Ask a Comedian

2024-04-24. Comments. Rating 3. ID 2338.

When we want solutions to the "world's big problems" who do we go to? Often it is politicians, or senior managers and business leaders, or various types of "public intellectuals". Is this a good idea? Well, considering they are the exact people who have got us into this mess, maybe not!

At the other end of the spectrum we have people who are so naive and ignorant that their opinions are probably worth even less. Examples of these people might be climate protestors, university students, and social rights activists. Listening to these clowns is just as bad as listening to the politicians.

So who should we listen to? Me, of course! No, I'm not that arrogant. I'm going to suggest, British standup comedian, Jimmy Carr. Now you might be surprised by that idea, but hear me out.

Like a lot of comedians, who appear like crude simpletons on the surface, Jimmy has a level of intellectualism behind the facade which is worth listening to. In a recent podcast he featured in he offered some ideas to solve some major current political and social issues, and they made a lot of sense - in other words, they agreed with my own thoughts!

Here's idea number one: give women who have children tax relief. This idea has been implemented in Hungary where a women there with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax. Fewer children offer lower tax reductions.

What benefit would be gained from this? Well, the population in many Western countries is falling and this places an economic burden on current generations as the general population ages. Some countries birth rates mean their populations are actually reducing because the natural fertility is below the 2.1 (if I remember correctly) per couple required to maintain the population.

You might say that immigration is another possible solution to this. In Hungary they ban Muslim migrants, but Jimmy did't comment on this. I wouldn't necessarily ban immigration completely, but I would only allow immigrants who have skills the country needs (and that would include Muslims).

So this would encourage more births and return the country to a more balanced profile of ages in the population. It would also increase the income of women who lose pay from having time off to raise children, making the "gender pay gap" (which doesn't really exist, but let's not go there right now) less of an issue.

If the birth rate became too high, the tax relief levels could be modified to aim for the target birth rate. This would apply to new applicants for the scheme, because those who already signed up get the benefits for life.

Remember also, that those extra children will grow up, get jobs, and start paying tax themselves. Brilliant, isn't it!

Here's another idea: put small nuclear reactors in every town in the country. Once they were installed and running, power would be effectively free for the life of the reactor, which could be 30 years.

Small reactors have been used in submarines and other places for decades with very few problems. And remember that the tiny number of nuclear accidents in the past were all the result of gross mismanagement of old nuclear technology, and even then there were few casualties (except perhaps Chernobyl, which was incredibly badly handled). Also note that nuclear has the lowest death and injury rate of any power generation technology (including solar) so it really isn't the problem it is often portrayed as.

If a country (Jimmy suggested Britain) did this, it could encourage investment by offering free power. Even if the pay rate for the workers was higher than other countries, it might be offset by free power, and this might return industries to the country which have moved to where operation costs were cheaper.

I think the numbers would need to be run on this to see how viable the idea is, but it is worth us getting over the infantile fear of nuclear technology and at least considering it.

Just briefly, here are two other ideas...

First, protestors are pathetic. They think gluing themsleves to a road and disrupting people's lives is productive. What about getting a proper degree in the STEM fields, instead of gender studies, and researching ways to really improve environmental standards? Of course, many of these people are too stupid to get a real degree but it's an excellent rhetorical point, at least.

And what about drug laws? Well, make all drugs legal but only for mature people. Jimmy suggested over 45 years of age, but that sounds a bit crazy. I believe the usual age quoted for a fully mature brain is 23, so maybe the limit should be 25 instead. Drug liberalisation laws of this sort laws have been created in Portugal, and according to most assessments, have been quite successful.

Maybe you think all of these ideas are crazy, or maybe you like some of them, or even all of them. I think they have merit and show a way that lives could be improved using classic economic techniques to encourage "good" behaviour. And whatever else you say, at least someone is thinking about genuinely innovative ways to improve the future.

You want genuinely innovative ideas? Just ask a comedian!

The Law’s an Ass

2024-04-17. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2337.

The law is a difficult subject to evaluate fairly. We undoubtedly need laws to control how people interact in society, yet there are so many cases where laws are unfair, unproductive, or impractical.

The expression "the law's an ass" is well known, and there are a couple of aspects of it I should mention. First, the word "ass" here refers to a donkey rather than anything else, because donkeys are reputed to be obstinate and inflexible. And second, the expression became popular after being used by English author Charles Dickens, but can be traced back further to at least the 1600s, so it isn't new.

There are several examples of problems with the law which recently caused me to want to write this post. First, the UK Post Office Scandal, which has been prominent recently thanks to a TV program about it. Second, the anti hate speech laws recently passed in Scotland which are very controversial. And third, the use of legal cases against Donald Trump, which some people claim is an attempt to sabotage his chances of becoming president again.

So let's look at these three examples...

The Post Office case originated in the 1990s when a new computer system was introduced and errors it created in payment records were blamed on the people who owned, and worked in, the small businesses which were doing postal work as contractors.

Many people were prosecuted, imprisoned, and some committed suicide as a result of the pressure. It was clear all along that the computer system had faults and was being remotely manipulated, yet the Post Office continued to blame the postmasters for the errors.

Some attempts by those accused to defend themsleves resulted in lengthy court cases and often the defence just ran out of money before they could prove anything thanks to delaying tactics and just a vastly greater amount of (taxpayer) money being available to the large organisation.

So it was sort of a case where "the best justice money can buy" applied. The winner was not the person with the best case, but who had the most money and could afford the best lawyers for the longest time.

Note that things have now been resolved in the accused people's favour, but only after 30 years and where many have died, been locked in prison, or killed themselves because of the stress.

How did the law look in this situation? Comparing it to an ass would be generous!

In Scotland new so-called anti hate speech laws have recently been passed. It is illegal, with the penalty being a potential prison sentence, to use speech to diminish the status of certain "disadvantaged" groups. For example, you cannot call a trans "woman" who is biologically a man, a man, even if you think there is a good case to say that is true.

The law allows anonymous reports and people are encouraged to report their family members (even children to report their parents) who might say the wrong thing, even in private conversations.

Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to read Nineteen Eighty Four and see where this extreme authoritarian attitude leads. Note that it is a leftist government implementing stuff which even a far right fascist one might have hesitated to enact in the past!

Harry Potter author, JK Rowling has said she will voluntarily make the same comment as what was said by anyone else who had been persecuted by this law, forcing the police to arrest her as well, and causing a huge backlash since she has the financial ability to fight it. So far this has not been necessary, because this law just doesn't work.

That new law isn't just unenforceable, it is genuinely evil. Any law where a person expresses a politically unpopular opinion in their own home, gets reported by their own children, and ends up in prison is far worse than an ass, it's an abomination!

Finally, we come to the cases being taken against Donald Trump. This one is likely to be even more controversial because Trump is a divisive figure. People who don't like him will no doubt think he deserves to be locked up, but those who support him will most likely see the charges as being politically motivated and completely bogus.

In this case the truth is probably somewhere in between. We know the US legal system interferes with elections, after the FBI tried but failed to influence the 2016 election in favour of Clinton but Trump still won. There can be little doubt that these charges are politically motivated, yet I would be surprised if there wasn't some element of truth in some of them.

The timing is "unfortunate" if you are a Trump supporter even though we are assured the fact that they all arose just at the beginning of the presidential election cycle is coincidental. That seems unlikely.

So the law is being used in this case to disrupt the democratic process of the most powerful nation on Earth. Anyone who didn't have concerns about the fairness and robustness of the legal system up until now should be genuinely alarmed at this point.

Apparently the law is being used as a political weapon. Again, calling the law an ass in this instance is really far less than the criticism it really deserves.

I don't think any less of a person if I hear they have broken a law. Many laws deserve to be broken, and the "criminal" would be better described as a hero. Of course, I have presented some of the worst cases where the law fails and there are plenty of times when it works absolutely fine, so many people who break laws are justifiably prosecuted. I just look at it on a case by case basis.

In summary, is the law an ass? Well no, it's not. Often it is an excellent tool to control society, but other times, it is far worse than that. If it was just an ass, I would be relatively happy!

It's All About Status

2024-04-10. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2336.

Most human institutions, and most individuals, are very defined and affirmed by status. People compare themselves with others, and are aware of their relative value compared with their friends and others in their society. Additionally, people in general like to strive for the highest status they can attain.

The complicating fact is, or course, that status can be measured in many different ways, and if someone cannot compete on traditional grounds, they might be tempted to find a different way to measure themselves which more suits their strengths.

And that is fair enough. Money is often used as a measure of status, yet many people with a lot are not necessarily worthy of much respect, because their only significant talent is just the ability to accumulate money. But that shouldn't be the only way to establish status, and others might be equally valid.

The problem is that instead of just rejecting traditional measures, or dismissing the idea of status completely, many dysfunctional people like to create their own way of establishing dominance, even though they might not even be aware they are doing it.

So have you ever wondered why so many people who virtue signal a commitment to a bizarre belief are stupid, ugly, poor, or ignorant? Clearly these misfits cannot attain status in a traditional way - like becoming rich, respected through their intellect or achievements, etc - so they have to invent a new way to do the same thing.

Now, I have to be fair here and say that there is no objective way to say which ways of measuring an individual's value are most valid, so maybe these alternatives are just as valid as any other, but no, we have established ways because they have proved valuable over time, and new ways are unlikely to be as good.

So all of that is a bit abstract, so let me give some examples of where traditional hierarchies have been overturned or even reversed - or maybe I should say when this has been attempted.

Communism was allegedly a way to eliminate status completely. All people were to have the same value and receive the same rewards. But it didn't work, of course, because the leaders took the majority of power, status, and material wealth. It failed in its aim, and arguably created a culture even more based on status than before.

But the fantasy of communism is egalitarianism and that might explain why so many people who are not doing well in our traditional Western societies, where status is based on merit as measured by financial and intellectual success, look to communist styled philosophies such as Marxism and postmodernism as an alternative.

So if you cannot be a great artist or accumulate enough money to own great art, why not try to destroy existing art under the pretence of protesting lack of action on climate change? That will give you status amongst the other misfits with similar beliefs.

And if you are hideously obese, why not try to attract attention by demanding your "rights" to two seats for the price of one when you fly? No doubt, other people with similar lack of self-control (in most cases) will admire your courageous stand against oppression, right?

And if you feel like you can't make any great contribution in traditional ways, and that you are near the bottom in social status, why not try to flip the narrative by making those at the bottom the most worthy? So you could pretend the religious, racial, and social minorities who aren't doing well are truly deserving of more, without making any effort on their own behalf, and that would make you look better too.

And people without jobs and who don't drive might like to hold up traffic in order to virtue signal whatever nonsensical belief they have, whether it is supporting Palestinian terrorists, or pretending their actions might stop climate change, or to support their sick religion. If you don't have a job or a car, why not make life as hard as possible for those that do, isn't that a good way to gain equity?

I do have to admit that I am being a bit unkind here. There are people who protest political and social issues who are actually quite functional in a traditional sense. But a lot aren't. Next time you see these people with their insane demands ask yourself: are they really just compensating for their own deficiencies, whether that is intellect, or knowledge, or experience, or physical fitness, or their appearance, or talent, or one of many other factors.

When you have no status, you can pretend you don't care, you can try to destroy existing status mechanisms, or you can demand a new world where you matter. But in the end, it is all about status.

Warbirds 2024

2024-04-04. Activities. Rating 1. ID 2335.

I have many random interests, several of them quite geeky, and aircraft, especially military planes, has been one for a while now. I live just 3 hours drive from Wanaka which hosts what is arguably New Zealand's best air show, "Warbirds Over Wanaka", which is held every 2 years. For various reasons, amongst them COVID, it has been about 10 years since I went to this event, although I did go to a smaller show at Omaka, New Zealand in 2017.

Ironically, given the past cancellations for the pandemic, I was getting over my second case of COVID on the day that I went (I think I was past the contagious phase, plus I was outside the whole time). I went with our daughter, Nicole, so I'm not sure if I gave it to her. To be fair, I caught it off her the first time I got it, a year or two back!

I have also attended earlier shows at Wanaka in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I am quite dedicated. Of course, I have reports on all of these shows with many photos and videos on my web site.

The Wanaka show this year was attended by about 70,000 people; not bad for a little town of just over 12,000! This does introduce a few issues. I recently joked to a friend that it took me 5 times as long to get out of the car park (a few hundred meters) at the end of the show than it would take the F16 (an American jet at the show) to fly all the way to Christchurch airport (over 400 kilometers)! To be fair, to do this the F16 would need to fly near its top speed, and the sonic booms might not be popular with those towns it flew over!

One of the great things about the Wanaka show is the scenery and the weather. The airport where it is held in on a wide flat, but there are lakes, hills, and mountains all around. And the weather has never been bad every time I have gone. This year was particularly great with perfect blue skies and a slight breeze. We had a pleasant dinner sitting outside in Wanaka near the lake shore at the end of the show.

As far as the aircraft are concerned, I have to admit I am a sucker for noisy, fast jets, so I loved the F16. If you don't know, it is an American fighter, about to be phased out in the US, but still common in other countries, capable of flying faster than Mach 2 or over 2400 km/h.

I always thought the F16, which has the official name "Fighting Falcon", but is usually referred to as the "Viper" by it pilots, was one of the best looking fighters around. It is relatively small, sleek, and "pointy". It looks like what you expect a jet fighter should look.

The other highlight was the Mosquito fighter/bomber. This British World War II aircraft is rare because, being made of glued together wood, very few survived. But despite what seems a primitive method of construction, they were the fastest plane on either side when they were introduced, thanks to light weight and two massive V12 engines!

I used my old Canon EOS70D digital SLR (20 MPx) and a Canon 75-300 mm zoom lens (giving a maximum effective focal length of about 480 mm) for the high-magnification zoomed shots, and my Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max (12, 24, and 48 MPx, 10x optical zoom) for wide angle stills and video. I did manage to get fairly close up with some shots of rapidly flying planes hundreds of meters away showing the pilot quite clearly. Of course, for every good shot there were 10 or 20 bad!

These types of photos are tricky for two reasons: first, the planes are moving quickly, so getting them centered and focussed can be difficult, because you don't have much time; and second, the sky is so bright, especially when looking towards the Sun, that the aircraft themselves tend to be underexposed, leading to more noise. I used both raw and JPEG images and did significant enhancement on every photo before displaying it!

Anyway, it was a nice break, and a great way to geek out for an aviation enthusiast. I'll wait to see what intersting aircraft they have in 2 years time, because I might just go again!

More Unpopular Opinions

2024-03-30. Comments. Rating 5. ID 2334.

If you don't have some unpopular opinions you probably should examine your perspectives and consider whether your opinions are really yours or whether you are just parroting what other people think you should say.

By "unpopular" here, I don't necessarily mean opinions which would not be supported by the majority of people. What I mean is those which are contrary to the standard narratives advocated for by the majority of the media, and mainstream institutions.

In fact, it is surprising how often what i think might be a controversial opinion is actually supported by many people, including those who I might expect wouldn't agree with it. I found this out recently with my pro-Israel blog post "Which River?" from 2024-03-21 where several people told me privately they agreed but didn't want to say so publicly, along with a few people who agreed in the comments, and one who didn't.

I have already written one post on this subject, titled "Unpopular Opinions" from 2022-05-24, but this is more a follow up. So what other unpopular opinions do I have? Well, first let me say that I am not particularly committed to any of these. I could be wrong on them all, and I will accept that if the facts change, so these are opinions based on what I see as the facts now. OK, here they are...

1. Donald Trump. We're off to a good, controversial start, right? I actually quite like Trump. I mean, he obviously has some faults, the main one arguably being that he doesn't have a "filter" and just says whey he thinks. But I prefer that to the dishonest drivel we get from most politicians. I agree with about half of his policies, which isn't bad, and the main reason I might not vote for him is because he's so divisive, but who isn't?

2. Obama. Maybe the antithesis of Trump and admired by so many for his speaking skills, but look at his record. He won the Nobel Peace Prize while bombing 8 Muslim countries, including hospitals, yet people have the cheek to say Trump is anti-Islamic. Really?

3. The origin of COVID. I think the lab leak theory is seriously worth considering. I mean, a new disease appears right next to a lab researching that exact type of modified virus. What are the chances? I don't think it was deliberately released, because why do that right next to the place researching it? It was very likely an accident. And before you say that's a conspiracy, remember some conspiracies are true!

4. Jeffrey Epstein. I think you would have to be pretty naive to think that Epstein's death was a suicide. He was self-centered and not the sort of person I would consider would take his own life. And he had so many contacts in high places that surely there were plenty of people out there who might have felt more comfortable with him out of the way. I have some good cartoons about this. One shows a message: "Hilary Clinton sent you a suicide request" and has 2 options "Accept" and "Accept". Another shows Bill Clinton saying "I did not have suicidal relations with that man"!

5. Climate Change. I have mentioned this before but for completeness I will add it here as well. I think the climate is changing and very likely a significant part of that is a result of human activity. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we can fix it. While countries like China are furiously building new coal fired power plants we are making tiny but expensive changes to the way we live. Why? It can't be because it makes any difference, so it must be pure virtue signalling.

6. Minority groups. If I haven't offended you yet, this should do it. I think so-called minority groups, like black people in the US, Maori in NZ, and women are actually inferior to "old white guys" in some ways. It isn't necessarily a matter of the genetics of their sex or race, it is a cultural issue. Back people have a massive rate of broken families which relates directly to their education and then success in adult life. Women are more likely to want balance in their life and tend to be less aggressive in attaining their work goals. So there is no systemic anti-black racism and there is no gender wage gap. It's all nonsense because people are not prepared to accept their own deficiencies. Note that any criticism above is of a statistical nature because there are plenty of highly successful black people, Maoris, and women, which proves my point that anyone can succeed.

7. Activism. There used to be a time when activism in support of "minority groups" (sorry to keep using that term with the scare quotes, but I just can't think of a better one) like gay people, women, etc was necessary, but eventually it reaches a point where it becomes counter-productive. Many forms of feminism today are just making everyone less happy, and the trans activists must be a constant source of annoyance to many trans people, who might want to just live their lives like everyone else instead of being at the center of a massive political debate. Surely the activists are making life worse for many of the people they think they represent.

Well, that's probably enough naughty opinions for today. I suspect no one will be offended by them all, but there probably won't be too many who agree with them all either. Remember, they're just opinions, which I might change in future, not some call to action for genocide or even cancellation. Try not to be too offended!

DEI must Die!

2024-03-27. Comments. Rating 4. ID 2333.

Well, apparently the opinions expressed here haven't been controversial enough lately (I'm beng sarcastic, after the recent Hamas vs Israel post) so maybe it's time to get into something genuinely problematic. Let's try diversity, and especially diversity quotas!

A trend in recent years, which actually originated back in the 1960s when a lot of this trendy critical theory nonsense started, is for organisations and companies to be particularly aware of diversity and quotas for "disadvantaged" groups in society.

Originally this was often called "affirmative action", which sounds good, doesn't it? I mean it's a lot better than "negative action" or "affirmative inaction". But, as is almost always the case, the nice words hide something deeply problematic.

Now the same basic concept is known as DEI, or diversity, equity, and inclusion. Similarly to what I mentioned above, the alternative of uniformity, inequity, and exclusion sounds so much worse, but again, the reality behind the facade is far from what it might appear to be.

According to current theory, especially in the area of postmodernist and critical theory, if a group in society is not achieving as well as the dominant group then it must be because the dominant group is unfairly repressing the others. In effect, because this is only ever applied to modern Western countries, old white guys are stopping women, black people, trans people, etc from achieving what they could do otherwise.

I'm sure there are some situations where is some truth in this, and it was probably more common in the past, but it isn't the primary issue any more, assuming it ever was. Let's look at a few examples...

Women aren't as widely represented in engineering as we would expect given that they make up 50% of the population. According to critical theory this is because men stop them from achieving in that area. Note that there is no need to provide evidence for this assertion because critical theory just inherently assumes it is true.

But, of course, it isn't. Women are over-represented in other areas which might be considered more prestigious than engineering, such as medicine. What happened there? Did the old white guys fail to apply their evil influence? In reality, men and women are different, and women are more interested in "people centered" professions like medicine, and men are more interested in "thing centered" subjects like engineering. Note that there are plenty of men interested in people, and plenty of women interested in things, but there is a general trend which explains the differences we see.

So when there are demands for more women in STEM fields (often related to engineering) we are making at least 5 big mistakes: First, we are suggesting women should do something they may not be naturally interested in. Second, we might choose women in preference to men who would be better at the job. Third, we drive down the general level of competence in that profession. Fourth, when we see a "minority" group in a non-traditional job, we might be tempted to think they are there because of quotas rather than skill. And finally, we apply these rules unevenly, because there doesn't end to be any programs trying to get more men into medicine!

I'm sorry to have to say this but I will, because it's probably not just me who feels this way. When I see a woman engineer I presume she is not fully competent and got there through quotas. When I see a Maori doctor I presume he or she is less competent than others, and again is in the job to fulfil a quota. I know that I am often wrong, because there are plenty of good female engineers and good Maori doctors, but on average I would be right.

So DEI is not even really doing the "minority" group a favour, because it just creates suspicion and resentment. Note that when I see an old white guy in any role I assume he is competent (although he often won't be) because there are no extraneous processes favouring him!

In recent years DEI has been applied to some critical areas, such as air traffic control. In the same time, accidents and near misses have increased noticeably. Now correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there could be other reasons for the increase, but again diversity quotas cause suspicion.

There is a "competency crisis" heading our way as diversity is used more as a selection criterion than competence is. If we don't hire the most competent people, standards will drop. If we revert to using competence, that might mean that most engineers are men and most doctors are women, but what's wrong with that? People get to do what they are naturally best at, and we get higher standards as a result. DEI must Die!\

Which River?

2024-03-21. News. Rating 4. ID 2332.

Arguably the most controversial current world event is the war in Gaza. Many people have a short attention span and quickly switch from one issue to another, so Ukraine, and other major conflicts, now have less visibility than before.

Looking at the news, you might think that the vast majority of people support the Palestinian cause in this war, but I haven't seen any credible stats which prove that. As you will know if you read my earlier blog post, "Not Morally Equal" from 2023-10-12, I am fairly firmly on the side of Israel, although I concede they are not perfect.

But many people I meet (I work at a university so I meet a lot of extreme leftists) are on the other side, and use various arguments to support that. Unfortunately, from my perspective, these arguments are both predictable and weak. So I thought I might cover a few of these arguments, and give my response to them here...

Argument: The Palestinians are innocent. Even if Hamas has caused some problems that is not a reflection on the people of Gaza.

Response: Actually, it is. The vast majority of people living in Gaza support Hamas. They help their cause (sometimes they have no choice) and many actively celebrated the Oct 7 terror attack. I don't see them as active combatants, but they are not completely innocent either.

Argument: Israel is an Apartheid state.

Response: Apartheid was a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race. In South Africa, black people were not allowed to vote, to participate in government, and were forced into separate areas. In Israel, Arabs are full citizens, are allowed to vote, and participate in government. In what way is this Apartheid?

Argument: Israel is engaged in genocide.

Response: The Israelis send warnings to civilians before they attack Hamas military sites. They drop leaflets and send text messages advising Palestinians to move to safer areas. This seems like an odd way to carry out a genocide. They also engaged in a risky, focussed land war which has resulted in casualties to their own people. They could have made things much easier for themselves if they were genuinely genocidal.

Argument: Gaza is an open air prison.

Response: The Israelis left Gaza in 2005. The border is controlled because of the constant Hamas attacks. Note that the border to Egypt is also tightly controlled. If Gaza is an unpleasant place to live, blame Hamas and Egypt more than Israel.

Argument: Supplies for Gaza have been intercepted by Israel.

Response: Hamas has used supplies intended for civilian infrastructure to create weapons. Also, attempts to smuggle more advanced weapons in have been controlled. If the supplies need more free access, they should use them for their intended purpose.

Argument: Israel engage in indiscriminate killing.

Response: Israel could be more careful to avoid civilian casualties, but this is war and collateral damage is inevitable. Also, it is acknowledged by all fair commentators that Hamas use human shields and often locate their military posts in civilian buildings like hospitals and schools. This makes avoiding civilian casualties very difficult.

Argument: Israel's response to October 7 is disproportionate.

Response: Israel have declared war, unsurprisingly given the terrorist attack they are responding to. In war your only aim should be to end it as quickly as possible while minimising casualties, especially on your own side. Sometimes an overwhelming force (what is sometimes called "shock and awe") is the best way to complete the military action as quickly as possible. In the end, it is the best approach for all sides.

Argument: Israel has committed war crimes.

Response: I suspect any participant in any war could be accused of the occasional war crime, but if you read through my answers above you can see that if these did happen (this has not been demonstrated to be true) they are isolated and not part of an overall strategy. The war crimes on the Palestinian side, however, are deliberate policy.

Argument: There are massive protests supporting Palestine around the world. Does this not show that most people are against Israel?

Response: I haven't seen any credible statistics on this, so it is hard to say what the reality is. I know the mainstream media, as is always the case, present a warped view of this. I also know that supporting Palestine is the latest trendy issue, and many weak minded people jump on the bandwagon for it. Here's a telling point: when protestors are asked what "from the river to the sea" even means, many of them can't even name the river or the sea, and don't realise it means the eradication of Israel. Most of these protestors are clowns.

So you can see that the arguments being made to support Palestine do not have much merit. A final question: after years of rocket attacks, and after the atrocities of October 7, what choice did Israel really have?

More is Less

2024-03-14. Comments. Rating 3. ID 2331.

When is more less? Does that even make any sense? Well, in many contexts, I think it does. Specifically for this post, there is a point in every system, organisation, or company where adding more people results in less efficiency rather than more, and I think that pertains to not just positive outcomes per person involved, but also in absolute terms.

When Elon Musk took over Twitter he fired about 80% of the workforce. Since then, Twitter (now known as X) just seems to have got better. I use it a lot, almost every day, and it superficially at least, seems faster, more reliable, and even more accurate, thanks to the new community notes feature which is genuinely useful.

If you don't know, community notes is a "fact checking" system powered by X users and relying on a consensus of views. It has alerted me on several occasions to material which was either untrue or biased, and I have never seen an occasion where it got its facts wrong.

So after losing 80% of its workforce (that is over 6000 individuals) things are better than ever. I really have to wonder what those thousands of people were doing. I would have to conclude that they weren't making Twitter better, and I might even conclude they were making it worse!

This seems to be a clear example where more people lead to a less positive outcome, and it makes me wonder whether Twitter was an outlier in this, or whether every organisation might benefit from the same approach.

Here in New Zealand our education system seems to be worse than it ever was, despite the previous government increasing the number of people working in the Ministry of Education from 2700 employees (which many people might argue was already overblown and inefficient) to 4400. I have to wonder whether a mass layoff of 80% of those people might be justified.

Note that I am not talking about firing teachers here. These are all bureaucrats whose function might not be well defined and who might have difficulty in justifying their existence. A certain number of teachers are required to maintain teacher to pupil ratios and, unless we significantly restructure how we do education, I can't see how reducing their numbers might help. Maybe we could move 80% of the bureaucrats into teaching roles?

But that's probably not possible, because most of them wouldn't have teaching skills. Why someone would work for the Ministry of Education and have no teaching skills is an interesting question. I must confess here that I am making an assumption about that, so if they are all qualified teachers I withdraw this criticism (you know I won't need to though, don't you).

My friend Fred (not his real name) works for a large organisation which has hired an increasing number of bureaucrats in recent years. When asked, many of these people cannot even give a clear description of what they do. beyond a job title like "business quality objective executive assistant" or "deputy vice president of equity and inclusion". You look at these and just know they are a waste of space.

But it might be even worse than that. It might not be that these clowns are just a waste of money, they more likely actually stopping productive people getting things done. It would be interesting to apply the same process to them that Musk used at Twitter.

If you follow Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of everything is crap, you might be tempted to fire 90% instead of 80, but I would suggest a more measured approach. Look for people with ridiculous job titles and give them a month leave. If things improve (as determined by a vote of the employees of that organisation) then ask them not to return.

I have a Dilbert cartoon which illustrates this quite well. A manager puts out an announcement "all employees not currently doing essential work can take the afternoon off" and then watches from a window as some employees leave, and says "this will be the easiest round of layoffs ever".

Unfortunately, those people are often good for nothing else, so they might become unemployed. I think the current low unemployment in many countries is because about half (that's my estimate based on nothing in particular) of workers effectively do nothing of any value (see my blog post titled "The Rise of BS Jobs" from 2023-04-03). But it's cheaper to pay them an unemployment benefit to do nothing than a substantial salary to get in the way of everyone else.

Maybe more unemployment could be a good thing? After all, more is less.

Free Speech Equity

2024-03-06. News. Rating 3. ID 2330.

A current controversy here in New Zealand started when the Wellington women's rugby team performed a haka (traditional Maori war dance) before a game which included the line (translated from Maori): "puppets of this redneck government".

I haven't seen a full translation, so I'm not sure who these "puppets" were supposed to be, but the claim that the government is "redneck" is problematic in itself.

Of course, I am a proponent for free speech, so I should support the team's right to make a point like this, right? Well, yes and no, because it really isn't quite that simple. It would be simple if the following was true: these were individual opinions, not presented as if from a whole team; the opinion was presented in a private space rather than a public event; and opinions against the left of politics were given equal freedom. But none of these are true.

A comparison has been made with the opinions of Australian rugby league player, Israel Folau, who was cancelled by the game's authorities there for what they claimed were anti LGBT opinions of his. He presented those opinions in his own time, they were clearly just his, yet because they were against a group the woke lefties defend, he was cancelled.

I defended Folau's right to make his opinions known, even though I completely disagree with his reasoning based on his fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. He shouldn't have been cancelled, but was. Would I say the opposite for the women's rugby team? Should they have been cancelled because of the far worse way they presented their views?

Well, no. Free speech is free speech. There is one thing I would say here though, and that is, is this team accepting money from the "redneck" government? If they are (and some people have stated this is the case, but although I haven't seen absolute evidence it is, I will proceed on that assumption) then surely they should say "no, we don't want money from you". If they do accept the funding do they still have the right to criticise? Probably yes, but it does seem to be very hypocritical.

But that's no surprise, because many of the people who protest against modern institutions actually benefit quite substantially from them. The club probably wouldn't survive without those payments, and the team has a lot of Maori women in it. If the government was so redneck, would it be funding a team like that?

There are also several other issues related to this. First, is it appropriate for women to be performing a haka? There seem to be several opinions on this, but traditionally I think the answer is no. Second, are we getting a bit sick of hakas being performed in so many different situations now? I'm not a huge sports fan, but I would prefer for them to stop. Third, given that more Maori voted for the biggest party in the government than voted for the Maori Party, did some of those people performing the haka not really believe in what they were saying? Was it a bit like the other sports people who were forced to "take a knee" during the BLM protests?

Some people say politics should keep out of sport, but I think that is unrealistic, because politics is everywhere, especially at this time on our history.

But if people are going to do political protests I would suggest the following provisos: Do it as a private person rather than as part of a public group or team. If you insist on doing it as a group make sure people can opt out with no penalties. Try to do it in your own time, rather than when being paid to do a job. Try to avoid insulting instituions which generously fund you. And make sure that political views from all sides of the spectrum get a chance to protest, not just those which are politically correct.

While I strongly support free speech, I think the chances of these guidelines being followed are just about zero, so maybe we should make these one of those times when free speech is curtailed and political protests just aren't allowed at public functions.

Actually no, free speech is too important for that. Let's allow it here too, but if we are going to allow it, make sure it is available for "unpopular" opinions too, like supporting Israel in its war against Hamas, or preventing biological men competing in women's sport, or disagreeing with special privileges being given to minority racial groups.

Let's see how long those sort of protests would last. About 5 minutes before the cancellations started, I suspect!

A Bad Look

2024-03-04. Comments. Rating 2. ID 2329.

There are certain things which are technically legal and within the rules but are still quite reasonably thought of as bad. Sometimes they can even be justified by looking logically at the benefits against the drawbacks. But even then, they are usually still bad.

This particularly applies in politics, where perceptions are often more important than reality, so politicians and other public figures need to be particularly aware of this. By now, if you live in New Zealand, you might already know of an example of this phenomenon. Yes, it our new prime minister and the payments he accepted to pay for his accomodation in our capital city, Wellington.

The PM is already pretty rich, having been, amongst other things, CEO of our national airline, and he is being well paid as prime minister too. He owns seven houses, and one is worth almost $8 million, so he's not short of cash.

And one of the major policy directions of his government is saving money by cutting back on existing services and downsizing government departments. So you might think at this point that he might want to set an example by saving the taxpayer a bit on what we pay for his accomodation.

But apparently not.

He initially accepted a payment of $1000 per week to pay for accomodation in Wellington - in an apartment he owns. Was he entitled to this? Yes. Do other politicians accept similar payments? Yes. Was it within the rules and not illegal in any way? Yes. Should he have done it? No.

It really is a bad look. How can you respect a person who tells everyone else to save money for the benefit of the country yet accepts a payment himself which he doesn't really need? You really can't. And the fact that he is now repaying it shows he at least accepts his error, or maybe he is just trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Note that I did vote for a party (Act) which is part of the government that the PM leads, and I don't necessarily think he is a bad prime minister, although so far I certainly don't think he's a good one either. To be fair, I can't think of any good ones, so that doesn't necessarily mean much!

You might say that $52,000 to allow a good leader to live in the center of government of the country could easily result in that being paid back many times over if he does a good job, but that's not really the point. As I said above, it's about perceptions, and the fact that he didn't even think of that shows he is either politically naive (he's quite new to politics so that's a fair explanation) of very entitled (also possible, considering his senior management positions).

I also have to say that this is a very common problem.

Maybe the greatest demonstration of a total inability to understand how their actions are perceived is the people who attend climate conferences. Large numbers of private jets (400 of them in the most recent one, see my blog post titled "No More Leaders" from 2021-11-11) fly from all over the world, emitting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, to a conference aimed at reducing the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Again, it's possible that if the conference is successful the amount of atmospheric carbon saved might be a lot more than the amount released by the jets of the leaders at the meeting, but again that's not the point. If the elites are asking the rest of us to make sacrifices to save the climate (let's not even get started about whether climate change is real or not) then it's hard to take them seriously when they won't make sacrifices themselves.

It might be legal. It might be practical. But it's a still a bad look.

Don't Have to Like It

2024-02-27. Politics. Rating 3. ID 2328.

I recently visited a friend/client who is very active in the centre-left Labour Party here in New Zealand. While I was there primarily to look at a few issues with her computer, we did get into a political discussion, as almost always happens, and while it didn't turn nasty, I think we could safely say we didn't agree on everything!

But we did agree on quite a lot. I used to regularly vote for Labour, until two things happened. First, they went a bit too far left socially for me, in fact they went woke. And second, their coalition partners, the Greens and the Maori Party, are insane. These two parties genuinely are filled with extreme, ideologically driven nutters.

I really think most of the members of those two parties are on the edge of insanity. They are hysterical, irrational, and inflexible. I'm not saying that those faults don't also exist in other parties, especially their two equivalents on the right, Act and New Zealand First, but I think those two are far more pragmatic and moderate.

One of the policies of the new government is tax cuts, and the left are attacking them on that front. To be fair, the policies have not been well thought out and the costings are highly suspect, but I think the opposition to them is more a matter of ideology than practicality.

My opponent looked horrified when I told her I voted for Act (libertarian, center-right) at the last election. She described that party's leader as a "horrible lying fanatic" or something similar, but when challenged to say why, she had no answer. It was as if I should just accept that appraisal without question. When I criticised the leadership of the Green and Maori parties I gave reasons, such as Marama Davidson's completely false claim that it is "white cis men who cause violence in the world" (see my blog post "Just Admit You're Wrong" from 2023-04-04).

I probably don't need to say it, but this woman also sees herself as a proud feminist. Earlier in the debate I had said there is a tendency for women to make judgements based on emotions, where men tend to be more (superficially, at least) rational.

Needless to say she was horrified by this, although I emphasised that this is just a general trend, and there are plenty of exceptions, and that emotion is an important part of human existence. But her reaction to the Act leader was an excellent example of this phenomenon, I think.

Then I told her my "Jacinda Ardern" story, which I will briefly mention here. I get emails from all the major parties, and when Labour were in significant political difficulties before the 2017 election, they asked in a newsletter for ideas about what they could do better. I recommended making Ardern party leader, and I actually voted Labour that year.

In my defence, at that point she showed some promising political skills and her tyrannical tendencies hadn't become apparent. Note that I haven't voted for Labour since. I learned from my mistakes!

But when I asked this person if there was anything Labour could do that would convince her to vote for another party she had nothing. It seemed as though she would literally vote for Labour no matter what their policies were. She might have said at that point that Labour would always represent her wishes, but what about the 1984 Labour government which went completely neoliberal, by selling off government owned assets, privatising public instituions, and changing the tax system? I know without doubt that she would not have approved of that. Unfortunately I didn't think to ask her who she voted for in 1984, and whether she regretted it.

People who always vote for one party, whatever the current situation the country is in, or no matter what policies that party is offering, are the worst. Do they really deserve a vote at all? I mean, that is not the way democracy is supposed to work. Any party which is guaranteed your vote really doesn't have to work too hard on your behalf, does it?

By the way, the question above about who deserves a vote is rhetorical. I think we need to give everyone a vote, above a certain age (18, I say), no matter how poorly we might view their political opinions. If they vote in a stupid way, that is their right, but I don't have to like it!

Who's the Enemy?

2024-02-21. Politics. Rating 3. ID 2327.

I often get into quite heated debates, especially on X (previously known as Twitter), involving controversial topics such as indigenous rights, feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, leftist political agendas, and environmentalism (including climate change).

My opponents tend to accuse me of being racists because they say I am anti-Maori, or misogynistic because I disagree with some women's rights claims, or transphobic because I am seen as anti-LGBT, or a rabid far right crazy because I object to some of the more extreme ideas on the left, or being a climate denier because I disagree with many proposed climate actions.

Sounds like I am a truly terrible person, doesn't it? Well, if any, or all, of that was true maybe I would be. But that's not the way I see it.

Here's the thing: I'm not anti any of those groups in general. What I am against is the extremists and activists in those groups, not the people they allegedly (but not in reality) represent.

So I think many of the Maori elites who have accumulated a lot of wealth out of the grievance industry are corrupt, and I think the crazy extremists, such as most of the members of the Maori and Green Parties, who claim to be representing Maori rights, are just plain wrong (they're probably corrupt too, but that's not my main claim).

I have no problem with Maori people in general, and I suspect (although I know of no credible stats on this) that the average Maori person does not have the same views as the activists do. More Maori voted for the National Party (conservative) than the Maori Party (activist) at the 2023 election, which I think indicates a lack of support for their more extreme policies.

And a similar argument applies to those other groups. There have been many reports and news items showing that most women do not support a lot of the modern feminist agenda. And in the same way, many people from the LGBT community are really embarrassed by how they are supposedly represented by activists in that area.

I have no problems with many ideas the traditional left of politics hold; in fact, I agree with many of them. But the radical woke social agenda which has particularly infected the left of politics (although also the right to some extent) makes it impossible for me to vote left (and I used to). So having a balanced mix of policies, some from the left and some from the right, is a natural preference for me, but the more radical elements stop that from being practical.

Finally, I think climate change is real and I think there is good evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity. If there were sensible, rational actions we could take that would make a genuine difference I would support them. But the crazy hysteria we hear from activists like Greta Thunberg and the Green Party is where I start pushing back.

Shutting down power plants and other facilities which use fossil fuels while China constantly opens new ones and uses more coal than the rest of the world combined is insane. We can't make a difference so why not spend the money we were going to use for carbon emmission reduction on protection from the effects of a more extreme climate, which is going to happen whatever we do?

So my enemies are not Maori, or women, or trans people, or the left, or climate scientists. My real enemies are the people who take those issues, and push them to irrational extremes, either because of pure ignorance, hysteria, virtue signalling, or for the financial benefits they might be able to accumulate from these actions.

I have a private client who I visit occasionally and who is about as left as you can be. One day we were discussing issues like this and I said I thought feminists had become irrational. She said "I'm a feminist" and I sort of had to back down, because it isn't feminism in general I object to - I believe in equality for women for example - but the more insane extremes of it we see occasionally.

So I do need to be a bit more careful about my choice of words. I'm not going to say "the damn Maoris are just a blight on society" for example. Instead I will say Maori activists are. There's a big difference, even to the extent that many pro-Maori activists aren't even Maori themselves. That fact shows that it is the idea I reject, not the person.

And that's the way it should be.

Die TVNZ, Die!

2024-02-16. News. Rating 3. ID 2326.

Apparently, for some completely incomprehensible reason, New Zealand's state TV company, TVNZ, is making more job cuts after already reducing its senior leadership team from 10 to 7 people - a good start, but keep going, another 7 maybe?

There is speculation on who might go, with many people nominating their most despised presenter - and what a selection there is - with John Campbell and Hilary Barry being two of the most popular (or least popular) suggestions.

When I say "completely incomprehensible" above I am being sarcastic, because it is perfectly obvious why the company is failing. Here's my X (Twitter) comment on the issue: "OJB @OJB They produced rubbish material which wasn't interesting to many people. They went woke and forced more people away. Just a terrible organisation which should be shut down so we can start again."

And it really has got to the point where there is no way to rescue them. I really think that just throwing out everything and starting again might be a good option. Alternatively, just shut down broadcast TV completely and produce material for YouTube or some news web site.

And I'm not the only one. In the X comments there was no support or defence of TVNZ at all. Now it may be that I often interact with other anti-establishment figures, but I would say that my general experience on X is about 50/50 between people I would agree and disagree with.

Anyway, here are the first 10 or 20 comments I saw, along with my quick response...

Comment: Could it be that diversity ISN'T strength? Response: I don't think its simply diversity which is the problem, although that would be part of it.

Comment: Basically, go woke go broke. Response: Yes, they are super-woke, and people are getting really sick of that. But it is more than that, too.

Comment: Unphotogenic presenters? Response: I wouldn't necessarily agree. They all look the part. The problem is when they open their mouths.

Comment: Music to my ears. Response: Yes, schadenfreude!

Comment: "Clinging on by their fingernails" because they're hopeless at actually delivering news about subjects people are concerned about. They merely serve up often out dated and irrelevant pap, as topical issues presented by wannabe celebs. Tata I say, begone. Response: No sympathy, is there? And yes, these points are all true.

Comment: They shot an effigy of Trump on Breakfast TV and they thought they would get away with it. Response: Yes, exposing their biases clearly on that occasion.

Comment: Really! Hahahaha! Response: More schadenfreude.

Comment: Jobs coming up, for Labour. Response: Not sure what this person was getting at. Jobs for TVNZ people at Labour maybe?

Comment: Failure to connect with the audience and the ability to surf for something better... Response: I just never even turn the TV on, but my wife does and I get exposed to TVNZ trash often.

Comment: Sack em all. Response: Yes, my suggestion, exactly.

Comment: Good riddance TVNZ. Response: Not a lot of sympathy for them, is there?

Comment: Oh what a shame.... Not! Response: More delight in their misery.

Comment: Get woke, go broke. Response: Again, this. Seeing a theme here?

Comment: Layoffs? they are layabouts, dont do any professional journalism, just read the teleprompter and spew propaganda Response: Indeed. The propaganda arm of the left of politics.

Comment: Go woke, go... well you know the rest! Response: There's that phrase again.

Comment: It seems people with a woke mindset are unable to change their set in stone ideologies. Response: Agreed.

So not a single comment in favour of TVNZ. No one cares if they exist or not. Truly a incompetent and corrupt failed organisation, and I pay for them with my taxes! Die TVNZ, die!

Be Less Kind

2024-02-15. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2325.

According to Thomas Sowell (a person I have a quite high opinion of) social engineering is the "art of replacing what works with what sounds good". Short, pithy quotes like that sound good but do they work? (see what I did there?)

I think there is some truth in the quote. The major problem we have with many current political situations is the replacement of solid, rational, objective arguments with emotional, feel good, subjective opinions.

I do have to concede here that presenting the two extremes like that is misleading, because every political decision and action involves some elements from both of those extremes. These is always some emotion mixed with the rationality, and there is always some personal opinion or subjectivity included with the objective facts. But it is the degree to which the emotional stuff occurs which is the problem.

So let's look at some examples where emotion and a wish for something to be true because it just "feels better" have replaced what is actually true (or at least, what we can reasonably say is close to true, to the extent we can say anything is).

First, that hot topic in recent years: trans. The emotional left insist a man who wants to live as a woman, or who identifies as a woman, is actually a woman, and should be able to participate in society just like any other woman. Of course, the same applies to women who identify as men, but that doesn't have the same degree of problematic consequences.

So, as a matter of fact, these people are not women. In genuine cases, I am perfectly happy to treat them as women in almost any situation. In fact, I have been recently helping a "trans woman" with computer issues recently, and I am fairly confident she wouldn't have any complaints about how I acted.

But let's not allow this to go too far. Here are situations where I would draw the line: a person who is using their alleged trans status for political ends, in other words, they are not genuine; a situation where biological women might be disadvantaged, like in sport; a situation which results in significant danger or discomfort to biological women, like trans people using women's change rooms, etc.

Second, immigration. I think immigration itself is a perfectly reasonable thing, and having people enter a country gives many benefits, such as new ideas and cultures, specialised jobs being filled by immigrants where there are shortages, and just helping people who genuinely want to move to a new country with good intentions.

But allowing massive numbers of people with no useful skills, little social or cultural competence, or even bad intentions over our borders will not end well, even if the justification sounds kind and generous, like helping people from countries hit by war, conflict, famine, etc.

For example, I don't want anyone who wants to apply their religious laws into our country, or someone who might not assimilate, or someone with no skills who will not be able to work. And I'm not just picking on one class of immigrant, although there is one type which is particularly problematic right now.

Third, racism, sexism, and other bias. When a "minority" or "disadvantaged" group is not doing as well in society as we might expect, it is "nice" to blame society rather than the person. After all, they're already disadvantaged (allegedly), so why would we want to blame the victim?

Again, this sounds good but doesn't really help society in reality. There are societal mechanisms which work for and against various groups, but I think the evidence indicates these aren't particularly significant in determining different outcomes for different groups.

It's true that the average wage (in the US, because that's where I have the stats for) is much lower for black people than white, but it is much higher for Asians. In the past, both black people and Asians have had discriminatory policies work against them, yet today one fails while the other thrives. Why? Maybe the culture of those two groups plays a significant part in this. Maybe some people have been taught that they are victims so much that they have come to believe it.

There are many other areas where emotion overcomes logic, but I think you get the point. You might think that being "kind" (as our previous tyrannical leader used to say) is always a good thing, but it isn't. Being kind to one group often means being unkind to another. Being kind often involves wasting a lot of money. Being kind often creates an expectation of generosity which is counterproductive in the end.

Really, we need to be less kind!

Rescue Our Nation

2024-02-08. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2324.

So our "national day", Waitangi Day, has come and gone again, so now might be a good time to think about where we are as a nation. The answer is nowhere good. Thank you, that is the end of the blog post. Well, it isn't really...

I suspect to most New Zealanders, Waitangi Day is just a day off work. To me it was that plus a time to argue about the state of the country with people on-line! So yes, arguing is the primary activity which happens on this day now.

My friends and acquaintances might not be a representative sample, but I get the impression that no one really cares much about this day. It's a day off work, and any further significance is either ignored or actively avoided. For example, under no circumstances should you listen to RNZ or watch TVNZ on this day, unless you want to get propagandised with the most absurd nonsense imaginable.

The problem is that a national day should be about celebrating a nation, and recognising how the people of that nation are united towards a common goal. But not here, because the day reminds us how deeply divided we really are.

I'm not suggesting Maori and other ethnicities are divided; what I am saying is that Maori activists and their non-Maori allies are divided against the rest. It is difficult to get numbers on what percentage of the population these two groups might represent, but I suspect the majority are in the "don't care" camp, rather than either of those two groups.

The Maori activists have always liked to use the day to whine and moan about their alleged plight and to demand greater privileges and power which they don't deserve, but this year it was more intense than usual because of the Act Party's Treaty Principles Bill.

The "Treaty" here refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, a document signed by the British and some Maori tribes in 1840. One problem is that it wasn't really a single document because there was an English version and a version translated into Maori, which has resulted in some confusion because the translation of some (usually more abstract) English words into Maori is imprecise.

The Treaty is often claimed to be the founding document of the country, but this claim is open to some suspicion, since it was really just designed to make Maori British citizens so they could be protected by law.

So the Treaty is open to considerable interpretation, but even that isn't the real problem, because in the last few decades a new activity has arisen involving creating "Treaty Principles". These are basically opinions on what new principles might arise from the "spirit" of the Treaty even when they are not specifically mentioned.

And that's the biggest problem: these are entirely politically driven ideas which have come from activists in places like the Waitangi Tribunal and have been often accepted by woke governments, especially on the left, who usually rely on getting Maori votes, although the right is certainly not innocent either.

Naturally the mainstream media have been up to their usual tricks of deliberately misrepresenting the intent of the Bill either by repeating false information or allowing pro-Maori activists to say it, unchallenged.

What the Act Party want to do is to open a discussion on what the principles of the Treaty should be. They don't want to re-word or eliminate the Treaty itself, although there is actually a pretty good case to do that. In my opinion there should be no principles. If we are going to acknowledge the Treaty at all, let's accept what it says, not what some people think it should have said, or what might exist in the imagination of the activists.

In my experience, people who don't want to engage in debate often have a very weak case and know they would probably lose. So when I see such strong opposition to this, I assume that might be the reason.

The previous government basically just jumped to attention whenever Maori demanded anything (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but there is some truth there) and now that has stopped they are not happy. I mean, fair enough, if I was getting a lot of handouts and special privileges and that might end, I might try to eliminate the threat too. But we should recognise it for what it is: a determination to maintain self-centered, selfish privileges.

The philosophy behind Act's proposed changes is to make all New Zealanders equal, instead of allowing race-based privileges. Ironically this, which is the exact opposite of racism, is labelled racist. We shouldn't be gaslit by nonsense like that; we need to become a country where everyone is treated the same. The activists won't like that, but it's time it happened anyway.

We should rescue our national day, and our nation.

Just Mostly Useless

2024-02-05. Comments. Rating 3. ID 2323.

There's a pretty convincing argument (at least to me, but also to many others) that our education system is broken. How? Well, here are a few possible ways: truancy is extremely high, exam results are not as good as they were, education seems to be warped by extreme leftist narratives, and students are learning material which is of limited practical use.

Now, I am going to add a few provisos on what I have said. First, the current government seems to have made an effort to get back to (useful?) basics. Second, school should not be all about practical skills, because appreciation of the arts, and more abstract subjects are also important. Third, there might be reasons (such as the effects of COVID) for the high truancy rate, which the educators could not reasonably be blamed for.

But despite this, I think the education system is terrible. It is more about teaching students what to think rather than how to think, like it is claimed happened in the past. Despite me adding that word "claimed" here, I do think there is some truth in that. Education has been dominated by leftist ideology for many years, but is seems to be getting worse in recent years.

A meme I recently saw on Facebook suggested some alternative, more practical, skills which might be taught at school. They were: taxes, coding, cooking, insurance, basic home repair, self defense, survival skills, social etiquette, personal finance, public speaking, car maintenance, stress management, and maintenance management.

So these seem to fall into some groups, namely basic living skills (cooking, etc), financial skills (like tax and insurance), survival skills, social skills (etiquette, etc), and one vocational skill: coding (that is, programming).

I think this is a bit of a mixture of good and bad, depending on exactly what is intended for each of these. For example, by "survival skills" do they mean knowing how to survive in a zombie apocalypse, or similar? Is coding really necessary, when the vast majority of people really only need to know how to operate a computer? How much car maintenance is still possible, given the complexity of modern cars?

But while the details might be arguable, I still think the basic idea has some merit.

I know that when entering the workforce I had little idea about tax, finance, insurance, and similar matters, and I have noticed my son and daughter don't know any more or less than me, so it is getting no better.

Social skills are a difficult one, because they are very much a personal, cultural thing. What one person thinks is an essential element of etiquette another might find irrelevant and outdated. However there might be room for some extra guidance there.

On further reflection, the coding one might have some merit, because programming really does require logical, systematic, and careful thought. If those skills could be carried over into other areas of life, whether they were used for actual programming or not might not be that important.

But moving on from these suggestions I would like to offer an alternative model. Teach the basics, because everyone should know how to read and write at a useful level, how to do some basic maths, and know a bit about topics like history, geography, music, art, etc. But at the same time, teach basic living skills like how taxation and insurance work, how to check the oil and water in your car, and how to cook at a basic level.

But after that, teach what really matters: how to think. This would include how to be skeptical, how to evaluate political and scientific claims, and how to debate your views as well as evaluating those of other people.

There are far too many subjects - which admittedly I only know about through anecdotes, so I claim no definite knowledge in this are (there's a skepticism skill being utilised) - where a particular answer is required, but many others might be able to be justified through a sufficiently good argument. The last thing we need is people spouting the conventional talking points instead of thinking for themselves.

My education was revolutionised by one lecturer. It was in second or third year psychology at university (many years ago, so it's hard to remember exactly) who taught us paranormal psychology. He had a very skeptical approach and showed that alleged special abilities, like ESP and psychokinesis, were tricks, or had conventional explanations. I saw that things were rarely what they seem on the surface. That was probably the most valuable thing I have ever learned!

And everything I use in my job today, I taught myself. Of course, that did rely on the basics of reading, writing, and maths I got from school, so I'm not saying education is completely useless; just mostly useless!

Have We Found Aliens?

2024-02-03. Science. Rating 1. ID 2322.

For the last couple of weeks there has been a scientific debate about the possible discovery of life, by the James Webb Space Telescope, on a planet with the rather catchy name of "K2-18b". The most interesting discovery was of a chemical, dimethyl sulfide, which we have only ever found in the presence of life.

One article wryly notes that the discovery is being reported with the headline "Have we just discovered aliens?", and there is a law known as "Betteridge's law of headlines" which states something like: for any headline which ends with a question mark, the answer is "no"!

Of course, that isn't literally true, but it does make the point that we should be highly skeptical of this possibility. After all, there have been many other similar discoveries which looked as if they might indicate the presence of life, but were due to either misidentification, contamination, or a previously unknown chemical process.

So this blog post isn't about how life has been discovered, but how the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe is an interesting subject in itself, even if it hasn't been found yet. Here is one of my favourite quotes from legendary science fiction writer, Arthur C Clarke: "Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe, or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."

Think about it: if we are the only life in the universe, that is truly awesome. I mean the universe is pretty big (maybe even infinite) and has existed for a long time (also possibly infinitely, according to some theories) and if the only life, and maybe the only "intelligence", is here on Earth, that is utterly astonishing. But if there is life elsewhere, and almost certainly intelligence as well, that is also an incredible thing.

So which is more scary: knowing that we are all alone in this vast universe, or knowing that there might be other intelligent species, and civilisations, out there waiting to be discovered? Both are amazing and very consequential.

If we really are the only intelligent life in this vast universe then surely we have a responsibility to make the most of that exalted position, and we sure don't seem to be doing a very good job of that so far! You might ask who do we owe this responsibility to? Well, if you are religious, you might say to your god, but I would say to ourselves.

If there are many planets orbiting most stars, and hundreds of billions of stars in each galaxy, and hundreds of billions (or trillions) of galaxies in the visible universe alone, and who knows how many (again, maybe an infinite number) in the rest of the universe, then there are clearly many opportunities for life to evolve elsewhere. If it hasn't, then it must be unbelievably difficult for it to get started, making it so much more valuable when it does.

But if it has, then there is life on other planets, and almost certainly intelligent life too. How amazing is that? When can we meet these other cultures? When can we even confirm that they exist? How would that affect religion and philosophy? Would most people even care? Well, probably not, but the more intelligent, thoughtful, and philosophical amongst us probably would.

The lack of convincing evidence of extraterrestrial life so far, despite several attempts at finding it, is somewhat puzzling, although there are many perfectly respectable scientific reasons for this failure. It certainly seems as if life does not get started easily, and if it does get started, it might not advance to being intelligent enough to develop technology we could detect.

But surely it is just a matter of time. I believe it is inevitable that we will discover life some time, probably in the next hundred years, and extraterrestrial intelligence within a similar timeframe. In fact, it might be easier to find the evidence of technology rather than life itself.

So yeah, I think it will happen, but I'm not sure it has happened yet.

More Maori BS

2024-02-01. News. Rating 4. ID 2321.

A recent incident in Invercargill was reported like this: "An Invercargill city councillor has publicly revealed his disdain for the use of te reo Maori in names after making an incorrect assumption at a meeting. The incident occurred on Tuesday as councillors worked through a report on fees and charges, one page at a time, during an ordinary meeting. When elected members reached a section on the soon to be built Te Unua Museum of Southland, mana whenua representative pointed out the complex had been incorrectly titled 'Southland Museum and Art Gallery Te Unua' in the report."

In response the councillor said "Are we going to reverse all these European names and put the Maori names first on everything? Because I'm going to object every time."

And so he should. This ridiculous fad of giving everything a Maori name, or at least of having a bilingual name with the Maori first, is just mindless politically correct virtue signalling.

Note that I have no objection to using Maori names where I think it is appropriate. For example, I call the Maori Studies department at the local university "Te Tumu" even though I don't know what that means, but I won't call Dunedin Otepoti, because this is primarily a city established by Europeans. I don't mind that Otepoti is a secondary name which might be used in some situations where no confusion would result, but I have never seen any need to use it myself.

There are plenty of places in the country which already have Maori names, including regions, landscape features, and towns and cities, so why is there this infatuation with renaming everything else? The answer is obvious: pro-Maori activists (and by that I mean people pushing a Maori perspective who might not even be Maori themselves) like to force their own political ideology onto the rest of us.

No doubt my attitude will be branded as racist by many people, and I'll be accused of wanting to eliminate the Maori language, or of cultural genocide, or white supremacy, or of being a coloniser, or some similar drivel, but who cares? I only worry about other people's opinions of me when those people deserve respect, and these clowns certainly don't.

So universities, museums, sport stadiums, roads, and cities are Western creations which should normally have English names (although, as I said, I'm happy to accept the existing exceptions). Anything more related to Maori culture, like a Maori music festival or other event or object, can have a Maori name.

For example, I will call a Maori weapon a taiaha, but I will call a car a car, not some sort of waka!

The title of this post might be interpreted as me saying that anything to do with Maori is BS, but that would be a (perhaps deliberate) misinterpretation of my position. Some Maori issues are BS and others are fine. Unfortunately, in the current political climate (even though it is improving a bit with the new government) there is an awful lot more BS than good, rational stuff.

Note that in the reporting it was suggested that the person had "disdain" for the Maori language, but that is an assumption the reporter made which isn't necessarily supported by the facts (a pretty standard outcome for the mainstream media now). There are other, pragmatic reasons for preferring English to be the main language used in naming things, and disrespect for Maori isn't necessarily involved, although I concede it might be.

And it's hard not to feel a certain degree of disrespect for Maori culture in the current political environment, because of the way it is being forced on the population in general. And that's not the fault of most Maori. It's just the activists who are causing this division. One thing we don't need is more Maori BS!

Left vs Right

2024-01-30. Politics. Rating 3. ID 2320.

Is there a fundamental difference between people on the right and those on the left? Well, there can't be anything too deep and immutable because so many people change their attitude over time. For example, I used to be fairly extreme to the left, and now identify more with the moderate libertarian right, and that is a common story: people become more right wing as they get older.

Of course, there are numerous issues with this simplistic analysis. For a start, many on the right (me included) see some elements of left politics as quite reasonable and some elements of the right as being problematic. Also, a simple left/right split is misleading since there are at least two axes involved with political opinion, usually summarised as social and economic.

But despite these misgivings, I am still going to make some sweeping judgements on the subject so prepare yourself; just remember that I am very aware of the deficiencies in my own argument.

One element of the difference became apparent in a recent on-line discussion. It was about whether period products should be made available free to girls in schools and funded by the state (AKA the taxpayer, AKA you and me). A leftist would most likely say that is the correct course, without really thinking about the underlying philosophical issues too much; and a person on the right might say it is wrong, again with little consideration of the subtleties inherent in the question.

So who is right? Well, neither is, because it depends on your underlying philosophy of collectivism versus individualism. I'm sure my readers know by now that I am very much an individualist, but I don't think there is necessarily any objective truth in that view, it is just my preference.

So I would say that these subsidised products are nothing to do with me, and I don't know why I (as a taxpayer) should pay for them. But a case could be made to say that we are all humans and we should be helping each other, because that is how a successful culture works.

A common argument here is that females are disadvantaged because they face the extra cost of buying these products. But how about males? They tend to be bigger and more active, and need more food. Which is the bigger financial burden? Why help one and not the other? Well, we all know thew answer to that, don't we.

As always, the truth lies between the extremes, and purely collectivist cultures would be as bad, or worse, than purely individual ones, although neither of those pure forms can ever really exist. So the difference is just in the default view. I would say the starting point is individualism, but we should consider moving away from that view when it is appropriate, where more left oriented people might have the opposite view.

I think it is important for the each side to understand the other's perspective. I don't think most people on the left or the right are evil, they just have different ways to get to the same result: the best life for everyone. Those on the right genuinely believe that individual freedom and responsibility, with minimum government interference, is the best approach. People on the left think we all should be helping each other, often through government run programs.

Some people need help because they have got into a bad situation primarily through bad luck or other situations beyond their control. Others need help because they are lazy and entitled. Most government programs help the second group as much as the first, and people quite rightly get upset about it. But we should also get upset if the first group isn't helped.

It's complicated, isn't it? I think as long as we keep away from the extremes on either side, we aren't doing too badly. Until recently, many on the left tended to be too extreme (in my estimation) but the moderate left is OK, although I would still vote more in the direction of moderate libertarian myself. I could possibly force myself to vote Labour, but never the Green or Maori Party. Despite my message of understanding on this post, I really do see them as loony lefties!

Newspeak

2024-01-25. Politics. Rating 4. ID 2319.

Two of my favourite memes relating to modern society are a picture of George Orwell, author of the dystopian novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", with a speech bubble saying "Did I call it, or what?", and a notice in a library stating that "Nineteen Eighty-Four has been moved to the Current Affairs section".

Obviously, these are references to how many of the "dirty tricks" used by the totalitarian government in the novel are also what are being used by many "progressive" governments and activists around the world today. By the way, I used quotes around the world progressive above, because reversion to pseudo-religiosity, and rejection of many of the greatest strengths of society is the exact opposite of progressive, and that is really my point in this post.

According to Wikipedia: "Nineteen Eighty-Four centres on the consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive regimentation of persons and behaviours within society. Orwell, himself a democratic socialist, modelled the authoritarian government in the novel after Stalinist Russia. More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within politics and the ways in which they are manipulated."

So the form of totalitarianism in the novel is what is produced from the extreme left (Soviet Russia). I have no doubt that the extreme right might be capable of similar outrages, but it is primarily the left Orwell was concerned with, and which is causing problems at this juncture.

The novel mentioned many tools used to keep the population under control, but maybe the most important one was the manipulation of language. Interestingly, this is a major factor in postmodernism and neo-Marxism as well, and that is the underlying philosophy of many of the groups causing the biggest problems in modern society.

In the book, the society is being introduced to a new language, "Newspeak", which was used as a tool by the state to limit free thought and maintain their control.

Famously, many of the institutions in the novel have the opposite function to what their name might suggest. For example, the Ministry of Truth (minitrue) dealt with propaganda, and the alteration of history, culture and entertainment; the Ministry of Love was the secret police, which engaged interrogation and torture; and the Ministry of Peace was in charge of war.

So let's have a look at some of the words certain groups in modern society have modified to try to control the political narrative today...

Racist. This is generally used as a term for someone who isn't a racist, because they want everyone to be treated the same, irrespective of their race or ethnicity. For example, a person who thinks everyone should have the same chance to be elected into positions of power, or who thinks everyone should have access to education, based on merit instead of race, will often be called a racist.

In addition, racism has been modified to the point where some racial groups are incapable of racism whatever they do, and others are automatically racist no matter what they say or do. I'm not making this up, this is actually an important part of Critical Race Theory.

Kind. This is a popular word made famous by our very own Jacinda Ardern. It may very well be that she genuinely though that she was doing the best thing for everyone, but many disagreed. A genuinely kind person would listen to criticism and maybe change their views as a result. Ardern didn't.

Nazi. A Nazi is a person, usually on the right of politics, who a leftist disagrees with. Maybe the most absurd example is Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, who is extremely unlikely to share many of his ideals with Nazis, I would have thought.

Carpet bombing, Apartheid, and genocide. These are three claims made against Israel in the current conflict in Gaza. Anyone who knows anything about the military knows what carpet bombing really is. Here's a hint: it's not what Israel is doing. And Apartheid was a system implemented in South Africa which blocked many rights for black people. In Israel, Palestinians had full rights to work, were represented in their government, and had no major restrictions at all. On the other hand, Israelis couldn't live in Gaza after 2006. And genocide does not involve a hazardous ground war intended to target military personnel and facilities. Firing rockets haphazardly into a neighbouring country and launching an attack targeting civilians, like Hamas has done, sounds more like genocide to me!

I could go on with many more examples, but I'm trying to keep my new blog posts short, so I will leave it there. But remember to watch out for Newspeak, especially on the mainstream media. You might start seeing it everywhere. Yes, Orwell sure did call it. And if you haven't read Nineteen Eighty-Four yet, go get it; look in the current affairs section of the library!