In the last month, two New Zealanders were murdered—but I have to hand it to the mainstream media, especially TV3 and National Radio, for covering these without racial bias.
   Ten years ago, the Chinese ethnicity of the victims would have been made to be a big deal. Indeed, any crime involving east Asians was treated as more (negatively) newsworthy and coverage was, effectively, racist. Perhaps not surprising in the wake of the Yellow Peril speeches of the current Foreign Minister-outside-Cabinet during the 1990s.
   Statistics from the New Zealand Police have shown that crimes involving east Asians are not proportionally out of whack with the percentage of the population. It’s nothing for us to be proud of, mind.
   It has taken a while but New Zealand citizens of Chinese descent seem to be accepted by the media a bit better than in the previous century. The record is not perfect but this is a marked improvement.
   Their deaths were reported as those of New Zealanders. While the reporting of one woman’s funeral acknowledged her Chinese roots and her Buddhist religion, that was the extent of it. There was nothing made to be odd or strange.
   The tragedies are horrible—they should never have happened in the first place. In New Zealand, one is eight times more likely to be murdered today than 50 years ago. And that is a whole separate issue. However, I am glad that these two women were not made to be outsiders in a country they called home after their deaths, whatever might have happened in their lifetimes.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Since I posted about the use of the word coon on radio in New Zealand, I did get a reply from the plumbing firm which it advertised.
   It was very short:

It is raccoons the ones in the woods. Of course there is no limit to the number of interpretations.

   Fair enough: we now know the intent. I would have written more in response (e.g. signed the thing with my name), but that is another issue. I still wonder if the alternative, racist interpretation was in the back of the copywriter’s mind. I guess we won’t know.
   However, every time I have talked about this radio commercial, most people are shocked. No one seems to come up with the raccoon explanation. It’s a 100 per cent response to the notion that the advertisement is racist.
   Sure, this is nowhere near scientific. I must have mentioned it to about 15 people. That’s hardly representative of the population. And on this blog, opinion was divided among an international audience.
   A check back then did reveal that the word was also a racist term used to describe Aboriginals in Australia by certain Australians, and it came up again when Lucire covered Naomi Campbell’s sentence last Friday.:

Capt Doug Maughan, a pilot of 28 years, had filed a complaint [against British Airways] after the use of the word coon during a training session. He also claimed Saudi Arabians were referred to as ‘rag-heads’ on one flight.

   This was in relation to Campbell allegedly being called a ‘gollywog supermodel’ by airline staff.
   In this context I don’t think I was being too sensitive, since I get the feeling the racist interpretation is more commonplace than the animal one, even in the British Commonwealth.
   It’s hard to believe the ‘gollywog’ comment, too. Campbell’s words could have been dismissed if it had not been for Capt Maughan’s own evidence that British Airways allegedly, and casually, used racist epithets. (The airline denies the allegations.)
   I won’t add more as I think the two points of view were well covered in the earlier post’s comments.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Ashes to Ashes: Keeley Hawes and Philip Glenister

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Dabysan has a few interesting observations about Moment of Truth, the game show airing on a Murdoch Press network in the US and, God help us, TV2 in New Zealand.
   The good news is that this show has reached the end of its run in New Zealand as of this Friday and let’s hope it doesn’t return.
   It’s basically a game show that paints a highly negative image of United States and the decline in taste and responsibility of New Zealand television programmers. The cancellation may be a sign that the Kiwis have found some sense again (as is the return of Life on Mars and the airing of Jekyll). The only reason it ever aired, as far as I can tell, is that it must be dirt, dirt cheap.
   Dabysan wrote: ‘The show is a sure sign of the coming of the apocalypse.’ How right that is.
   On Dabysan’s blog is a clip of one of the episodes:

Best of The Moment of Truth -- The power of breast implants

   That is the sum total of the show but somehow through “editing” (which means using the same footage over and over again, and having really long and repetitive previews telling TV audiences to come back after the break) it lasts the full 46 minutes (i.e. a commercial television hour).
   If it were shown in this shortened format I might not think so ill of it, but for it to occupy an hour of some viewers’ lives is daft.
   I wrote in the comments:

I can’t see the entertainment value in Moment of Truth. The contestant knows what questions will be asked so she should not be surprised. She was obviously not ashamed to reveal his or her answers to a total stranger, so why should millions of strangers be a problem? As for their loved ones, the contestant obviously has no shame to have engaged in embarrassing conduct so she shouldn’t be ashamed now. If she is potentially ashamed, she should not have gone on. I am glad this show is getting killed off after this Friday’s episode in New Zealand after a very short run.

   What I did not write is that this sort of show, displaying the lax morals of certain US citizens, is an insult to decent Americans—but it has a secondary effect. There is a very real danger that all Americans are grouped in our minds as being like those idiots on the show.
   When you see this and news about how many sexual partners a typical New York woman has had or that one in one hundred adult Americans are in jail, you begin to form a very negative image indeed: sleep around, cheat, lie, dis your parents, be unfaithful, commit crimes. Meanwhile, the American newsmedia, as broadcast internationally, play down things such as Sen. John McCain’s military record or provide us with exemplary behaviours (exceptions of US shows that do include the little-watched Real Life Heroes).
   The blogs are good in that they give voice to some normal folks—but most people are still influenced by the stereotypes and the sensationalism caused by biased editing in the old media.
   It is the same effect as the casting of Middle Eastern actors as terrorists in US shows, which groups them into a negative bunch and propagates a false stereotype.
   A second danger is that young people watching this show—I forget what time it airs in New Zealand but it is not that late—might think that such behaviour is acceptable.
   The message is: you can engage in any behaviour, from sexual deviancy to outright deception, and be rewarded for it if you have no sense of shame.
   I can think of a few people already who act this way and am delighted at the distance I have from them.
   It is not dissimilar to some reality TV shows which show that connivance and arrogance are the keys to winning major cash prizes.
   The world simply does not work this way, and if it ever came to that, then civilization is in deep, deep crap.
   When some people point out conspiracy theories about Communists seizing the media, promoting a value-destroying ideology and showing that emotionally harmful behaviours are normal, it’s easy to laugh at them. Then you see just what the media are propagating and you have to really think: jeez, they have a point, regardless of what Snopes might say.
   It might not be Commies doing the dirty work, as some citizens are quite happy to go down a destructive path, exhibiting behaviours that every experience tells them is bad. There are enough of us whose lives have been rendered so valueless by our own governments or corporations that Schadenfreude pushes us to enjoy seeing others’ shame and controversy.
   A good society, a decent, honest, progressive one, would never have the time or inclination to indulge in shows such as Moment of Truth or, for that matter, gossip tabloids that depend on a declining society for their success.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The below is from an entry I made at my main blog, based on some very basic maths after reposting a graph from the Historian’s blog.

Just last week I was listening to the radio—one of the foreign-owned stations that seem to populate the FM airwaves (probably Coast)—and the DJ gave one of the less intelligent commentaries about oil prices I had heard. He also referred to ‘gas prices,’ which of course is the incorrect term here where gas refers to gas, not petrol or gasoline.
   Petrol prices in New Zealand rise and fall based on American news—something that is not that relevant when it comes to how much we pay for oil. When there is a rise in the US dollar oil price, but the New Zealand dollar has strengthened over the same period, then that rise should not be felt at the pump as greatly.
   Let’s assume oil prices are at US$120 a barrel and there is no inflation between 2000 and 2008. (Of course, it was less than $120 in 2000 and more than $120 now.)
   In 2000, with the New Zealand dollar at an all-time low against the greenback, we would have had to fork out NZ$300 to get that barrel.
   In 2008, with the New Zealand dollar having gone back to around 1982 levels against the greenback, the equivalent is NZ$154.
   So for a New Zealand company buying oil, it actually costs less.
   However, I am ashamed to note that once you factor in the real prices, we are looking at these figures:

2000 price of crude, US$27·39 (real, not adjusted), equalling NZ$68·48
2008 price of crude, US$134, equalling NZ$171·79

Pump prices—and I know I am ignoring refining costs and a whole bunch of other stuff—are:

2000: NZ$0·97 per litre
2008: NZ$2·14 per litre

This actually means the rate of increase New Zealanders are experiencing is not as bad as the oil prices offshore based on New Zealand dollars, even if our prices are rising more quickly than Europe’s.
   While the Americans, relative to their dollar, are paying four times more, we are paying just under three times.
   Whatever the case, I think it’s worth informing the public—especially on whom we might be able to blame these price rises. And that demand and supply have nothing to do with these high prices, because demand is actually dropping—so we can stop blaming the Americans for their big SUVs and the Red Chinese for buying new cars.
   The targets are most likely the speculators, institutional investors, price fixers, the corporations and the cartels.
   And it seems to lend some weight to isolating a small country from these threats, globalizing where it makes sense—and in other areas, developing a better model in isolation to show the world how things might be done.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

It’s been interesting watching the MSM dissect the Clinton campaign with a whole range of experts saying why she will not be the Democratic Party nominee for the presidency. I would venture to say these are the same experts predicting a Hillary Clinton win a year ago.
   It’s that which I have found remarkable today as Sen. Barack Obama becomes the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, rather than the very strong likelihood that Sen. Obama has won.
   For months, the mainstream media have been promoting Sen. Obama heavily. One reason is that he is newsworthy to the left. More often than not, his race is used as the reason behind that promotion. In essence, most New Zealanders, and I would say most non-Americans who watched the news from the US, were left in little doubt that he would take the Democratic Party contest.
   Image sells in American politics, and probably politics in many western countries. George W. Bush got people used to thinking about a Republican president in 2000 by forming his cabinet while lawyers battled Florida. When he did win, only diehard Democrats tried to tell the American people they had been hoodwinked. Everyone else awaited the January 20, 2001 swearing-in. Go back a few years and Tony Blair, too, gave an inevitable image of a Labour victory in 1997.
   This time, Sen. Obama has done the same, and it has been a well thought-out campaign: his book, writing from a humanist perspective and admitting any faults that his rivals were likely to dig up; a consistent branding scheme (the use of the Gotham typeface, for example); and vagueness (to give his opponents less of a target).
   On some of these aspects, Sen. Obama has fielded a very different campaign. Only vagueness seems to be the common thread with other winners. A pre-campaign book was clever as well as admitting to things no other potential presidential nominee would, such as his having tried cocaine.
   In fact, when he began getting specific after a challenge by Sen. Clinton, he actually lost traction.
   I do not pretend to like all of Sen. Obama’s policies if I were to look at his voting record in the Senate, any more than I find myself in accord with Sens. Clinton and McCain.
   As a minority, I am glad that a racial barrier has been broken in American politics. Even though Sen. Obama is biracial, he has been branded an African–American through his father’s homeland, showing just how people are habitual pigeonholers. If by the quirk of genetics he had his mother’s skin colour, would his race have become such an issue?
   That one matter shows how far his campaign has come, in a country that would not have fathomed a “black” president other than in fiction, in the form of Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert.
   We can accept God being played by Morgan Freeman, but a black president?
   While having huge African–American support, I totally understand the campaign Sen. Obama ran in terms of race: he plain didn’t mention it.
   I wouldn’t.
   Any member of any minority in the world, whether that minority is black, yellow, brown or white, who has been brought up on the idea of hard work and dignity, would not make race an issue—with perhaps the exception of others making race an issue for him or her.
   I think that earned Sen. Obama brownie points among many of the United States’ immigrants and people descended relatively recently from immigrants.
   It finally proves so many of those lessons from our parents right: that if you work hard, you can become a leader.
   Once upon a time, parents said that but knew that it would take a miracle for a minority to get there, whether we are talking about the US or New Zealand.
   Barack Obama is proof not only of his own abilities, but he represents the hope that the presidency is no longer governed by skin colour, but by sheer hard work. That speaks to a large part of the electorate, including Caucasian–Americans.
   In some ways this has allowed his policies to be overlooked, which is actually unhealthy for democracy. Americans need to be voting on who can bring them true honour and meaning. But just as Sen. Obama began attacking Sen. John McCain’s policies as he presumed himself the Democratic nominee, it will be up to Sen. McCain to reveal his opponent’s policy shortcomings.
   However, it was not always in the bag.
   Those same MSM experts seem to forget that Sen. Clinton, using a campaign that broke the rules on branding (a confused message and confused visual communications) got so close to Sen. Obama that it actually was a miracle she survived and gained as many votes as she did. Writing in a country that has had two successive female prime ministers and, at one point, women in the Governor-General’s and Chief Justice’s role as well, the gender difference means far less to me. What I saw was a clumsy campaign that had more traction than logic would allow me to admit.
   Sen. Clinton’s progress was nothing short of amazing considering she did not play from the rulebook, and we brand consultants will have to at least acknowledge her case and say: anomalies exist in marketing strategy.
   The question is now whether there is a Clinton vice-presidency, but Obama aides are dead set against it. Equally, Clinton aides would not want their senator cosying up with Sen. Obama.
   If the Clinton image of “will say and do anything for the top job” is accurate, and as Sen. Clinton herself mentioned the possibility of assassination, I would not consider the senator from New York to be a vice-presidential nominee if I were Barack Obama. I might get “Arkancided” in the hope of her succession.
   But right now, Sen. Obama has a Democratic Party to reunite and invigorate, something that Sen. McCain may have difficulty doing for an uninspired GOP. Sen. Obama has media visibility on his side, reaching internal as well as external audiences.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

[Cross-posted] Yves Saint Laurent’s passing is such a shock to the fashion media because he was the world’s greatest couturier.
   When we broke the news on Sunday night at Lucire, it was obvious that we were marking the end of an era.
   The casual observer might say that the end occurred in 2002, when Saint Laurent retired to his house in Marrakech. But while he remained alive, there was always that link to one of fashion’s pure geniuses.
   Saint Laurent, perhaps like Mozart, did not have formal training when he created clothes for his sister and mother. He was talented enough to be accepted into the Chambre Syndicale. When he created the trapèze look at Dior in 1958, he was not following some great marketing-trend projection. Nor were brand advisers present with studies about liberating women when he gave the world le smoking or the safari look.
   It was only with hindsight that we, the media, made the connections for him, hiding the real inspirations that he had in his quest to become France’s greatest couturier.
   The great irony is that as his influence grew, so did the YSL brand, which meant his name became so tied up with marketing, business, financial projections and trend forecasts.
   While that brought Saint Laurent wealth, it was always clear that he was happiest simply being a créateur. It was a sign that it was better to preside over a genuine maison de l’amour than seeing if money bought happiness.
   His passing perhaps marks the demise of a pure couturier who drew from something within, finding the essence not only of his muses, such as Catherine Deneuve, but of himself.
   Today’s couturiers, while incredibly talented, are also more calculated and savvy. Saint Laurent could leave the calculations and savvy to his lover and company president, Pierre Bergé.
   I am not saying one method is better than the other. But I do miss that era where we praised Saint Laurent because he was simply so good at what he did, setting the Zeitgeist for the simple reason that he did not watch the Zeitgeist.
   Today’s designers, such as Gaultier and Ford, and even to an extent Saint Laurent’s contemporary, Lagerfeld, have a more balanced outlook, which obviously have kept them away from the down sides of Saint Laurent’s behaviour: his severe depression and his reclusiveness, especially during the 1980s.
   It is also Yves Saint Laurent the recluse, the victim of school bullying, the man who saw himself as a latter-day Swann, that also makes today’s story all the more compelling. But again, it hides that single-minded desire, one which few of us would dare to do because we know of its personal cost.
   When President Sarkozy made him an Officier of the Legion d’Honneur, the title of ‘hero’ wasn’t inappropriate for Saint Laurent.
   He is a hero for that reason, and he has set the bar so high that it will take an extraordinary person to beat his record.
   The Proust connection—Saint Laurent as Swann, by his own reckoning—does point to how he saw himself, cast out by society. It is invalid, because we are all the poorer now.
   We have lost one of the purest designers; one fewer great figure on whom we can not only report, but bask in his genius.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Finally, a celeb decides to extend a hand of friendship to beleaguered celeb Britney Spears:

http://www.rte.ie/arts/2008/0516/spearsb.html

   Mel Gibson may slag off Judaism and Jews when drunk but it is high time someone showed some kindness to Britney and her family.
   It’s a good move for two celebs who need a bit of a positive boost in the media.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I could have spent half an hour doing something more productive but them’s the breaks as a ratepayer.

Attn.: Transport Group, Wellington City Council
via email

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We’re very happy that WCC has contracted Fulton Hogan to reseal Mamari Street, Rongotai. The road was in need of repair and it was done with very little fuss or annoyance to the residents. The road workers were extremely courteous and made sure that we could carry on with our business without delay.
   But—and there’s always a but—the entry to the street is more compromised than before, certainly more so than it was after the last repair.
   The design of the entrance from Coutts Street is akin to that of a driveway now, rather than a street, which normally I would not have a problem about. In fact, for security, it makes the street look more private and out-of-bounds than it really is.
   I know that the Council and Fulton Hogan would have seen this as an improvement and I thank you for that consideration.
   There are some road safety issues as a result of the improvement, which you would not have been aware of without being a resident of Mamari Street.
   That corner (outside Leo’s and 163 Coutts Street) has traditionally collected a lot of water. Now, because of the way the entrance is designed, more water collects in the new gutter, making it hard for motorists, especially those unfamiliar with the street, to see that it’s not a regular turn from Coutts Street, but more like a driveway. I see potential for accidents as a result of this; at the least damage to suspensions at the carriageway edge and gutter. This has become apparent with the extra rain we've been getting since the road works.
   Secondly, the corner on Coutts Street between Salek and Mamari Streets is notorious for tailgating. Again, this would be something you wouldn’t have known. Some motorists will tailgate more on that corner, unaware of the pedestrian crossing there, or that the car in front has slowed to turn into Mamari Street, despite indicating. In the past one could make a hasty but safe retreat into Mamari Street if tailgated. Today, I am not so sure as the driver of the first car would have to slow down considerably more and tailgaters might not be able to react in time.
   Thirdly, exiting Mamari Street is now more difficult, especially with front-wheel-drive cars which, as you know, form the majority of modern cars unless you go to neighbourhoods with BMWs and Mercedes. The gutter and carriageway crossfall from Mamari to Coutts now make it hard for these cars to get traction and on a wet day, wheelspins aren't uncommon.
   With the increased traffic to and from the Warehouse in Lyall Bay, this intersection has become far busier and wheelspins, while a motorist is trying to join the main road, are potentially dangerous.
   It’s another thing you would not have known without living here: with the greater number of SUVs and minivans, it is not always easy to see out of Mamari Street. We often have to come out into Coutts more than we safely should to see what is approaching from the southern end. A motorist coming out of Mamari Street risks getting T-boned as some drivers from Coutts coming from the northwestern side are not always prepared to slow down for the pedestrian crossing or for motorists exiting from the smaller street—sadly, we New Zealanders can be mean-spirited drivers. But to avoid wheelspins motorists may have to come out into the crossfall or risk the front wheels going back into the gutter.
   Fourthly—and this is one that maybe affects me and one other neighbour more than other residents—the verge from Mamari Street to Coutts Street is at a more severe angle than I would like even though it is probably within your guidelines as being acceptable. My car is not a low car, but one neighbour has a Corolla with a spoiler. Even on mine I hear the tiny front spoiler (it is not a large boy-racer one, but a simple plastic air dam) scrape as I exit Mamari Street and enter the Coutts Street carriageway. I hate to think what it would do to her car which does have a larger, after-market front spoiler.
   If it was just one issue I’d have been happy to put up and shut up, but faced with several potential hazards, especially the ones that are now becoming apparent with the rain, I hope you can look into this.
   I am not sure what the best solution is, but the faux brick paving of Salek Street may be a solution for Mamari Street if the aim is to slow entering motorists. Whatever the case, I believe the entrance to the street should resemble that of a street, rather than a driveway, for safety reasons, even if I personally like the idea of living on a secluded, private-looking street.

Very truly yours,

Jack Yan
13 Mamari Street
(04) ***-****

cc for Councillor Leonie Gill, Eastern Ward

   As I pasted this in, I thought: in the old days you might back this up with a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, or send it to someone higher up than the person you were addressing it to, to get extra attention. Now we just turn them into open letters and stick them on our blogs. Power to the people?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

[Cross-posted] Sometimes I surprise myself on what comes up in blog comments. In a thread about the Iraq war and the short memories of nations over on Vox, I wrote the following. And as I wrote, I believed this to be a possible truth.

To go forth in the future we need to discover our past, a hard thing in an age of short memories as you say. … Leadership might not come from size but from those nations that have steadfastly refused to give in to the prevailing decline in so many places. Switzerland, for all its refusal to join the EU, has managed to maintain one of the greatest gun ownership rates in the world yet not have a single gun-related murder attributable to its own in most years; Singapore, retaining its Confucian philosophies, manages a city-state with limited natural resources.
   Their example needs to be communicated to the world, as well as the positive aspects of certain parts of the US or China—they exist, but they are hidden.
   This is one reason to like blogs because they can cut through the shield of the MSM and government propaganda. I do not think that we have reached any critical mass among netizens, networking citizens together in a form of moral leadership. … [T]here are pockets of good people everywhere as you and I have witnessed, just that we are not necessarily visible.
   But that critical mass can come—and if warfare now is at a terrorist, guerrilla level in so many places, I suspect moral leadership itself will come from a grass-roots base.
   The system needs idealists like us, reminding people of their short memories, and maybe change will be effected not through top–down governmental, propagandist methods or the MSM, but through one-on-few communications from each of us.
   I would rather hope that the next superpower, therefore, is not a nation or even an ideology, but a collective of humankind cutting through the BS and revealing the truth. Who says the ’net cannot be a force for good once more? If it can propagate hate and porn, it can just as easily propagate hope and truth.

   I get reminded of this every now and then by others who feel the same way: Chris, at the Edutainment & Convergence blog, wrote to me privately and inspired me. And when I think back to books like Beyond Branding and Typography & Branding, I think there was a great deal of post-9-11 optimism and the desire to build a better, more understanding world. I find passages of my Typography & Branding inspiring, if an author is allowed to be inspired by his own work, and I can’t have been this cynical back then.
   It’s a good zone to be in and I haven’t felt this hopeful about the potential of the ’net in about a year.
   Last year, I was bemoaning the decline of the blogosphere as it began looking more and more like the darker parts of society, with gossipmongers and rude, anonymous commenters finding their way on to it. Where were, I asked, the globally minded idealists of the 1990s?
   On the other hand, their entry into this world surely puts them closer to the hands of the idealists who can now shape agenda, creating more hopeful sites and messages.
   And maybe channelling or finding the above message from my subconscious helped me put things into perspective more. If indeed the state nation is less relevant and change is better effected by people helping people directly, because technology has now made that possible, then the moral vacuum caused by various changes in society can be filled.
   All it needs are willing participants prepared to get together to make the world a better place, regardless of their political, cultural or religious stripes.
   That’s really why I got into media.
   If we agree on this target, then the rest must follow.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend