Weapons Of Mass Destruction

This week, the government announced plans to sell off some of its (our) assets to avoid incurring further debt.

We weren't surprised. It's National. We were surprised, however, when PM John Key showed up to Campbell Live on Tuesday night to discuss it. Where were the cat stories we've come to know and love? The rust in the baked beans tins? But we listened. And, while attempting to separate the gist from the *hits top lip with index finger, making 'wibuwibu' noise*, heard JC ask JK if perhaps tax cuts should not have been implemented, and JK answer "They paid for themselves with the rise in GST".

And: scene. Thank you. After months of crying "All New Zealanders will be better off", Key finally admits that every time we all pay that extra 20c on the milk, we are paying for the likes of Mark 'Eat-me' Hotchins to stay one more night at a resort of which most of us will never get within spitting distance. And what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Why? Because we have a collective short-memory, and a crippling case of lethargy. How else was Bob Parker re-elected? When tax cuts and a GST increase were announced, we knew it was a reshuffling of finances by National to thank the top tax bracket for their support, and ensure that support continues. And now that has been confirmed, what can we do about it? It's done.

As for selling off assets that actually bring in revenue... Let's look at how well that worked for Auckland when we sold our bus company. Sure, Stagecoach pays its drivers so little they can barely support themselves, let alone their families. But we didn't have to cancel Christmas In The Park, and that would have been a real tragedy. And let's be honest, if we don't agree with it, it will happen, and come election time we'll have forgotten about it already. So really, who's to blame? The monkey with the gun, or the muppet who gave the gun to the monkey? Have your say. I dare you.

Tired From Sleeping

On Monday, four sleeps before Big Day Out, headlining act The Black Keys cancelled their appearance, citing exhaustion. Now, I know playing music is tiring. Bruce Springsteen is known for his three hour sets, during which he plays several instruments, sings every song, runs up and down the stage, even knee-sliding and windmilling; and all of this in his sixties. Bob Dylan, who turns seventy this year, has been touring non-stop since 1988. During his Bat Out Of Hell tour, Meatloaf frequently passed out on stage from physical exertion. The Black Keys, on the other hand, are aged thirty and thirty-one, and they play the blues. Their tour began last year. And the slot they were scheduled to play was fifty minutes long.

There are so many things wrong with this picture. In the same week Mos Def "postpones" his show because a band member is unwell, NZ concert-goers can't help but feel we just aren't taken seriously as a market and, by extension, an audience. This is more true of the market to which these musicians appeal - Leonard Cohen treated his fans to an extended show last year which received rave reviews; Lily Allen, by contrast, played her Big Day Out set with a cigarette hanging from one hand, a drink in the other, and a glazed expression that suggested the minimum wage her young fans had saved up to see her had gone straight to the Headhunters' sales division.

By perpetuating a capitalist system where exchange-value far exceeds use-value, we have to accept some responsibility for rockstar behaviour, even when it goes against our 'harden up' natures. But as consumers, we have to assert the power of our dollars. We are paying substantial amounts to see artists play venues where we can't even take our own water, and when they let us down with lack-lustre performances or no-shows, what are we going to do about it? What can we do about it? Have your say.

Bully for Restraint

Last weekend while conducting a tour of Auckland, I stopped by 56 Paritai Drive, better known to most as the rubble monument to greed and deceit formerly inhabited by Mark 'Leave my family out of it' Hotchin, and his [you-know-what]. The spectacle was shocking, but not nearly as much for its obscene enormity as, aside from the construction, the fact that everything remains intact. The stone wall, the letterbox; everything that could have been destroyed by anyone seeking some kind of revenge, or at least catharsis, is completely untouched.

Why? I struggled to decide. Would it be considered an exercise in futility? Is the address too intimidating? Do we all have that much faith in the legal system? In karma? Or, as one of my companions suggested, is it because the Ma and Pa type of investor who lost their money is more likely to retreat, embarrassed by their loss, and be more likely to take their own life than that of this unapologetic coward, who continues to walk around, living a life of excess and privilege?

And if that is the case, why aren't the rest of us doing anything? Are we all content to express our contempt over the dinner-table, or the TV3 feedback page? Where is our anger for these people? Is action, even symbolic action, a thing of the past? Has passionate action, like kicking in the letterbox of a man who has wantonly destroyed people's lives, become something we're too civilised to do? Do we even care? Have your say.

The Medium is the MassAge

Living in a country where deregulation has long been the name of the game, we're no strangers to commercially driven news. Gone are the days of front pages consisting only of text; the days of thirty minutes of actual news, rather than an hour's worth of sensationalised headlines from around the world (the world of the UK and USA, of course), and a story about a South Canterbury farm-dog with ESP/HIV/[insert acronym here], read out by someone who can name every designer to show at Fashion Week but didn't know why Sarah Palin's pledge of support for North Korea was funny. The consequences of deregulation are, for the average kiwi, many and varied. We have to channel surf a lot, because of all the ads. If we actually want to know what's going on in the world, we have to be prepared to spend a lot of time trawling the internet, reading what's in the lines and what's between them. We have to accept that our state-owned TV network has abandoned the quaint idea that media should be the fourth estate, and considers us all to be a pack of cooking-show obsessed imbeciles.

We also have to accept that, being driven by money, media outlets will be completely irresponsible and unethical as long as someone will buy it. We saw it for years on TVNZ's conservative morning orgy, Breakfast, where Paul 'Mouthpiece of the Nation (while I make a hundred times what you do)' Henry was continually allowed to make offensive comments because Ken loves a good gay joke before going to work and sexually harrassing his secretary. Last month, the Herald published a column written by a contributor we'll call Hannibal, in which he argued that abortions carried out between 1974 and 2009 are largely to blame for the problems we face now with national superannuation. Putting aside for a moment the absolutely ludicrous nature of the claim, we have to ask: how was this published? If mass media is not going to fill its other functions as fourth estate, why is it allowed to provoke a debate for which it will never provide a fair forum? When will someone stand up and say publishing this kind of view is completely irresponsible, and an abuse of access? We all know that whenever a documentary about white supremacist groups is broadcast, membership increases. Maybe we are the moronic consumers we're presumed to be; but if we are, isn't there more responsibility to use mass media, well, responsibly? Have your say.