Club Politique by Che Tibby

Something that's been aggravating the hell out of me lately is the subtle difference between an 'online journal' and a 'bulletin board'. For some reasons there is this belief that posting acres of drivel for people to 'discuss' is equivalent to posting a log.

If you're essentially consolidating news stories then you're not really creating a journal, what you're doing is providing an RSS with commentary. A sometimes inane commentary.

Look at this guy for example. Way back in December I was travelling up to Auckland to sponge some free food, and gave Dean a lift. The poor dude was stuck in a bus stop to shelter him from the pouring rain, and just needed a hand. In return he shared a story about an insane American crusader in Pakistan, and it was the highlight of my trip along the island. It's a shame I just haven't had the time to get to you all yet.

Essentially it involves a guy who may have seen the Blues Brothers one too many times and was out to kill Osama with this big feck-off sabre. Dean reckons the Middle East is littered with these guys.

Like I say, online journal.

Then we have our old friend David Farrar. If you really need a wee trip into the wonders of idiocy on the interweb I suggest you delve into the comments to this bulletin. In this bulletin and associated comments we have both the best and worst of the interweb all wrapped into one.

We have people making outrageous comments with no substance. People exposing their prejudices and being pulled up for it. People telling outright lies and being exposed. And people constantly confusing the really serious events of places overseas with dinner parties in Grey Lynn.

I know you're all busy people, and many of you won't have time to really get into the stuff being said there, but here's a small taste of the reasoning going on to provide you with an example

I googled the following string "death penalty" + "USA" + "support for", and opened the first link, here. I checked out the site and found this graph.

What this tells me is that 43% of people in the USA support the death penalty. So with a population of 296 million that's a total of 128 million people who are willing to line up and stick a needle in an ethnic, mentally ill or stupid mans arm.

Even worse, there are an estimated 224 million Christians in the US. Now, seen as all Christians read the Bible they must logically follow the old maxim 'an eye for an eye', and any effort to try and stop all these slavering, bloodthirsty murders from not throwing the switch on the electric chair will fail.

You see, Americans are just like that. It's in their culture you see. All those years of growing up watching cowboy films (except the gay ones), and listening to gangsta rap has just made this culture where they like to see people getting killed. Pretty soon anyone who so much as looks at anyone wrong will be next on the chopping block.

Are you starting to get pissed off? Smell bullshit? Fair enough. None of these assumptions or 'facts' are true.

So why do I rant? Because this crap about suicide bombers shits me.

People, let me introduce you to a little friend of mine. It's called a Fuel Air Explosive. Essentially it's dropped from a plane and descends while releasing a large amount of aerosol. When it gets near the ground the bomb ignites, virtually vaporising everything over a given distance. Play the animation, it's very instructive.

Too expensive or flashy for you? Then how about this one. It's called an AK47 and the world is littered with these things. This is my favourite bit.

With the 5.45mm bullet, the tumbling produced a maximum wound expansion twice at 10 and 40cm of depth. With the 7.62mm bullet, the maximum wound expansion occurred at approximately 30 and 40 cm. 40cm is the average thickness of a human trunk.

Lovely. A gun that can shoot the average person in half on an average day.

If the million rifles in Mozambique are too far away for you, you can always buy one in Christchurch for about two grand.

You know who mostly gets killed by these things? Not soliders. Ordinary people like you and me.

The opinion that there is something about suicide bombings that makes it any worse than pointing a rifle at someone, pulling a trigger and leaving a 40cm cavity in their torso is to my mind both naïve and stupid.

Look, at present we have 39% of the American population in support of the decision to invade Iraq. But do think that all 115 million people support any action that would result in the killing of civilians? Because that, by it's very definition is what war means. And these aren't extremists, they're just a cross-section of Americans who believe in an idea.

War has never resulted in anything else, at any time in human history, and anyone who tells you any differently is either a liar or a fool. And many people think we're in a war with Islam. Too many. Do you think they're lying to themselves, or you, about civilian deaths?

Well, I'll soon talk about those pesky Treaty issues, but first of all wasn't the Sevens a laugh? Some of the craziest critters you've ever seen, and just about everywhere. Having been out of the country for a few years all the hype kind of caught be by surprise, but I cottoned pretty quickly that it was all a bit of fun.

The drunks congregating on the footpath outside my flat at 2am to argue were a little tedious on the second night, but you get that. There's nothing quite like the line that goes,

A: "yooooaar fucked mate"
B: "naaaah, yoooar fucked"
A: "naaaah, yoooou ah"
B: "naah, you can git fucked"
A: "where the fuck ah you goin'?"
B: [from a distance] "naaaah, git fucked".

Genius.

Anyhow. Seeing one particularly good bunch of costumes while I was out running errands on Saturday (no ticket) I had to congratulate them.

Me: "Great gear! You goin' the Sevens?"
Them: "No. We're Goths"
Me: "Oh... I'm sorry."
Them: "Don't worry man, we don't even like Rugby."
Me: "That's not what I meant."

As the formerly proud owner of about eight Cure albums I can say with great sincerity that Goth music is kind of Punk for mummy's boys. Or at least it was when it was cool. In the Eighties.

FYI, I also own an album by the only Goth Supergroup, The Glove.

And why do I feel like I just outed myself?

So, the Treaty. I think what I brought away from the two seminar series is a reinforcement of what I already thought.

Now that's usually a bad thing reserved for times when you're supposed to be learning and expanding your mind. In this case though it's because what we were told by all four speakers reinforced my perception that the Treaty remains an important document for today's New Zealand.

There's this idea floating around about the Treaty becoming irrelevant to modern New Zealand. To my mind this overlooks the important point that we need a workable framework to understand how Māori society and culture can relate to New Zealand without separatism setting in. The Treaty offers this in a concrete form.

Look, forget about all the crap debate surrounding 'the principles'. That is a legal sideshow for a limited audience. The real guts of the Treaty, as my 15 years reading and writing about it reveals to me, is the idea that New Zealand can be a place where Māori look after things Māori, and the government not only protects that right, but ensures Māori are also New Zealanders.

For some reason there's a perception out there in civil society, the public space where we debate and discuss ideas away from meddling, power-hungry political types, that being Māori and being a New Zealander are two very different things.

My experience has taught me that absolutely nothing is further from the truth. Sure there are New Zealanders, both Māori and mainstream, who would like that to be the case. To my mind though this thinking is really just refusing to acknowledge that Māori society is an integral part of New Zealand, one that not only belongs to be part of New Zealand identity, but is the one thing that distinguishes us as New Zealanders.

The trick is that unless you're willing to accept that Māori society is both part of New Zealand and yet also separate it from it, you're looking at a situation in which Māori become dissolved in the great weight of overseas ideas and people. That is to me what the Treaty can offer, it presents a picture of a place in which the mainstream is ringfenced, in order to give Māori society enough breathing room to just continue to be.

This idea isn't controversial, it isn't janus-faced. It just says, "all you mainstream people, just back the fuck up and mind your own business", and "all you Māori, there's your space, do something good with it".

Ah well. Maybe when I'm in charge someone will listen.

On a final note, you may have noticed my quiet on the 'cartoon issue'. An issue more exploited by both sides of an argument I can't remember seeing for a long time. You have madmen on one side making something out of nothing, only to have the other side being surprised when their irreverence isn't understood by some of the worlds most reverent.

Madness.

I do have a note on this bullshit 'free speech' angle though. Guys, answer me this question. Why is it that although New Zealand is 'open and tolerant' many prominent, conservative political figures don't make a big deal about their sexuality?

Do you perhaps think perhaps we all know that some issues are best not hashed out in the media, for fear of what the public do with their prejudices?

So, it's Jesus. He's there nailed to the cross with those awful iron nails and looking down at the Roman invader standing at his feet.

He says, "Actually, mostly I'm horribly worried about tetanus."

Have pretty much just gotten home from a very interesting 'debate' at Te Papa. The topic was the Treaty of Waitangi, and as I'm sure you'll be aware it's something I think we should all take a positive interest in.

If you agree to that you'll also be happy to know that the turn-out was very high. And that's something good for New Zealand in the long run. The more people engaging in this type of setting the better.

Actually, walking home barely topped the experience of listening to Geoffrey Palmer and Joe Williams Talk about their respective vision of our social futures. I should mention that it wasn't actually a debate as such, but more of an exposition of ideas. So why did the walk home top the debate?

I've never seen so many well-dressed women in town. Tell you what, something like a tournament featuring a number of athletic blokes really brings out the best in the fairer sex. The last time I saw so many geeee-orgeous women out looking to break the man-drought was during the Lions Tour. That aside, she'll be some good TV this weekend.

And, Ms. Lorraine Downes, I saw you walking past me on Tory Street. Peee-ow. If you're reading this, feel free to hit the reply button below, and maybe we can jack something up? Knowing your history with men I'm happy to camp it up a little, if it makes you more comfortable. The occasional homoerotic double entendre? No problem, I'm your man.

Anyhow, the thing about public debates is always the question time. They attract nutters like ants to a picnic. Luckily the crowd was fairly liberal, so it didn't appear to be a problem until the very last question.

Welcome to Mr Stephen Franks!

Steve, do you and us all a favour mate, just go out and get a freaking job. Seriously, there's a bit of a skills shortage on at the mo, so you should be able to set something up in no time. Really.

And please, please spare us all the embarrassment of standing up and asking questions like, "Why does no one listen to me?" and "Where are all these blimmin' Maoris anyhow?"

Steve, I know the Association of Consumers and TAXPAYERS you used to represent is big on everyone making a contribution to society and that, so why in the hell don't you just take your own advice, get a job that doesn't siphon public money, and leave the nice brown(ish) people alone? Ta.

You readers, and anyone who listens to the debate on National Radio, will be happy to know that Geoffrey reminded Steve that he no longer represents anyone but himself, and the audience clapped very loudly.

The question we all ask ourselves? I found this great little blogsite that seeks to ask are ACT Party people really so stupid. Really?

Someone is asking the big questions.

And speaking of stupid. Don, I know you're a really nice guy and all, but who in the hell is writing your speeches these days? I'm not interested in the actual political content of the thing, just the fact that it's a really, really bad speech.

Let's look at one line.

"The collapse in business confidence is like the warning light on your petrol tank - ignore it at your peril. Well, it is flashing, and the Government is asleep at the wheel!"

I mean, what in the hell?

Don, a man of your considerable experience deserves better staff. So just sack him. Whoever the heck he his, just walk over to his office and ask him to pack his stuff up. Say, "You, buddy, write baloney!" and ask him to leave quietly.

You see, my question is this. If you're driving you are most likely moving at speed. That is the definition of driving. You know, moving. Only the elderly and/or retired drive slowly. So, being asleep at the wheel probably suggests that the car isn't moving. If the car is moving, then a nearly-empty petrol tank is less than half your problem, and if probably a good thing considering how tanks rupture when you fall asleep and hit things at speed?

Since you are a nice bloke, I'm happy to point you in the direction of at least one speechwriter with experience. Even better, I'm willing to sacrifice say, 50% of my current $140k salary to write for you, just because I'm a nice bloke too.

It's true that my partisan leanings do show, but with the shallowness of talent in the ranks of conservatives just at the moment, you people need to hire anyone who'll put their hands up.

Crap... I was supposed to be talking about the Treaty Debate ay? Ah well. Guess we'd better save that one till next week. It was good but.

In keeping with Auckland's reputation as Godzone's multicultural heartland, the flavour of the minute this past weekend was "Japanese". We had walked past an Italian restaurant called Tonys (seriously guys, a less stupid name might be appropriate), and ended up eating at what turned out to be a mediocre place a few doors down on High Street.

Thing is, we should have gone into Tonys. There were heaps of white people in there, and that's always a good indication that the food must be OK, yes? Not to complain mind you, I enjoyed the Katsu Don but just found it a little ordinary.

We had driven up to Auckland on Friday afternoon and attended a wedding out in Riverhead. A grand affair I must say. Guys, a tip, do not let your brother be in charge of the music the Bride appears to. When you're supposed to get a little 'Come Away with Me' by Norah Jones there's every chance you'll end up with 'the Darth Vader music' (the Imperial March for all those nerds out there).

Laugh? Yes, laughed my arse off.

After the formal part of the wedding we stuck around for the free feed at the reception (some habits die hard), and subsequently made our way into the city. We were staying not far from Aotea Square and wandered down to Queen Street to see what's shaking. The Asian theme to the night started with the actually rather lame decorations for Chinese New Year. Nice red lanterns and all, but... lame.

From there we wandered through the crowds of Asian people the white heartland seems to be so freaked out about, and bought tickets to go see 'Memoirs of a Geisha'. Again, lame. Save your money for the DVD people. Nice film but the costuming just didn't really carry it, and your time would be better spent watching the complete lack of dramatic tension and character development on your big screen TV.

I'll have to admit, I did experience a moment of culture shock when I first made it to Aotea Square. It was a similar level of shock I felt when first walking on Victoria Street in Richmond, Melbourne, another multicultural heartland in a white-oriented city. The main difference being that I couldn't find good Vietnamese in central Auckland. Hell, I struggled with Japanese.

Tips for next time from anyone except Tze Ming will be appreciated.

Now, am I right in thinking that Auckland kind of splits into four very general quarters? It's been a number of years since I lived there, but does it kind of split into East, where a number of Asian nationalities live, North, where all the white people hide, the West, where the less affluent white people live with 'the Maoris', and South, where a number of Polynesian nationalities live?

Do you think that's right? Because if it is, it reinforces my opinion that Auckland is a very interesting city.

OK, I'm lying, as a Wellingtonian I don't find Auckland interesting at all, but the idea of a big sprawling melting pot is. Sorry for 'keeping it real'.

Most of our non-white population lives in the cities, and it's there that they are expected to take on, with the assistance of multicultural policies, Kiwiana.

So you get these big general areas of immigrant distinctiveness. But the way in which Kiwiana is taken on kind of gets flavoured in two directions, with immigrants affecting Kiwiana (e.g. the expansion of diets away from meat, staple, and two vege), and Kiwiana setting the parameters of 'normal' that immigrants conform to over time (e.g. immigrant kids looking ethnic but speaking in New Zealand accents).

If I'm even remotely right about the quarters thing, over time each area of the city should produce very different flavours of New Zealand culture?

I don't know about you, but I think that's very fucking cool.

God I'm a nerd...

And on a final note of interest in the interest of stereotypes, we stopped in Taumarunui on the way back down the island looking for a KFC emergency chicken stop.

You'll never guess the nationality of the guy who ran the dairy.