labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
It's that time of year again at [livejournal.com profile] kiwi_ljs: sit back and watch the smackdown.

Have I mentioned one of my favourite things about [livejournal.com profile] kiwi_ljs and [livejournal.com profile] wellingtonnz is the way I get to have flipping huge arguments with tonnes and tonnes of people? (and generally have one or two more people on my side hehe. But that's just perks.) Well, it is. Me and L had tonnes of fun before the election and I fondly remember friending tanizard and manic_subbie in one of the Great CUB Debates '04 :D I never though I'd have anything to thank Destiny Church for. Although if anyone can find the entry that must of been in one of them where the discussion really got swinging I'd be grateful- can't find it now of course. *facepalm*

Also, I love it when people I'm arguing with resort to criticising spelling and grammar without bothering to correct their own... I try not to go there in a discussion because I don't think it's necessarily indicative of the quality of the arguments and comes across as insulting and elitist, but hey. If they're going to bring it up, who am I to resist?
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
Okay, now that the, ahem, "riot" at the Canty rally has been mentioned all over the place including TVOne last night, Hard News and That Waste of Time occasionally known as David Farrar (I went through it to get to some photos where, in fact, if you're very clever you will be able to see myself and [livejournal.com profile] sixth_light although only if you know exactly what we were wearing. :P) Anyway, I feel that since it's been mentioned by all these people who, you know, weren't actually there, I am maybe more qualified to actually say something about it.

Firstly: I am among the crowds who feel kind of annoyed that Helen didn't stay very long and there was no opportunity to ask questions and so forth. On the other hand, I am a heck of a lot more sympathetic than most seem to be and I will add: I was actually there. Also, all that "aggression" and supposed near-rioting there... it was only really in the front metre or two; I mean, it was there, but I don't think anyone- even Helen- was in any physical danger at any point, and the further you were back in the crowd- like three metres like me and [livejournal.com profile] sixth_light and [livejournal.com profile] thinkaholic were- the more peaceful (and pro-Helen) the crowd was. I really do think that it was a smaller group of Nats who were just more noisy and aggro than a mostly red crowd.

We were quite close to the front and did manage to see a couple of glimpses of Helen- but the view was mostly obscured by a small group of rowdies with signs. This pissed me off and will continue to do so because I actually saw this group arrive: they'd come in a group, they'd got signs and they were clearly planning on doing exactly what they did do- be generally threatening and aggressive, along with causing the speech to be cut short (Fuck you very much, retards.) But beyond their attitude, and their being a pain in the ass for those of us who were there to actually listen to the speech- which we couldn't do. Ultimately, actually, if she'd left at 1.15 or two minutes after she'd begun, I- about five metres away- would have heard basically the same amount, which was zip, because of the losers who set themselves up to be pains. Beyond them being a pain for everyone else- I am quite frankly disgusted at the nature of the signs they were carrying. There were some perfectly peacable blue "Vote National" signs- no problem with them although they did meanI couldn't see. Even "I acheeved wif NCEA" was okay- although it was fucking rude to dyslexics (a lot of the letters were back to front) and simply served to demonstrate that, forget NCEA, whoever wrote that sign seemed to have failed out of primary school. But "Y R U so ugly"? I could have hit the guy carrying that without compunction.

I'm sorry, I think it's below the belt. Would anyone with any sense of human decency go up to someone in the street, to a stranger, a loved one, who-the-fuck-ever, and say "Why are you so ugly"? Why is Helen up for insult in this way? No-one tells Rodney Hide he's a fat, ugly bastard (or I don't, and I would not be impressed with Labour supporters who did) As Lucy said at the time, it's representative of the idea that men can be ugly but women in the workplace must be pretty and that whole archaic attitude. Someone's probably going to tell me it's all PC crap, but in my not very fucking humble at all opinion: insulting someone on the basis of their looks is about as barbaric and acceptable as insulting someone because of their skin colour or sexuality, and it is not okay. Interestingly it's the voters for those parties who want us all to stop being so "nancy" (sorry, consideration for others' feelings is a bad thing now?) and PC and whatever who are the ones holding these signs.

Assholes.

Anyway, this is just me registering my contempt and anger with them. Yeah.

Also? She was born that way. They don't have that excuse for their asshattery.
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
Another quick word about National policy:

National are promising, very quietly, to return state housing rentals to market equity. The last time they did this, child poverty tripled, state houses were overcrowded, diseases spread much more quickly (including the meningitis B epidemic, which originated about that time & was aggravated by these kind of living conditions). Russell Brown has a transcript of a Linda Clark interview with Don Brash on this subject here; I advise you to go and read it now. It's the kind if idea that makes you furious.

Clark: Well, do you know what the social impact of [the policy of market rent equity for state houses] was in the '90s? Pretty straightforward question.
Brash: I don't have a comprehensive study there, but I know that it got many people into affordable housing.
Clark: The Child Poverty Action Group, which was formed essentially on the back of that policy, says that when market rents came in last time under a National government, the level of child poverty in this country was tripled.
(snip)
Clark: Have you studied the policy in the '90s?
Brash: Not in detail, no.
Clark: Do you not think it would have been a good idea to study the policy before you went back to it?

Also, the last time National was in power during the 90s, they sold 13,000 state houses, taking their rent out of control of the government.

Don't let National sell your house- or anyone else's. Vote Green, vote Labour, vote anywhere else (...except ACT who'd probably do the same thing...) DO NOT ELECT THIS MAN. He wants to return National's policy to one that's widely criticised and that he admits he hasn't studied the consequences of. JUST SAY NO to him.

Also: The Make-Your-Own-National-Billboard site is fantastic. That's a link to the rankings (vote for your favourite!) and I must say I am amused by the fact that they seem to be split between the generally mocking (What's your petrol Tax..., Is There A Surplus Or Not) the pro-Helen or Anti-Brash (How to Make Your Opponent Look Bad, Women Voters) the blatantly pro-Labour-including lots about foreign policy- (Rogernomics, Nukes, Ideologies) and the geeky (or geeky and all of the above, like All Your Base. *AMUSED* and stuff I don't get)

And Hypoxia is good. Oh, they're all hilarious, you should have a look.

X-posted to [livejournal.com profile] kiwi_ljs because I'm angry.
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
On my notepad in my handbag is a list of stuff I was supposed to make a thoughtful and considerate post about over the last week and it looks like this:
-Brash m(&%*&(&^$ wrt: mainstream, also wrt: debate, latent sexism, muther(&%$%^$&
-Helen, Don, State of the Nation, working for families, voting for self-interest
-Hurricane Katrina
-election icons

I just got back to christchurch and I'm trashed and I think you're going to end up with the short, compressed version.

Don Brash

It may be wrong that my problems with the Right this election for me are very much about my passionate dislike not for the National party but for its leader, Don Brash. Nevertheless under Don Brash we have seen the National party move significantly to the Right, dragging the entire Parliament with him- and I include Labour, which I personally find angering. Actually, though, I find the entire direction in which Parliament has shifted over the past three years to be angering and while it certainly cannot all be laid at Don Brash's feet, he's the most public, very conservative, and also? he's kind of an asshole. I really, really don't like him, but my biggest problem right now? the National party line: "for mainstream New Zealanders."

There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Firstly, the Maori Party has been criticised heartily for being a party which seeks to represent the interests of only some New Zealanders, rather than all of them. I would agree with this criticism. So, then, to find it in National, one of the two major parties, is a serious problem and one that has not been addressed. I have yet to see (although I may have missed it) anyone attack Dr Brash and the party over what, exactly, mainstream means; or question what right any party has to set them up as representing the interests of only a segment of the NZ population, the elusive "mainstream" that they refuse to define. Particularly for either National or Labour, one of the leaders of these two parties will be the Prime Minister of this country after September 17th, almost without a shadow of a doubt. Don Brash has set himself up to be a Prime Minister who will not represent the interests of all New Zealanders; only some, those deemed to be worthy by being the "mainstream." this sounds to me a lot like "traditional values" and "family values" and other rhetoric of the Right.

And secondly, why is "mainstream" and this kind of rhetoric dangerous? Because it actively seeks to create divisions among New Zealanders. it actively seeks to separate the "mainstream"- ie we who watch the ads- from the "non-mainstream"- people not like us in some way, people who do not deserve political representation. Are these people somehow sub-standard New Zealanders? Are they- we, I should say- unworthy? Don Brash and the National Party have sought to split New Zealand into a "them"- gays, Maori, solo mothers, immigrants, beneficiaries, people on the dole, poor people- I can't even list properly because after all Don himself has refused to define it- from "us", some kind of ideal New Zealander. The rich, the white, business men, traditional nuclear families. This rhetoric refuses to acknowledge the basic and shared humanity of all New Zealanders, of everyone. I'm grasping for the words to explain what I mean here, which I think is the trite "we're all the same underneath" which is ineffective because really, we're all different underneath- which means that some gays are not interested in the CUB, lots and lots vote National, or would economically- I mean being gay does not mean you're automatically for benefits or anything. The only reason Labour has to some extent "got" the gay vote, the only reason is the human rights issues- and surely National does not see itself as a party which neglects human rights for a part of the population. But that's not an effective demonstration of what I'm trying to say... okay. National is creating an arbitrary and largely imaginary division in an attempt to create some kind of, I don't know, feeling of solidarity and fear of an outside attack, that the "mainstream" of NZL is somehow under attack from a group of people that doesn't really exist, a group that would think of themselves as mainstream.

I was talking to some friends about why Don Brash saying that 'some homosexuals may be part of the mainstream" is offensive and I found it difficult to explain- they basically said, well, you know, homosexuals aren't a majority of people so they're not mainstream. And sexually, okay, maybe not; but in terms of families and money and working and voting and being on the dole and everything that the government has a right to dictate, homosexuals are in no different position than other New Zealanders. There is no agenda.


Anyway. Moving on.

Working for Families, National's tax cuts, and voting for self-interest

The general consensus: Working for Families and the tax cuts are pretty much the same thing. WfF may be more economically sound- people keep talking about borrowing- but because both sides get pretty het up about this and I'm not an economist, I'm not going to comment. What these are are "election bribes" or, rather, election promises: the things a party says they're going to do and then does as part of their policies and commitment to New Zealand. So-called election bribes are just another way of the parties demonstrating where their priorities lie, and it is this demonstration that makes the tax cut and WfF packages different.

It's all about target audience. In an across-board tax cut, who benefits- "saves"- most in pure terms? The people who are paying the most taxes. Who's that? Oh, yeah, the rich. Of course- I cannot tell a lie- almost everyone will get some money back from this. Maybe five bucks a week, but hey, it's something right? On the other hand, WfF, if you don't have kids, well, yeah, you don't get anything. But the people who need it- poor families- are the people who get the most- not the rich people, who are the people who need the least. I don't think my family will be getting anything from WfF either because the kids are older and we're relatively wealthy- we probably would do better under National.

Which brings me to voting for self-interest. My family has never done it, and so I frankly have no time for the concept of voting for what's going to get you the most money. Sure, under National you'll get five or ten dollars extra a week... but that might come at the price of dole and beneficiary cuts, privatisation of essential services, sacrifice of foreign policy independance. That's simply not enough for me, to say that because I'll get a few more dollars a week I am happy to sacrifice what I believe is right for the country. I guess that is self-interest in a way, though- what's good for the country is good for me.

I am aware, though, that I say this from an extremely privileged position. Also self-interest would probably lead me to vote for Labour anyway, being a student with a loan. So you know. grain of salt.

Hurricane Katrina

Mostly I feel helpless. It's horrifying. The administration's response to it is by turns horrifying and revolting. I can't say anything more about the people who have died, or bash Bush's actions anymore. I just sort of wanted to, you know. I'm not ignoring it.

And for the icons... next post! :P
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
Dear TV3, Channel 2,

Please stop putting all your best programmes on on Wednesday nights. I have choir.

Don't you think Two and a Half Men, Malcolm in the Middle, Scrubs, CSI, Grey's Anatomy and Numb3rs is just a little excessive, anyway?

no love
me.

My mother has an article on abortion in this week's Listener- actually, it's more about Margaret Sparrow, who's worked for the FPA and the like for forty years, is pro-choice and has a lot of experience to back it up with. The article's well-written and informative, but I feel it kind of fails to make any consistent point- I know my mother's pro-choice, but I come away from the article thinking that whoever wrote it probably didn't vehemently disagree with abortion, but no other feelings apart from that. Which, to me, is something of a failure; even Margaret Sparrow didn't come off all that pro. This is both incredibly uncharacteristic of my mother and also annoying: I feel like the article should at least have had something of an argument, you know?

I have recently surprised myself by leaving two vitriolic comments in [livejournal.com profile] sixth_light's journal. Sorry, L, but sorry only in the I'm-not-really-sorry way, I'm sure you understand. :P It's probably not her fault, or anything (much) but..

I have a free book coming up on my UBS frequent customer card... has anyone read Maddigan's Fantasia, which is the new Margaret Mahy? I can even get a signed copy so I really think I might go with that. (Sadly, it looks like they might have had a signing in there recently because there are copies of all sorts of signed books- The Lion in the Meadow, The Tricksters, The Witch In The Cherry Tree et al. If I'd known, I would have gone; I mean, Margaret Mahy.
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
Hi there folks,

The Black Caps, which are the New Zealand cricket team, are planning a tour to Zimbabwe later this year. If any of you feel you can, go to http://www.saynotozimtour.com/index.asp to sign a petition to stop them touring. this might remind you about the Springbok tours of 1981.
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
I've just had a huge and very therapeutic rant in [livejournal.com profile] wellingtonnz about the Civil Union Bill and the Destiny Church; I won't repeat it here, but I feel i was particularly eloquent, (at half twelve? [livejournal.com profile] gianp must be rubbing off on me, woo) so if you want to find out what I said and join in go here... ;)

Anyway, to the point:
I was not at parliament today to see Destiny Church march. >.< But i heard Georgina Beyer refer to it as reminiscient of a Nzai rally, which I pooh-pooed as hysteria and unhelpful. then [livejournal.com profile] beagl popped up saying
"You weren't there - it *did* feel like a Nazi rally.

How else do you interpret lines and lines of blackshirted men chanting "Enough is Enough" and punching their fists in the air in a near parody of a Nazi salute?"
and giving these photos he took.
http://drowningnotwaving.net/photos/category/DestinyChurch

I take his point. if you feel the same, please, pass these photos on to other kiwi LJs or LJ comms you may be part of. I, personally, oppose Destiny Church and believe them to be proponents of hate and bigotry. Enough, my darlings, is indeed enough. And I've had it.
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)

Did anyone see Face to Face with Kim Hill tonight?

I did. >.< Jesus, I REALLY CAN'T STAND Peter Dunne.

RANTING withing. If you're strongly opposed to homosexual marriage bills, don;t read this unless you want to argue your case for me. )

RANT

Apr. 14th, 2004 11:33 am
labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
You know what I need? A rage icon, 'cause I don't have anything. however, my pretty (new. GIP, and thanks [livejournal.com profile] quirky_.) Reg Shoe Crusading will do. Because this is sort of a Crusade.



Okay. Right. Ready, set, go.



I'm a crusader. I know this. I have Causes. And one of my all-time favourites (hah.) is for people to please speak before they think- or rather, before they use one particular word. And that word is "gay." *pauses for breath* Okay, now, there's this big thing in society, especially in the younger members (ex: my brother. but also just about everyone in my form, including, previously, my best friend. But she got talked around. not be my, unfrotunately, but still.) to use the word "gay" very casually in a very denigratory sense. Like: "oh, my god, that film is so GAY." Now, I'm going to leave aside here any opinions you may have of homosexuality. That's not really the issue. The issue is, most of the people who use the word actually aren't anti-homosexuality. I know my best friend isn't. I hope my brother isn't (though he's 13; I don't think he's thought about it much.) But when I tell them that, actually, their using that word in a denigratory sense really bothers me, I tend to get fobbed off by people saying "oh, no, I really meant gay like, you know, happy?"



As you can possibly imagine, this is a reaction that generally causes me to go psycho and quickly walk away before I hit something or one, because it's just NOT FUCKING TRUE. But the more reasoned (and there are a few) argue, with greater or lesser degrees of eloquence, that "gay' is just a word and word meanings are changing, it's okay and not bigoted or offensive for them to use the word gay in a denigratory sense, because the word has multiple meanings.


The offensive bit I can counter, generally by saying, "Well, excuse me (you ^%$%^&$^), I WAS OFFENDED. But the language changing excuse is a harder one. It's really hard to argue agaisnt, because I, for example, use "cool" all the time- certainly a word whose meaning has changed. The same goes, in fact, for "gay' meaning homosexual. Fine. But the difference, as I attempt to explain, between "cool" and "gay" is that "cool" is not, and has never been, a word identified with groups of people other than as a descriptor, if you know what I mean. (like, "the cool group.") But "gay" is: it's a word that means "a homosexual," or "homosexual." And its negative connotations have not evolved parallel to that, as "cool" may have. They spring directly from that and from negative associations with the word. So, when your'e using the word "gay' to mean "bad" or "uncool," you are- however unconsciously- linking "bad" or "uncool" with "homosexual." This really annoys me. Really, really annoys me. And offends and hurts me.



I know I haven't been really clear, so I'm going to give another example. I recently had this discussion with a friend who disagreed with me. later on in that same discussion I used the phrase "picking up chicks-" I can't remember in what context and "chicks" is not a word I generally use, just so you know. But anyway, this friend said "I wish you wouldn't use that word, "chicks," it really bothers me." I'd imagine that this is true of many girls- many of whom would also use the word "gay" to mean bad, but smack down any guy who used the word "chicks." BUT IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It's just mroe clear to girls because they are the group being denigrated by the associations we have today with "chicks."





Okay, that's got soemthing off my chest. But just to forestall those who may inevitably tell me that I'm succumbing to "political correctness," all I can do is quote an excellent letter that was recently written to the new Zealand Listener (http://www.listener.co.nz).



Politically correct

How interesting to meet the cartoonists (DNZ: Cartoonists Inc, TV1, March 29) and realise that a "good" cartoonist is one whose opinions we agree with. A couple of the cartoonists had intense passion for the rightness of their cause.

Garrick Tremain went so far as to declare that by ridiculing what he called "political correctness" he was somehow fighting evil. He was fizzing with suppressed anger that the New Zealanders he spoke for should be expected to tolerate those who have grievances or claim to be relatively deprived.

From the tranquillity of his Queens-town home, Tremain expressed his unwillingness to get to know any of those he regarded as fair game for his pen, determined to be told nothing he does not want to hear.

Tremain should be taken seriously for his skill. It is the skill of the schoolroom bully whose vitriolic wit can reduce the unfortunate to tears. By ridiculing their plainness or fatness or braininess, the classroom wit thinks he does us all a favour. He is spurred on by our laughter and mistakes it for acceptance. In fact, it is the most cowardly form of harassment, but it does have its skill, and even its purpose, in reminding us of the -dangers of disagreeing with the popularly held and therefore correct views of good and bad, ugly and beautiful, worthy and ridiculous.

This campaign against political correctness follows a tradition of denying collective responsibility for the consequences of some of the things we do as a society. Political correctness is simply behaviour that acknowledges that some people are disadvantaged by the way our society operates.

One response is to deny that the disadvantage exists and to claim that the disadvantaged are themselves responsible for their plight. Just as the schoolroom victims are responsible for their glasses, their ears, their race, their poverty, their quietness or whatever else makes the rest of us – the obviously correct and deserving children – uncomfortable.

Colin Knox

(Ngati Raukawa, Auckland)


All I can say is, Mr Knox, thank you- and I hope that more people listen to you than they do to me.

Profile

labellementeuse: a girl sits at a desk in front of a window, chewing a pencil (Default)
worryingly jolly batman

October 2021

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718192021 2223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 26th, 2025 04:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios