly towards what you said about feminism vs misandry- I think that yes, there used to be an element of that in certain types of feminism, gbut it's an element that has died out. Moreover I don't think it was ever as widespread as some people (read:men) think... in fct look at what today's young women think of feminism. Rather than thinking of it as a movement which granted them the ability to vote, get jobs, think of themselves as equal to men, etc etc etc- they see "feminism" to equate with embittered man-hating lesbians. This attitude makes me totally furious because today's young women are buying into the male perspective on feminism.

Gyah. This is NOT what feminism's about, am I right? Feminism is the bizarre notion that women are equal to men (this is a quote, sort of.) Yet because of this idea bandied about it is almost universally mijudged in young women today. Grr.

PS: when I say "men" here, I don't mean all men, I mean some men. Actually, it could also include very stupid women.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Ah. Pure feminism vs public opinion of feminism... ;)I guess seeing as our generation was raised with the belief that women and men are equal, we only notice the extreme versions of feminism, because plain equality is just normal and not something young people in general think about. I doubt some young people register that feminism was ever anything other than man-bashing.

[yeliah-whiskey.livejournal.com]

Ergh. I feel your pain. There are some crazy fucked up psychos out there, non? What a shame they seem to be able to type a coherent letter. Maybe we should smash all their fingers so they never will be able to do such a thing ever again...hmmm *ponders somewhat*
<33

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:-/ There sure are. Grrrr

hey no instead of smashing their fingers we should ALL WRITE LETTERS and then they'd have to print them. :D

[tisis.livejournal.com]

I guess bigotry is the "right" way to do things, and intolerance and discrimination, you know, are what all "moral" and "astute" human beings should strive to practise.

Whether or not Helen Clark is lesbian or not shouldn't matter - I can't actually understand why it should be broached as a subject, quite apart from the issue of her marriage. Being gay in any form does not affect one's ability to function in whatever role one may wish to assume - I know for a fact that if you're gay, you're not less than human. It doesn't make you unable to get along with other people. It doesn't make you some sexual deviant. It doesn't make you untrustworthy. It doesn't make you unnatural. Of course, this comes from a gay guy (rather than "a gay", because it's an adjective, not a noun), but I think it's safe to assume I'm not alone in the way I feel here.

Tamihere is a bigot; the question is, when should we expect him and Tamaki to become bedfellows? Not literally, of course - because that would just be wrong, apparently.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:-/ You make a masterly summary of their attitudes.

EXACTLY. Sexuality does not affect your politics- the sooner the Right gets its collective head out of its collective ass and figures that out, the sooner the Left is going to lose votes to them. I'm divided, I sort of hope it never happens and I sort of hope it happens tomorrow. ;)

*dying* Oh my god now I desperately need brain bleach. YES, that would be WRONG ADN UNNATURAL. *whimpers*

[tisis.livejournal.com]

I'm very much Leftist, but not necessarily in respect to Labour; I'd vote Labour over any party apart from the Greens, in reality, but then, that means the Labour isn't my first choice. There are faults with the Labour policy that can't be dismissed - the continued institution of the student loan scheme, for instance, although it was originally not a Labour-introduced policy. Of course, Labour made promises to get rid of it, as far as I understand, but look how far those words went. Regardless, as I said, I hope the Left is the basis for our government for many, many years.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'm left, too, and a paid-up card-carrying member of Labour... which doesn't mean I never have critisms of them. :-/ Some of the stuff this gvt has done I've powerfully disagreed with, and some of it I've passionately defended so, you know.

Yeah, as for the student loan, that's the reason I'd consider voting Progressive, myself...

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

There is no room in Destiny for Tamihere. Tamaki's ego is taking up all available space IMHO

[tisis.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't know - I mean, Tamaki's homophobic, and yet he seems to go out of his way to be an arsehole.

I really shouldn't cheapen my argument or anyone else's by saying that, I know...

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

The only thing being gay affects your ability to do is be attracted to the opposite sex ;)

[tisis.livejournal.com]

Exactly - and even then it's not a certainty, because although you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that you don't sometimes find yourself semi-attracted to specific individuals of that gender. I was in hospital recently, and one of the nursing students there I was slightly interested in, and every evening she was on duty she and I would *gasp* flirt. Of course, this has no relevance to the actual topic, but I guess my point is that the only difference between straight and gay people is that gay people are more likely to be okay with liking whoever they like regardless of what gender (despite attraction to only one), while straight people - due to society - are more likely to be less open to the idea.

[rysade.livejournal.com]

I actually knew about this! Initially, I didn't think it was a big deal. I was just absorbing some Kiwi culture. Now I am a little perturbed. I would imagine that an elected official who verbally abused other members of his government would be held in contempt - but this does not seem to be the case! Isn't that odd?

I also meant to ask - Is the Labour Party liberal or conservative? I know there is no 'two party system' in NZ to speak of, but which one is more CLOSELY analagous to our Republican party?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

That is so wierd. :P I feel proud, I get you to think outside your country. (Of course I'm sure you would do this anyway.)

As for contempt- most people, I think, do despise him. It's just the people who write letters to the paper who don't. Also, his electorate lobves him, unfortunately.

Labour Party is liberal, or more accurately it's left-wing, so more closely analogous with the Democrats; National is right and Republican, although really both Labout and National are prety central.

Of course the thing is that you have to go further right than National to find a party with some of the Republican policies- Act, probably, for economics, and United Future socially- in many respects National is probably closer to the Democrats than the Republicans. I doubt, for example, that many people in National would support a total ban on abortion, although one or two of them do want to do things like making under-16 year olds tell their parents before getting abortions which just... really worries me. On the other hand I don't think it will pass so.

And even the leader of National, that's Don Brash (who's an asshole), was originally in support of the Civil Union Bill, for example. Of course he changed his vote because he wanted a referendum but he also said publically that he supported the Bill, he just wanted a referendum to pass it rather than Parliament. Dumbass.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

I can see what he meant (make sure public wants what it gets, small government ideal) but at the same time it is silly because of redressing legel issues etc being the important thing.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Mmmm... really I just think he was stupid, though? Which is why I also find all those people writing in saying "At last! Our hero!" A little bit annoying.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Oh I can totally understand why you saw it as stupid and you can easily argue that those pleased people are stpuid too.

But can you see what I mean? He was recommending that the government not simply pass laws without going back to the public because it was clearly a controversial issue.

While an election is supposed to reflect the levels of support each party has for their goals and ideas, a referendum allows the public to directly influence a particular that may not be properly reflected by the parties in power.

That's what I respect about it. Small government, power to the people.