A few days ago I was part of a conversation on Twitter that I've just been reminded of in which, basically, another user and I went off on a rant about tertiary education with poor Gareth Hughes (of the Greens party) on the receiving end. (Sorry about that Gareth!)
Something that came up that he hadn't been aware of was that in the last Budget (timing reference from @caffeine_addict since I wasn't sure myself when this had happened) a change was made to Studylink entitlements, namely that course-related costs can now only be borrowed by full-time students. For the few who may not be aware, there are three components of a student loan - course fees (paid directly to the university/etc), course-related costs (for buying textbooks and other such things - in my case this will include airfares to get to contact courses) and living costs (up to, unless it's changed recently, $150/week to survive on). The latter two are only for full-time students, and of course those who qualify for the student allowance don't usually bother with the living costs because borrowing money to live on is bad finances.
The problem is, as education gets more expensive and the cost of living increases, the number of people who can afford to be full-time students goes down. While it's possible to both work and study full-time, it requires a job with flexible hours and good time management skills, and in an economy where hundreds of people apply for minimum wage supermarket jobs, the chances of getting such a job aren't great. So basically we have a situation where more and more students are being classified as part-time, and at the same time the financial assistance offered to part-time students is getting more and more limited, which is why situations like mine are so common where without limited full-time classifications it would be impossible for me to go back to university - and if I was under 25 I'd only be able to do it by borrowing money to live on, thanks to the student allowance criteria that means-test a student's parents.
And, of course, these changes are going under the radar. Gareth didn't even know about the course-related costs change and he's an MP - albeit not one in the education field, so I don't blame him, there's a hell of a lot to keep track of - so people who went to university a decade or two ago most likely assume that funding is just as easy, or even moreso, now than it was back then.
(The discussion also touched on the preponderance of scholarships and aid for trades students while other sectors have absolutely nothing at all, but by god I have complained about that more than enough and besides which it's a failing of the very nature of private scholarships [which for the most part I support] rather than government policy.)
Showing posts with label classism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classism. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Thursday, 6 October 2011
On oddities
This is the letter I just wrote to Mark Stevens:
Good evening,
As you are listed as the Stuff editor I thought you may be the best person to ask: how exactly does Stuff define "odd"? I'm unclear on exactly what is odd about this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/5728613/Boy-pulls-out-teeth-after-dad-puts-off-dentist
Is it the neglect? The poverty that caused a family to not be able to afford healthcare? The possible mental illness hinted at by the reference to a psychological assessment?
I had always thought that "odd" had a connotation of something quirky, unusual and potentially entertaining, but nothing about this story seems to fit those criteria, nor any other that I can think of. This situation is, in fact, distressingly common, and there is nothing entertaining about it.
I would be grateful for some insight on this matter.
Thank you,
Chris
Good evening,
As you are listed as the Stuff editor I thought you may be the best person to ask: how exactly does Stuff define "odd"? I'm unclear on exactly what is odd about this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/5728613/Boy-pulls-out-teeth-after-dad-puts-off-dentist
Is it the neglect? The poverty that caused a family to not be able to afford healthcare? The possible mental illness hinted at by the reference to a psychological assessment?
I had always thought that "odd" had a connotation of something quirky, unusual and potentially entertaining, but nothing about this story seems to fit those criteria, nor any other that I can think of. This situation is, in fact, distressingly common, and there is nothing entertaining about it.
I would be grateful for some insight on this matter.
Thank you,
Chris
Monday, 19 September 2011
Why I support a UBI
You may be wondering, what is a UBI? UBI stands for Universal Basic Income, which is exactly what it sounds like: a guaranteed income for everyone at a level that allows them a basic standard of living, which can be padded by working for money. In my opinion, this extra income should have a higher tax burden on it than is now standard to support the system - others may argue that it can be done a different way.
Isn't this a lot like socialism? Yep, it is. I'm okay with that. I don't see why socialism is a dirty word. We're social creatures who live in societies, and we all benefit when standards of living are increased.
So, why is a UBI better than the current system? We already have benefits, after all. But those benefits don't actually cover everyone, and when they do, they're barely enough money to get by on, with prices rising much faster than benefit payments. Not to mention, our current system is based heavily on the idea that paid productive work is the benchmark we should be judging people on, and that what work is most important is based on the ideals of an entrenched system that devalues some very difficult jobs. This is why teachers are paid so little, school librarians get even less, and parents get nothing. Any job that is traditionally a woman's job automatically gets a massive paycut, simply because it is considered to be a woman's job. If we were to start over with none of those preconceived notions, who really thinks that teachers and nurses would be put into such shit working conditions? These are vital jobs - caring for the sick, instilling knowledge and the ability to analyse and assess into the next generation.
In this sort of environment, we also risk losing a lot of knowledge that isn't considered commercially viable. Not many people have the time to put into learning something that isn't going to help them earn money - in New Zealand this particularly applies to a lot of Maori traditions like carving and raranga (flax weaving), studying Maori oral history or pre-Cook science, interviewing elders about the stories they remember*, etc. This knowledge is valuable, but especially since Maori are disproportionately represented among the poor, it would be very easy for it to die out.
A lot of opponents to the idea of the UBI say that if we give out money for nothing, people won't work. This is categorically untrue. People do volunteer work as it is - quite a lot of it, in New Zealand. Other people really believe in what they do and value things other than income. How many people have taken or would take a job that pays less because they would enjoy it more? Many would have a job just for something to do, to keep them busy. And still more would simply want a bigger income than the UBI would provide, and so would work to earn it. Not to mention that the importance of work and productivity is a cultural one that wouldn't disappear overnight were a UBI to be introduced, so you also have the people who'll work because they wouldn't want to say they didn't work.
And then there's the jobs themselves. As we improve technology, everything becomes more efficient. We need far fewer people to do work that once would have required many. We also have a constantly growing population, and while that means more services have to be provided, as a company gets bigger they can streamline their operations to require fewer staff:customers than a smaller business would. Improved methods of transport and ordering aid this as well - you don't need a brick and mortar store in every town if your customer base is all shopping on the internet and having products sent to them, and you don't need a factory in every city if your product can be trucked down to your other stores without losing quality.
To cling to the idea that someone must work in a paid job to be a productive member of society is backwards. Free market capitalism does not value the things that people value. We would still have art, and literature, and entertainment - but we'd have much less of it... or rather, with a UBI, we'd have more of it. And in my eyes that can only be to the good.
*there is actually a show on Maori TV that is basically just talking to elders about their lives, and it's awesome.
Isn't this a lot like socialism? Yep, it is. I'm okay with that. I don't see why socialism is a dirty word. We're social creatures who live in societies, and we all benefit when standards of living are increased.
So, why is a UBI better than the current system? We already have benefits, after all. But those benefits don't actually cover everyone, and when they do, they're barely enough money to get by on, with prices rising much faster than benefit payments. Not to mention, our current system is based heavily on the idea that paid productive work is the benchmark we should be judging people on, and that what work is most important is based on the ideals of an entrenched system that devalues some very difficult jobs. This is why teachers are paid so little, school librarians get even less, and parents get nothing. Any job that is traditionally a woman's job automatically gets a massive paycut, simply because it is considered to be a woman's job. If we were to start over with none of those preconceived notions, who really thinks that teachers and nurses would be put into such shit working conditions? These are vital jobs - caring for the sick, instilling knowledge and the ability to analyse and assess into the next generation.
In this sort of environment, we also risk losing a lot of knowledge that isn't considered commercially viable. Not many people have the time to put into learning something that isn't going to help them earn money - in New Zealand this particularly applies to a lot of Maori traditions like carving and raranga (flax weaving), studying Maori oral history or pre-Cook science, interviewing elders about the stories they remember*, etc. This knowledge is valuable, but especially since Maori are disproportionately represented among the poor, it would be very easy for it to die out.
A lot of opponents to the idea of the UBI say that if we give out money for nothing, people won't work. This is categorically untrue. People do volunteer work as it is - quite a lot of it, in New Zealand. Other people really believe in what they do and value things other than income. How many people have taken or would take a job that pays less because they would enjoy it more? Many would have a job just for something to do, to keep them busy. And still more would simply want a bigger income than the UBI would provide, and so would work to earn it. Not to mention that the importance of work and productivity is a cultural one that wouldn't disappear overnight were a UBI to be introduced, so you also have the people who'll work because they wouldn't want to say they didn't work.
And then there's the jobs themselves. As we improve technology, everything becomes more efficient. We need far fewer people to do work that once would have required many. We also have a constantly growing population, and while that means more services have to be provided, as a company gets bigger they can streamline their operations to require fewer staff:customers than a smaller business would. Improved methods of transport and ordering aid this as well - you don't need a brick and mortar store in every town if your customer base is all shopping on the internet and having products sent to them, and you don't need a factory in every city if your product can be trucked down to your other stores without losing quality.
To cling to the idea that someone must work in a paid job to be a productive member of society is backwards. Free market capitalism does not value the things that people value. We would still have art, and literature, and entertainment - but we'd have much less of it... or rather, with a UBI, we'd have more of it. And in my eyes that can only be to the good.
*there is actually a show on Maori TV that is basically just talking to elders about their lives, and it's awesome.
Friday, 26 August 2011
'Bias' in reporting
Recently there was an article on Stuff about how John Key told the Americans back in 2008 that National couldn't make any really conservative policies because there was a socialist streak in all New Zealanders. They've now updated this news with more information - John Key has confirmed that he said that!
The article's here.
It's really not particularly interesting, and I'd seen a lot of it before, but the comments are worth a read purely for the highly contradictory nature of them. There are quite a few people bashing Stuff for their anti-National reporting... and also people bashing Stuff for their pro-National reporting. There are a lot of people saying "Well, yes, and that's awesome." But there are also some who hate it. And, of course, the few people who don't follow the journalistic style well enough to realise that only a minority of the article is Key's words, as well as the people who think that rich-bashing is a good political move.
For extra brain-ache, the poll that came up for me in the side bar was asking if I thought benefit payment cards were a good idea. In our apparently socialist country of rich-bashing, 77.2% of the respondents voted yes.
God, I'd hate to see what we'd be like if we didn't hate rich people so much!
The article's here.
It's really not particularly interesting, and I'd seen a lot of it before, but the comments are worth a read purely for the highly contradictory nature of them. There are quite a few people bashing Stuff for their anti-National reporting... and also people bashing Stuff for their pro-National reporting. There are a lot of people saying "Well, yes, and that's awesome." But there are also some who hate it. And, of course, the few people who don't follow the journalistic style well enough to realise that only a minority of the article is Key's words, as well as the people who think that rich-bashing is a good political move.
For extra brain-ache, the poll that came up for me in the side bar was asking if I thought benefit payment cards were a good idea. In our apparently socialist country of rich-bashing, 77.2% of the respondents voted yes.
God, I'd hate to see what we'd be like if we didn't hate rich people so much!
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
The devil's luck
When I called the dentist this morning I was told that they were booked up for two weeks.
However, it so happens that another practice is sharing the building with them, as they used to be located in town. And they had a cancelation just before noon. So two hours later I headed off to find out how financially boned I would be.
In another piece of luck, there was enough of the tooth left to build up a composite crown on. I didn't have to wait for it to be fixed on another day, he just did it right then, and when it came time to pay the cost was $160.
Now, I do have to go back next week for a check up and xrays. At the very absolutely minimum, I'm going to need three fillings, and that's not cheap. But this was far, far better than I'd expected, so I'm counting it as a win.
I'll also be taking the financial hit myself and leaving the special need grant from WINZ as a resort for some other emergency. The downside is that I'm paying for it off my credit card rather than a safety buffer of money in my actual bank account, so there'll be interest to pay off, but if I leave $200 in my account and shunt everything over that to my credit card I'll be able to keep my progress up in getting that down. (I need to leave money in my account because my debit card for it is one of those fake-credit cards that you can use to buy things online with money you actually have, and that "credit" card info is what I wrote on the forms which are now with Births, Deaths and Marriages. I have no idea when they're going to want to get that money, which is somewhat inconvenient.)
However, it so happens that another practice is sharing the building with them, as they used to be located in town. And they had a cancelation just before noon. So two hours later I headed off to find out how financially boned I would be.
In another piece of luck, there was enough of the tooth left to build up a composite crown on. I didn't have to wait for it to be fixed on another day, he just did it right then, and when it came time to pay the cost was $160.
Now, I do have to go back next week for a check up and xrays. At the very absolutely minimum, I'm going to need three fillings, and that's not cheap. But this was far, far better than I'd expected, so I'm counting it as a win.
I'll also be taking the financial hit myself and leaving the special need grant from WINZ as a resort for some other emergency. The downside is that I'm paying for it off my credit card rather than a safety buffer of money in my actual bank account, so there'll be interest to pay off, but if I leave $200 in my account and shunt everything over that to my credit card I'll be able to keep my progress up in getting that down. (I need to leave money in my account because my debit card for it is one of those fake-credit cards that you can use to buy things online with money you actually have, and that "credit" card info is what I wrote on the forms which are now with Births, Deaths and Marriages. I have no idea when they're going to want to get that money, which is somewhat inconvenient.)
Monday, 22 August 2011
Unexpected costs
It's the nightmare of anyone barely making ends meet - the sudden spectre of an unavoidable and unaffordable cost.
I've just broken a tooth. An incisor, even, and the one next to it seems to have a cavity. Last time I went to the dentist I was informed that the medication I'm on is known to dry your mouth out which causes problems with teeth, and I admit I haven't had the greatest habits over the last few months. Comfort food and frequent lack of caring means I haven't been taking very good care of myself - including my teeth. So, this may have been inevitable. I'll be calling a dentist tomorrow for an appointment where the disapproval will no doubt be tangible and I'll be able to ask about payment options; probably I'll be able to pay in installments.
Other than cash assets, there are three places I can immediately go to to see if I can get help with payments.
1. Health insurance, which I do have. However, my plan with Southern Cross is VIP 2. These are the VIP plans:
VIP 1 ► the foundation module that everybody begins with, provides cover for the least predictable, high cost conditions that require in-hospital surgical and medical treatment.
VIP 2 ► provides the same cover as VIP 1 plus consultations with specified specialists and diagnostic tests and imaging.
VIP 3 ► provides the same cover as VIP 2 plus day-to-day medical services like, doctor visits, prescriptions and physiotherapy.
VIP 4 ► provides the same cover as VIP 3 plus dental and optical benefits.
They say it's modular, meaning you can tailor it to what you can pay and choose what you want covered, but as you can see it's incremental - you can only get dental coverage if you also get doctor visits, prescriptions etc. When I was working out what I could afford, I couldn't manage that, though ideally I would have wanted dental coverage. (If you do have VIP 4 it only covers 75% of dental and optical rather than 100%.) I believe they do have plans where dental is truly an optional module that doesn't have other requirements, like Wellbeing, but because VIP is a more restricted one, when I was choosing my plan it was the cheapest option. So, while I will double check, it looks like I don't have much hope here.
2. ACC covers dental injury, ie, a result of an accident or sports injury, or as a result of treatment. They do not cover wear and tear, and "ACC will not fund treatment to teeth that were decayed prior to the accident and the need for treatment is to resolve non-accident related conditions." In complicated cases (where complicated is actually pretty simple) a dental advisor will decide, which can take up to 21 days, or if it's extremely complicated (there was a dental problem before the accident, they need to verify that the treatment is accident-related) up to four months.
3. WINZ has a Special Needs Grant for emergency dental treatment! "Dental treatment must arise from an emergency situation which has given rise to an immediate need." They also provide a helpful link to the maximum payment for emergency dental treatment: $300. If that isn't enough and you're receiving a benefit, you can apply for advanced payment of benefit, which should be no more than $200. At some point in the process, it's not clear where but I suspect before you get anything at all, you must have exhausted other options, including assistance from other government agencies - this may well include ACC, which hopefully doesn't mean waiting four months for their decision.
As an aside, I found the following text on the Other Sources of Assistance page:
"Consider the balance of any Student Loan available. Consideration should be given to declining the application if this option has not been exhausted. Note under no circumstances are students to be referred to institution hardship funds. Students may be eligible for Special Needs Grants assistance." (my emphasis)
I have seen people talk about "student-poor" as being different from actual poor. I guess even the government thinks that "actual" poor people don't study.
I've just broken a tooth. An incisor, even, and the one next to it seems to have a cavity. Last time I went to the dentist I was informed that the medication I'm on is known to dry your mouth out which causes problems with teeth, and I admit I haven't had the greatest habits over the last few months. Comfort food and frequent lack of caring means I haven't been taking very good care of myself - including my teeth. So, this may have been inevitable. I'll be calling a dentist tomorrow for an appointment where the disapproval will no doubt be tangible and I'll be able to ask about payment options; probably I'll be able to pay in installments.
Other than cash assets, there are three places I can immediately go to to see if I can get help with payments.
1. Health insurance, which I do have. However, my plan with Southern Cross is VIP 2. These are the VIP plans:
VIP 1 ► the foundation module that everybody begins with, provides cover for the least predictable, high cost conditions that require in-hospital surgical and medical treatment.
VIP 2 ► provides the same cover as VIP 1 plus consultations with specified specialists and diagnostic tests and imaging.
VIP 3 ► provides the same cover as VIP 2 plus day-to-day medical services like, doctor visits, prescriptions and physiotherapy.
VIP 4 ► provides the same cover as VIP 3 plus dental and optical benefits.
They say it's modular, meaning you can tailor it to what you can pay and choose what you want covered, but as you can see it's incremental - you can only get dental coverage if you also get doctor visits, prescriptions etc. When I was working out what I could afford, I couldn't manage that, though ideally I would have wanted dental coverage. (If you do have VIP 4 it only covers 75% of dental and optical rather than 100%.) I believe they do have plans where dental is truly an optional module that doesn't have other requirements, like Wellbeing, but because VIP is a more restricted one, when I was choosing my plan it was the cheapest option. So, while I will double check, it looks like I don't have much hope here.
2. ACC covers dental injury, ie, a result of an accident or sports injury, or as a result of treatment. They do not cover wear and tear, and "ACC will not fund treatment to teeth that were decayed prior to the accident and the need for treatment is to resolve non-accident related conditions." In complicated cases (where complicated is actually pretty simple) a dental advisor will decide, which can take up to 21 days, or if it's extremely complicated (there was a dental problem before the accident, they need to verify that the treatment is accident-related) up to four months.
3. WINZ has a Special Needs Grant for emergency dental treatment! "Dental treatment must arise from an emergency situation which has given rise to an immediate need." They also provide a helpful link to the maximum payment for emergency dental treatment: $300. If that isn't enough and you're receiving a benefit, you can apply for advanced payment of benefit, which should be no more than $200. At some point in the process, it's not clear where but I suspect before you get anything at all, you must have exhausted other options, including assistance from other government agencies - this may well include ACC, which hopefully doesn't mean waiting four months for their decision.
As an aside, I found the following text on the Other Sources of Assistance page:
"Consider the balance of any Student Loan available. Consideration should be given to declining the application if this option has not been exhausted. Note under no circumstances are students to be referred to institution hardship funds. Students may be eligible for Special Needs Grants assistance." (my emphasis)
I have seen people talk about "student-poor" as being different from actual poor. I guess even the government thinks that "actual" poor people don't study.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Steal bottled water, sentenced to be thrown on the streets
At a certain point, any civilised society should ask itself what the purpose of the justice system is - rehabilitation, or revenge? So many of the dominant Western countries, though, seem excessively confused on this simple question. I suspect that most clashes over the relative length of prison sentences arise over a difference of opinion here. Personally, it seems to me that the only rational answer in both a social and a financial sense is that it should be for rehabilitation, but lawmakers tend to consider the general population to be a bloodthirsty lot - often not without reason. And it's far easier to appear to be tough on crime by increasing punishments than to fix the problems before the crimes happen.
When I was a small child, I read a lot, and learned somewhere that in about the 1600s in London, you could be executed for stealing a shilling. Now, I don't think that that was the norm. Sure, it probably happened, especially if the thief happened to belong to a minority that was not socially acceptable at the time, but I don't think the big book of law and punishments actually listed execution as a stock standard sentence for that crime. But that leads to the question: In 500 years, what will children learn about us?
It's not just the riots in the UK, though John Cameron's talk about having offenders evicted and cutting benefits to all of them, not just those jailed, as well as targeting families, is pretty disturbing. Especially when you consider that there have been people arrested for stealing not just minor items, but minor items generally classified as necessities (and in at least one case for receiving a minor item). As media becomes more personalised with the internet, as economies become more and more divisive and unequal, there have been an awful lot of pretty disturbing stories about the punishments poor people have been getting. Among some highly publicised ones have been a man stealing $1 from a bank to get healthcare in jail, another stealing $100 to get into detox, then feeling remorseful and turning himself in and being hit with a fifteen year sentence, at least two homeless mothers claiming a false address to get their children into school who apparently need to be made examples of - how dare they think children are entitled to an education? - and, somewhat related, mothers having newborn babies being taken away after eating poppy seeds skewed the results of the "standard" opiate tests given to women giving birth in Philidelphia. (I don't mean to pick on the US with these - because it's so dominant and has such a large population, most of the most publicised cases tend to come from there. Certainly the class warfare in other countries is often just as bad.)
Put simply, most criminals are not exactly ruthless sociopaths. The risk of reoffending for a huge number of them is actually ridiculously low, especially once they've been faced with jail and thus been shown that their actions are taken seriously. Some people do need to be put away for life, of course; Clayton Weatherston, for example, is highly unlikely to ever be safely released, based on his behaviour during the trial which seemed to show a massive disconnect between reality and how he viewed it. But for others, the risk of reoffending only exists because they are forced to it - while for some who never see the inside of a police station, let alone jail, the risk of reoffending is extremely high because society will tolerate criminal behaviour, as long as it doesn't step outside acceptable lines. Date rape? Totally okay. Business fraud on a massive scale? Not exactly desirable, but you're such a nice white man, so prominent in the community, so you just get a slap on the wrist. Forcing people to acknowledge poverty? LOCK THAT SHIT DOWN. And dear god, don't even think about daring to be poor if you're black!
When I was a small child, I read a lot, and learned somewhere that in about the 1600s in London, you could be executed for stealing a shilling. Now, I don't think that that was the norm. Sure, it probably happened, especially if the thief happened to belong to a minority that was not socially acceptable at the time, but I don't think the big book of law and punishments actually listed execution as a stock standard sentence for that crime. But that leads to the question: In 500 years, what will children learn about us?
It's not just the riots in the UK, though John Cameron's talk about having offenders evicted and cutting benefits to all of them, not just those jailed, as well as targeting families, is pretty disturbing. Especially when you consider that there have been people arrested for stealing not just minor items, but minor items generally classified as necessities (and in at least one case for receiving a minor item). As media becomes more personalised with the internet, as economies become more and more divisive and unequal, there have been an awful lot of pretty disturbing stories about the punishments poor people have been getting. Among some highly publicised ones have been a man stealing $1 from a bank to get healthcare in jail, another stealing $100 to get into detox, then feeling remorseful and turning himself in and being hit with a fifteen year sentence, at least two homeless mothers claiming a false address to get their children into school who apparently need to be made examples of - how dare they think children are entitled to an education? - and, somewhat related, mothers having newborn babies being taken away after eating poppy seeds skewed the results of the "standard" opiate tests given to women giving birth in Philidelphia. (I don't mean to pick on the US with these - because it's so dominant and has such a large population, most of the most publicised cases tend to come from there. Certainly the class warfare in other countries is often just as bad.)
Put simply, most criminals are not exactly ruthless sociopaths. The risk of reoffending for a huge number of them is actually ridiculously low, especially once they've been faced with jail and thus been shown that their actions are taken seriously. Some people do need to be put away for life, of course; Clayton Weatherston, for example, is highly unlikely to ever be safely released, based on his behaviour during the trial which seemed to show a massive disconnect between reality and how he viewed it. But for others, the risk of reoffending only exists because they are forced to it - while for some who never see the inside of a police station, let alone jail, the risk of reoffending is extremely high because society will tolerate criminal behaviour, as long as it doesn't step outside acceptable lines. Date rape? Totally okay. Business fraud on a massive scale? Not exactly desirable, but you're such a nice white man, so prominent in the community, so you just get a slap on the wrist. Forcing people to acknowledge poverty? LOCK THAT SHIT DOWN. And dear god, don't even think about daring to be poor if you're black!
Monday, 15 August 2011
Playing with matches
The New Zealand blogosphere is all a-twitter with John Key's welfare plan for teenagers on benefits. I have some lengthy thoughts, but first I'm going to link to a video: The Intervention - Witness - Al Jazeera English
I'v already linked this a couple of times on Twitter and a week or so ago on Google+, but I think it's particularly relevant right now. It's nearly an hour long, but worth it - it covers the intervention program in Australia which took control of the incomes of Australian Aborigines in the far north of the country and the fall out from it. Obviously there are differences to what John Key is proposing - for starters we're not going to be taking away jobs that young people already have - but it's important viewing.
The thing about National is that I can't trust they've thought any of their policies through. The complete shambles of the Skynet law proved that. And that leaves me with a lot of questions about this one. What is this supposed to achieve, exactly? Are they also going to make a push to teach people budgeting skills, or are they just going to do it for them? Is there going to be room in the system for birth control, and if so, will people be able to choose the one that suits them the most or will they only have a few options? (eg, a certain dollar value a week might be good for condoms or the pill, but not an IUD, which is a cost outlay to begin with and then no more for years) What happens when something unexpected comes up that needs to be paid for - most people will sit down and make a decision, like, maybe I'll spend a bit less on food and put off paying the power bill until Tuesday. Will beneficiaries be able to do the same thing, or are they just screwed? Have they actually considered the fact that 16-17 year olds can't legally buy alcohol and cigarettes anyway, so if they're doing so it must be through a method that isn't necessarily going to be affected at all? (Note in the Intervention video, at one point a shop owner says that though he's been losing money, alcohol sales haven't changed at all. It's the food sales that suffered.)
Even aside from practicalities, I have little doubt they haven't given serious consideration to the emotional affect of something like this. In essence, we'd have people leaving high school ready to join the adult world, and then finding that if they can't get a job they have to go into this system where they're treated like small children. If we want to beat them down and humiliate them, it's probably a good policy. If we want to build resentment, it's great.
I really can't help but notice that the only people who think this is a good idea are those who think people want to be on a benefit. Look, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. Being on a benefit is hell. For starters, your income is far less than a minimum wage full-time job would give you, and it's still less than many minimum wage part-time jobs would give you. Beyond that, though, there's the constant worry. How do you explain the gaps on your CV? In my case, how do I explain my complete lack of references even from when I was working? I had a nervous breakdown at work, and then somehow went through two more jobs before finally realising I couldn't actually keep going - as a result, I don't have anyone from back then who'd even say neutral things about me, let alone good. Most unemployed people don't have that problem, but that's another issue with this system - it treats everyone the same, when everyone is not the same. Then there's the self-blame and confusion. Am I really on this benefit because I have to be, or am I self-sabotaging? If everyone's saying this is my fault, are they right? Maybe I am just useless. Maybe I shouldn't even bother. Maybe I should just live down to their expectations. It would be easier than trying to prove myself over and over again and never, ever managing it. (In the case of teen parents, I suspect, but don't know, that this might be even more common. Society hates teen parents.)
Ultimately, this policy does nothing to address the real issues. It does nothing to create jobs. It does nothing to teach young people skills. It does nothing to give them confidence in themselves, to find their strengths, to help them realise their goals. It's just a looming dark pit, right behind them, waiting for them to make a single mis-step. Given ongoing events in the UK, given the financial crisis in Greece, given the growing inequality in New Zealand and the repeated outbreaks of preventable illnesses and the high numbers of young people without futures, this is going to do nothing but doom us. And I, for one, am terrified for the results of this election. I have no realistic hopes that Labour will beat National, but all I can do is hope that their majority is slim enough that they need a coalition - and not just with ACT.
I'v already linked this a couple of times on Twitter and a week or so ago on Google+, but I think it's particularly relevant right now. It's nearly an hour long, but worth it - it covers the intervention program in Australia which took control of the incomes of Australian Aborigines in the far north of the country and the fall out from it. Obviously there are differences to what John Key is proposing - for starters we're not going to be taking away jobs that young people already have - but it's important viewing.
The thing about National is that I can't trust they've thought any of their policies through. The complete shambles of the Skynet law proved that. And that leaves me with a lot of questions about this one. What is this supposed to achieve, exactly? Are they also going to make a push to teach people budgeting skills, or are they just going to do it for them? Is there going to be room in the system for birth control, and if so, will people be able to choose the one that suits them the most or will they only have a few options? (eg, a certain dollar value a week might be good for condoms or the pill, but not an IUD, which is a cost outlay to begin with and then no more for years) What happens when something unexpected comes up that needs to be paid for - most people will sit down and make a decision, like, maybe I'll spend a bit less on food and put off paying the power bill until Tuesday. Will beneficiaries be able to do the same thing, or are they just screwed? Have they actually considered the fact that 16-17 year olds can't legally buy alcohol and cigarettes anyway, so if they're doing so it must be through a method that isn't necessarily going to be affected at all? (Note in the Intervention video, at one point a shop owner says that though he's been losing money, alcohol sales haven't changed at all. It's the food sales that suffered.)
Even aside from practicalities, I have little doubt they haven't given serious consideration to the emotional affect of something like this. In essence, we'd have people leaving high school ready to join the adult world, and then finding that if they can't get a job they have to go into this system where they're treated like small children. If we want to beat them down and humiliate them, it's probably a good policy. If we want to build resentment, it's great.
I really can't help but notice that the only people who think this is a good idea are those who think people want to be on a benefit. Look, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. Being on a benefit is hell. For starters, your income is far less than a minimum wage full-time job would give you, and it's still less than many minimum wage part-time jobs would give you. Beyond that, though, there's the constant worry. How do you explain the gaps on your CV? In my case, how do I explain my complete lack of references even from when I was working? I had a nervous breakdown at work, and then somehow went through two more jobs before finally realising I couldn't actually keep going - as a result, I don't have anyone from back then who'd even say neutral things about me, let alone good. Most unemployed people don't have that problem, but that's another issue with this system - it treats everyone the same, when everyone is not the same. Then there's the self-blame and confusion. Am I really on this benefit because I have to be, or am I self-sabotaging? If everyone's saying this is my fault, are they right? Maybe I am just useless. Maybe I shouldn't even bother. Maybe I should just live down to their expectations. It would be easier than trying to prove myself over and over again and never, ever managing it. (In the case of teen parents, I suspect, but don't know, that this might be even more common. Society hates teen parents.)
Ultimately, this policy does nothing to address the real issues. It does nothing to create jobs. It does nothing to teach young people skills. It does nothing to give them confidence in themselves, to find their strengths, to help them realise their goals. It's just a looming dark pit, right behind them, waiting for them to make a single mis-step. Given ongoing events in the UK, given the financial crisis in Greece, given the growing inequality in New Zealand and the repeated outbreaks of preventable illnesses and the high numbers of young people without futures, this is going to do nothing but doom us. And I, for one, am terrified for the results of this election. I have no realistic hopes that Labour will beat National, but all I can do is hope that their majority is slim enough that they need a coalition - and not just with ACT.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Why don't poor people just skill-up?
Let's start by getting this out there: I'm the good sort of poor. I'm white, for starters, and I do have something of a financial safety net in that my parents were pretty comfortable growing up. I'm not at risk of living on the streets. If I had absolutely no income, presumably they'd still feed me and all. But they don't have massive amounts of spare money to be throwing at us, especially considering I'm the fourth of five children - even birthday and Christmas presents maxed out at about $50. I have a full high school education and no children, particularly no children born in my teens, nor do I have any substance abuse problems. OTOH I'm (nominally) female and mentally ill, but on the whole, as poor people go, I'm on the more socially acceptable end. I'm not really poor. I'm just experiencing cash flow difficulties.
Here's the heart of the matter: I want to go back to tertiary education next year. Part time. The part time part is a problem, because it means I don't qualify for a student allowance, and the education part is a problem, because it means I don't qualify for the sickness benefit anymore whether I'm working or not. (I hope to be working - part time - but I don't know when my current job will end and how easy it will be to find another.)
After investigations into my chosen field of study (Maori Studies, minoring in Social Policy) and best university for it (Massey's extramural school) I identified the papers I want to take in my first year and went to find out how much it would cost me. A full time student would take four papers a semester. I'll be taking two. The full year will be approximately $2,546.50, as well as textbooks and assorted materials and the cost of traveling up to Palmerston North for a week each semester for contact days. Luckily, I have an uncle there so accommodation is easy enough, but the flights are still an issue.
Ideally, I would also have a reliable computer - this one is about four years old, and it's a laptop, and it's a Mac (sorry, I'm just a Mac person, though I don't see the point in trying to convince everyone else to be one too), so you know just from that that the power supply is dodgy. I've never had a new computer - this one was the closest as an ex-lease - but if I get a new one I expect I would want either a new or a near-new Mac Mini, and the thing about near-new Macs is that they cost almost the same as new Macs. The cheapest new Mac Minis are $949 - I have a monitor, keyboard and mouse, so I'd only need the actual computer. So let's say a reliable computer plus my study costs would top out at about $4,000.
I earn $240 a week, plus my reduced sickness benefit of $80. I pay rent and my travel costs (my work is on the other side of town and I take the bus) and some food, though my rent covers the staples of my diet and the utilities. I currently, as in right now, have $980 owing on my credit card. I also already have a student loan from previous failed attempts at tertiary education, which I think is about $7000 - I have deductions taken off my pay to pay that back, but very small deductions because I don't earn much, and I'm unwilling to haphazardly add to it if I don't have to. Looking at Massey's hardship scholarships, I don't qualify for any of them, and I'm still looking over the other scholarships, most of which apply to particular professional fields and some to ethnic minorities. [Note that I believe this is entirely fair.] At any rate, I'm not banking on getting any.
So, that's pretty much my situation. First, working to get the credit card debt down as low as possible, because the interest on that is ridiculous. Secondly, a good start at the fee money. Thirdly, a reliable computer. Fourth, travel costs. I completely welcome any creative (but realistic!) suggestions - this is going to be my major ongoing project for obvious reasons.
Here's the heart of the matter: I want to go back to tertiary education next year. Part time. The part time part is a problem, because it means I don't qualify for a student allowance, and the education part is a problem, because it means I don't qualify for the sickness benefit anymore whether I'm working or not. (I hope to be working - part time - but I don't know when my current job will end and how easy it will be to find another.)
After investigations into my chosen field of study (Maori Studies, minoring in Social Policy) and best university for it (Massey's extramural school) I identified the papers I want to take in my first year and went to find out how much it would cost me. A full time student would take four papers a semester. I'll be taking two. The full year will be approximately $2,546.50, as well as textbooks and assorted materials and the cost of traveling up to Palmerston North for a week each semester for contact days. Luckily, I have an uncle there so accommodation is easy enough, but the flights are still an issue.
Ideally, I would also have a reliable computer - this one is about four years old, and it's a laptop, and it's a Mac (sorry, I'm just a Mac person, though I don't see the point in trying to convince everyone else to be one too), so you know just from that that the power supply is dodgy. I've never had a new computer - this one was the closest as an ex-lease - but if I get a new one I expect I would want either a new or a near-new Mac Mini, and the thing about near-new Macs is that they cost almost the same as new Macs. The cheapest new Mac Minis are $949 - I have a monitor, keyboard and mouse, so I'd only need the actual computer. So let's say a reliable computer plus my study costs would top out at about $4,000.
I earn $240 a week, plus my reduced sickness benefit of $80. I pay rent and my travel costs (my work is on the other side of town and I take the bus) and some food, though my rent covers the staples of my diet and the utilities. I currently, as in right now, have $980 owing on my credit card. I also already have a student loan from previous failed attempts at tertiary education, which I think is about $7000 - I have deductions taken off my pay to pay that back, but very small deductions because I don't earn much, and I'm unwilling to haphazardly add to it if I don't have to. Looking at Massey's hardship scholarships, I don't qualify for any of them, and I'm still looking over the other scholarships, most of which apply to particular professional fields and some to ethnic minorities. [Note that I believe this is entirely fair.] At any rate, I'm not banking on getting any.
So, that's pretty much my situation. First, working to get the credit card debt down as low as possible, because the interest on that is ridiculous. Secondly, a good start at the fee money. Thirdly, a reliable computer. Fourth, travel costs. I completely welcome any creative (but realistic!) suggestions - this is going to be my major ongoing project for obvious reasons.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Sense from Chaos
It's human nature to try to rationalise things, to understand them. It's an amazing skill which can be applied to anything from scientific research to creating works of art. So it's only natural that people would be trying to apply this skill to the things that are happening in London.
But the thing about riots is that they're inherently irrational - once you start trying to understand them logically, you've already failed. They're not a behaviour confined to humanity, either. My social rabbit owners list has had plenty of discussions about grumpy rabbits throwing food and water bowls around; there have been experiments done on rats that showed how they became aggressive and unstable when confined to a too-small place; cattle stampede when stressed in the wrong way. Small children throwing a tantrum will damage their own possessions, too - and self-harm is a common element of mental illness. Of course it makes no sense. The point is that by the time a population hits the tipping point into rioting, nothing makes sense. It requires a particular combination of long-term stress, frustration, disempowerment and helplessness. The UK is one of the countries with the highest level of inequality in the developed world, and also among the worst in terms of social mobility. There is almost no hope for self-improvement if you're born to the "wrong" family.
But the fact that they're illogical doesn't mean they can't be predicted. Writing in the Guardian on July 29, less than two weeks ago - but before the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan that sparked the original protest - Alexandra Topping says,
"Aaron is one of hundreds of youngsters in the north London borough of Haringey whose youth clubs were shut after the youth services budget was slashed by 75% after a cut of £41m to the council's overall budget. Hundreds of thousands of young people throughout the UK are affected.
Gang experts, MPs and sector workers are warning that these cuts – which have hit youth services harder than any other area of local authority spending, according to the education select committee – could have a serious impact on the safety of young people in urban areas."
(I suggest you read the whole article. It's pretty chilling, in retrospect.)
And it's not as though the police are regarded as holy figures who ought be immune from attack. Since 1998, there have been at least 330 deaths in police custody (two a month), but investigations by the IPCC have resulted in a total of zero convictions despite numbers that point at the very best to extreme negligence. Meanwhile, Tottenham is subject to frequent stop and search policies which result in weapon stashes in an attempt not to be caught with a knife, meaning that anyone can likely find a deadly weapon at any time.
I could, I guess, talk about the hypocrisy in talking about riots depending on where they take place and whether we're supposed to like the government that caused them (see: Egypt over the last few months, Syria, the French Revolution), or unpack things that have been popping up on Twitter like, "I saw 3 or 4 young women looting Tesco Express for nappies and milk tonight. Difficult and serious problems beneath this mess." I could disclaim the whole post by saying that I understand the visceral reaction to people destroying their city when we've been struggling with nature doing it to our own. But mostly I think it can be summed up thus:
Cuts to youth services. Cuts to education. Cuts to welfare. Cuts to health. Cuts to preventative programs to reduce crime or substance abuse. Cuts to jobs. Society has been telling these people for years that they are disposable, useless, a blight on humanity. The message has been reinforced so much that they've started to believe it. Are we surprised, now that they've started to act like it?
But the thing about riots is that they're inherently irrational - once you start trying to understand them logically, you've already failed. They're not a behaviour confined to humanity, either. My social rabbit owners list has had plenty of discussions about grumpy rabbits throwing food and water bowls around; there have been experiments done on rats that showed how they became aggressive and unstable when confined to a too-small place; cattle stampede when stressed in the wrong way. Small children throwing a tantrum will damage their own possessions, too - and self-harm is a common element of mental illness. Of course it makes no sense. The point is that by the time a population hits the tipping point into rioting, nothing makes sense. It requires a particular combination of long-term stress, frustration, disempowerment and helplessness. The UK is one of the countries with the highest level of inequality in the developed world, and also among the worst in terms of social mobility. There is almost no hope for self-improvement if you're born to the "wrong" family.
But the fact that they're illogical doesn't mean they can't be predicted. Writing in the Guardian on July 29, less than two weeks ago - but before the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan that sparked the original protest - Alexandra Topping says,
"Aaron is one of hundreds of youngsters in the north London borough of Haringey whose youth clubs were shut after the youth services budget was slashed by 75% after a cut of £41m to the council's overall budget. Hundreds of thousands of young people throughout the UK are affected.
Gang experts, MPs and sector workers are warning that these cuts – which have hit youth services harder than any other area of local authority spending, according to the education select committee – could have a serious impact on the safety of young people in urban areas."
(I suggest you read the whole article. It's pretty chilling, in retrospect.)
And it's not as though the police are regarded as holy figures who ought be immune from attack. Since 1998, there have been at least 330 deaths in police custody (two a month), but investigations by the IPCC have resulted in a total of zero convictions despite numbers that point at the very best to extreme negligence. Meanwhile, Tottenham is subject to frequent stop and search policies which result in weapon stashes in an attempt not to be caught with a knife, meaning that anyone can likely find a deadly weapon at any time.
I could, I guess, talk about the hypocrisy in talking about riots depending on where they take place and whether we're supposed to like the government that caused them (see: Egypt over the last few months, Syria, the French Revolution), or unpack things that have been popping up on Twitter like, "I saw 3 or 4 young women looting Tesco Express for nappies and milk tonight. Difficult and serious problems beneath this mess." I could disclaim the whole post by saying that I understand the visceral reaction to people destroying their city when we've been struggling with nature doing it to our own. But mostly I think it can be summed up thus:
Cuts to youth services. Cuts to education. Cuts to welfare. Cuts to health. Cuts to preventative programs to reduce crime or substance abuse. Cuts to jobs. Society has been telling these people for years that they are disposable, useless, a blight on humanity. The message has been reinforced so much that they've started to believe it. Are we surprised, now that they've started to act like it?
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Feels like: -3°C
There's a moment in the narration of Watership Down where Richard Adams points out that the enjoyment of winter is pretty much a purely human trait. Huge numbers of animal species spend most of the year preparing simply to survive winter - through stockpiling food, or putting on weight for hibernation, or any number of other methods that have developed over the last several million years. Humans, on the other hand, have houses and insulation and clothing and electric heating. Getting through the winter is something that's taken for granted.
Richard Adams didn't go far enough though. Humans who like winter, who claim it for a favourite season, are part of a vast minority privileged enough to be able to block out the cold, even when they're out in it, skiing or snowboarding or having snow fights.
Then there are those whose toes and fingers ache all through the colder months, who don't own warm coats, who worry constantly about paying their power bills. There are those who are sick, whose illnesses worsen in winter. Death rates are seasonal.
And here, there are those with houses being shaken apart, and a thick layer of snow might be the difference between a precarious, but intact, structure, and a collapsed roof.
Richard Adams didn't go far enough though. Humans who like winter, who claim it for a favourite season, are part of a vast minority privileged enough to be able to block out the cold, even when they're out in it, skiing or snowboarding or having snow fights.
Then there are those whose toes and fingers ache all through the colder months, who don't own warm coats, who worry constantly about paying their power bills. There are those who are sick, whose illnesses worsen in winter. Death rates are seasonal.
And here, there are those with houses being shaken apart, and a thick layer of snow might be the difference between a precarious, but intact, structure, and a collapsed roof.
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Spot the bullshit
You know, I really can't be bothered with a coherent essay regarding Paul Holmes' utter idiocy on multiple subjects (but mostly burqa). Instead, I'm just going to quote the most ridiculous parts - the cliches, strawmen, stereotypes and misinformation.
It starts in the very first paragraph - and remember, in journalism paragraphs are incredibly short. "It really is an offensive piece of medieval kit that speaks of medievalism and religious extremism." Aside from the bigotry, this is a just plain bad sentence. It's a piece of medieval kit that speaks of medievalism? That man has a way with words, truly. But then, I say that as a radical that speaks of radicalism.
"[I]n the countries where Islam reigns, they tend to have stalled in their development several hundreds of years ago" Oh.
The biggest population by country of Muslim people is in Indonesia. They have problems with poverty and corruption, but countries several hundred years ago didn't have, say, telephone systems: coverage provided by existing network has been expanded by use of over 200,000 telephone kiosks many located in remote areas; mobile-cellular subscribership growing rapidly. Unemployment is 7.1%, with the biggest employment sector being services with 48.9%. Unemployment in the US is 9.7%, with much lower agricultural and industry employment but a comparable poverty rate (12% in the US, just over 13% in Indonesia - but the US figure is from 2004 rather than 2010, and may be higher now due to the recession and increasing inequality). And the lowest 10% of the households in the US have an income of just 2% of the total, compared to an admittedly-not-much-higher 3% in Indonesia. (Unfortunately the CIA World Factbook does not have poverty rates and household income percentages for New Zealand.) Debt as a percentage of GDP is also far higher in the US, as an aside, since right-wingers like to bang on about how bad that is so much. The most recent data on the Factbook is 58.9%, with a lengthy footnote about how it is defined by the government with a conclusion that if it were all totalled up it would be about 30% higher. Indonesia has 26.4%. I was going to do an OECD comparison as well, but I found the website incredibly confusing to operate.
At any rate, many Islamic countries have growing technological centres, and while inequality is an enormous issue, you can't discount the fact that it's getting to be a pretty pressing matter in the US and NZ as well. You also really can't conflate Islamic with Arab - only 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. And, by the way - if you're talking Christian countries, you'd have to go with Brazil, which has the highest population of Christians of any country that is over 90% Christian. Brazil has a 7% unemployment rate, 26% of the population below the poverty line, and a public debt of 60%. Other strong showings for Christian population are Ethiopia, the Congo, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Ukraine, Armenia, East Timor and American Samoa. Not exactly what you'd call world leaders when you're picking a statistically good place to live, unless you're super rich I guess.
Oh right, I was talking about Paul Holmes and the second half of that sentence. "so the general cleanliness of their communities - and by that I mean the dust flying round and the rubbish people discard - and the burqa helps keeps your clothes cleaner for longer. This was my observation in Yemen."
It was his observation in Yemen, people. Clearly we are dealing with an expert. Also, there is no dust and rubbish in the modern world, and certainly not New Zealand.
"So I'm not actually bothered too much by the burqa. It just looks silly, antiquated, foreign." Silly? I don't know, I find a lot of fashion pretty silly. Warm tops with three-quarter sleeves, for example. WTF is the deal with that? If you need a warm top, chances are you need it to go the whole way down your arm, and yet the three-quarter sleeve top is something that recurs frequently in the cycle of what clothes you can find in stores at any given time. Purely aesthetically, I actually prefer a lot of styles of hijab to some Western fashions, and a simple Google image search for "hijab" throws up a lot that are anything but antiquated.
"I don't think we mind too much the head scarf, the hijab, though I'm sure most of us think it silly, in the same way we think Exclusive Brethren women silly with their inevitable covering of the hair." Uh, not really? Then: "You see head scarf and you know you're looking at bigotry." This sentence is about the most ironic thing I've seen all week, and I've been reading a lot of politics lately.
"No, it's the mask. The scarf wrapped round the head and underneath it, just below the eyes, the niqab. What's more, it is intimidating." I can think of dozens of things more intimidating than a woman in niqab. Like white men in Western clothes.
"It says: 'I am not part of your filthy heathen community. I'm here enjoying all of the privileges the enlightened West can provide, but I don't really approve of you all and have no desire to be part of you. I am happy to be a long way from the atrocities, monstrosities and medievalism of the country I fled, but still, I cannot be part of you.'"
Even if it did say that (which is very debatable - I'd argue it says "for personal reasons that are none of your business, this is how I prefer to dress right now"), is there actually anything wrong with that last sentence? Is it really more important for refugees to 'properly integrate' into our culture than it is for them to escape the "atrocities, monstrosities and [here it is again] medievalism of the country [they] fled"? Is it a requirement of holding a particular belief that you look down on others who hold different beliefs? I guess Paul Holmes thinks so.
"Look, if one of us is going to a Middle Eastern or Muslim country we make sure we take suitable clothes. So New Zealand women will take clothes that cover their body and they'll take a headscarf. We know it. Wear a pair of cut-off jeans in Morocco, for example, and get spat on and mauled by the men. That's what happens. I've seen it." Paul Holmes knows all about sexual harassment. Also, it's an important religious belief that no one should wear too much clothing in our culture and it would be incredibly shocking to-- Oh wait. See my next paragraph.
"In our communities, we expect to see the face of the person we are meeting or trading or interacting with. We don't like seeing a face covered. Simple as that." Winter is a very difficult time for me. The scarves, hats pulled down, faces tucked into coat necks, hoods drawn up... terrifying. In fact the worst part of the earthquakes has been people wearing dust masks! "To us it seems deceitful, weird, untrustworthy." By covering your face, you're lying. Somehow.
"Want to get ahead in New Zealand and Australia? Take off your stupid niqabs." 'Stupid'. A+ rational argument there.
"I venture to suggest that even the most reasonable New Zealander - even the most pro-immigration as I am - will tell you they hate the Muslim face mask." Well, I don't know. I think I'm pretty reasonable. Would I tell you I hate the Muslim 'face mask'? Let me consider this deeply for a moment.
...No. No, I would not. I would tell you that I hate bigotry, intolerance, lack of compassion, the legislation of such things and violence - both verbal and physical - towards those different from you.
"The French, in overwhelming numbers right through their legislative process, banned them in April." Also, the Swiss banned the building of minarets, and Californians banned gay marriage. Wait, are these supposed to be evidence of good things?
"Said Nicolas Sarkozy, 'In our country we cannot accept that women can be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.' That says it all, really." That's true, that would be awful. And banning the burqa in public means that women who have a strong investment in wearing that are - wait for it - going to be cut off from social life, prisoners in their homes, with vastly reduced chances to create ties to the local community or access needed services. Consider for a moment - if the government were to ban covering your upper body in public, how often would you go out? I would send an email quitting my job right the fuck now.
"And it ain't right to try and get on a bus with your face covered up because of some old medieval claptrap. It ain't how we do things. It is, as Sarkozy says, all about imprisonment." Going about your day is all about imprisonment. Yup. You heard it here, folks.
Luckily for my blood pressure, he's about exhausted himself on the subject there. There's only a couple more paragraphs in the column, which are sure to be completely inoffensive.
"What was also awful this week was the mauling of the visiting Australian women's guide dog, Perry," <- yep, pretty awful. "by a rampant, murderous pitbull in Hamilton." Well that's... emotive, but okay. I guess attacking another dog out of the blue is probably worthy of an emotive description. "The Labrador looking after his mistress suddenly found himself under attack by the monster owned, probably, by someone who does not seek work." Wait, what? Is there some statistic I'm missing here? Maybe a pie chart of rampant, murderous pitbull owners and their job search status? Though statistically I guess most people aren't seeking work - most of us are already in employment.
The comments and other links (whether other Opinion headlines or other 'articles' by Paul Holmes) would no doubt give me even more to comment on, but honestly I've been at this for something like an hour, absent a quick break to feed, water, cuddle and praise my rabbits. Paul Holmes can have one hour out of my week - and even that's pretty damn generous. Now I'm going to do something far more important - play computer games.
It starts in the very first paragraph - and remember, in journalism paragraphs are incredibly short. "It really is an offensive piece of medieval kit that speaks of medievalism and religious extremism." Aside from the bigotry, this is a just plain bad sentence. It's a piece of medieval kit that speaks of medievalism? That man has a way with words, truly. But then, I say that as a radical that speaks of radicalism.
"[I]n the countries where Islam reigns, they tend to have stalled in their development several hundreds of years ago" Oh.
The biggest population by country of Muslim people is in Indonesia. They have problems with poverty and corruption, but countries several hundred years ago didn't have, say, telephone systems: coverage provided by existing network has been expanded by use of over 200,000 telephone kiosks many located in remote areas; mobile-cellular subscribership growing rapidly. Unemployment is 7.1%, with the biggest employment sector being services with 48.9%. Unemployment in the US is 9.7%, with much lower agricultural and industry employment but a comparable poverty rate (12% in the US, just over 13% in Indonesia - but the US figure is from 2004 rather than 2010, and may be higher now due to the recession and increasing inequality). And the lowest 10% of the households in the US have an income of just 2% of the total, compared to an admittedly-not-much-higher 3% in Indonesia. (Unfortunately the CIA World Factbook does not have poverty rates and household income percentages for New Zealand.) Debt as a percentage of GDP is also far higher in the US, as an aside, since right-wingers like to bang on about how bad that is so much. The most recent data on the Factbook is 58.9%, with a lengthy footnote about how it is defined by the government with a conclusion that if it were all totalled up it would be about 30% higher. Indonesia has 26.4%. I was going to do an OECD comparison as well, but I found the website incredibly confusing to operate.
At any rate, many Islamic countries have growing technological centres, and while inequality is an enormous issue, you can't discount the fact that it's getting to be a pretty pressing matter in the US and NZ as well. You also really can't conflate Islamic with Arab - only 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. And, by the way - if you're talking Christian countries, you'd have to go with Brazil, which has the highest population of Christians of any country that is over 90% Christian. Brazil has a 7% unemployment rate, 26% of the population below the poverty line, and a public debt of 60%. Other strong showings for Christian population are Ethiopia, the Congo, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Ukraine, Armenia, East Timor and American Samoa. Not exactly what you'd call world leaders when you're picking a statistically good place to live, unless you're super rich I guess.
Oh right, I was talking about Paul Holmes and the second half of that sentence. "so the general cleanliness of their communities - and by that I mean the dust flying round and the rubbish people discard - and the burqa helps keeps your clothes cleaner for longer. This was my observation in Yemen."
It was his observation in Yemen, people. Clearly we are dealing with an expert. Also, there is no dust and rubbish in the modern world, and certainly not New Zealand.
"So I'm not actually bothered too much by the burqa. It just looks silly, antiquated, foreign." Silly? I don't know, I find a lot of fashion pretty silly. Warm tops with three-quarter sleeves, for example. WTF is the deal with that? If you need a warm top, chances are you need it to go the whole way down your arm, and yet the three-quarter sleeve top is something that recurs frequently in the cycle of what clothes you can find in stores at any given time. Purely aesthetically, I actually prefer a lot of styles of hijab to some Western fashions, and a simple Google image search for "hijab" throws up a lot that are anything but antiquated.
"I don't think we mind too much the head scarf, the hijab, though I'm sure most of us think it silly, in the same way we think Exclusive Brethren women silly with their inevitable covering of the hair." Uh, not really? Then: "You see head scarf and you know you're looking at bigotry." This sentence is about the most ironic thing I've seen all week, and I've been reading a lot of politics lately.
"No, it's the mask. The scarf wrapped round the head and underneath it, just below the eyes, the niqab. What's more, it is intimidating." I can think of dozens of things more intimidating than a woman in niqab. Like white men in Western clothes.
"It says: 'I am not part of your filthy heathen community. I'm here enjoying all of the privileges the enlightened West can provide, but I don't really approve of you all and have no desire to be part of you. I am happy to be a long way from the atrocities, monstrosities and medievalism of the country I fled, but still, I cannot be part of you.'"
Even if it did say that (which is very debatable - I'd argue it says "for personal reasons that are none of your business, this is how I prefer to dress right now"), is there actually anything wrong with that last sentence? Is it really more important for refugees to 'properly integrate' into our culture than it is for them to escape the "atrocities, monstrosities and [here it is again] medievalism of the country [they] fled"? Is it a requirement of holding a particular belief that you look down on others who hold different beliefs? I guess Paul Holmes thinks so.
"Look, if one of us is going to a Middle Eastern or Muslim country we make sure we take suitable clothes. So New Zealand women will take clothes that cover their body and they'll take a headscarf. We know it. Wear a pair of cut-off jeans in Morocco, for example, and get spat on and mauled by the men. That's what happens. I've seen it." Paul Holmes knows all about sexual harassment. Also, it's an important religious belief that no one should wear too much clothing in our culture and it would be incredibly shocking to-- Oh wait. See my next paragraph.
"In our communities, we expect to see the face of the person we are meeting or trading or interacting with. We don't like seeing a face covered. Simple as that." Winter is a very difficult time for me. The scarves, hats pulled down, faces tucked into coat necks, hoods drawn up... terrifying. In fact the worst part of the earthquakes has been people wearing dust masks! "To us it seems deceitful, weird, untrustworthy." By covering your face, you're lying. Somehow.
"Want to get ahead in New Zealand and Australia? Take off your stupid niqabs." 'Stupid'. A+ rational argument there.
"I venture to suggest that even the most reasonable New Zealander - even the most pro-immigration as I am - will tell you they hate the Muslim face mask." Well, I don't know. I think I'm pretty reasonable. Would I tell you I hate the Muslim 'face mask'? Let me consider this deeply for a moment.
...No. No, I would not. I would tell you that I hate bigotry, intolerance, lack of compassion, the legislation of such things and violence - both verbal and physical - towards those different from you.
"The French, in overwhelming numbers right through their legislative process, banned them in April." Also, the Swiss banned the building of minarets, and Californians banned gay marriage. Wait, are these supposed to be evidence of good things?
"Said Nicolas Sarkozy, 'In our country we cannot accept that women can be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.' That says it all, really." That's true, that would be awful. And banning the burqa in public means that women who have a strong investment in wearing that are - wait for it - going to be cut off from social life, prisoners in their homes, with vastly reduced chances to create ties to the local community or access needed services. Consider for a moment - if the government were to ban covering your upper body in public, how often would you go out? I would send an email quitting my job right the fuck now.
"And it ain't right to try and get on a bus with your face covered up because of some old medieval claptrap. It ain't how we do things. It is, as Sarkozy says, all about imprisonment." Going about your day is all about imprisonment. Yup. You heard it here, folks.
Luckily for my blood pressure, he's about exhausted himself on the subject there. There's only a couple more paragraphs in the column, which are sure to be completely inoffensive.
"What was also awful this week was the mauling of the visiting Australian women's guide dog, Perry," <- yep, pretty awful. "by a rampant, murderous pitbull in Hamilton." Well that's... emotive, but okay. I guess attacking another dog out of the blue is probably worthy of an emotive description. "The Labrador looking after his mistress suddenly found himself under attack by the monster owned, probably, by someone who does not seek work." Wait, what? Is there some statistic I'm missing here? Maybe a pie chart of rampant, murderous pitbull owners and their job search status? Though statistically I guess most people aren't seeking work - most of us are already in employment.
The comments and other links (whether other Opinion headlines or other 'articles' by Paul Holmes) would no doubt give me even more to comment on, but honestly I've been at this for something like an hour, absent a quick break to feed, water, cuddle and praise my rabbits. Paul Holmes can have one hour out of my week - and even that's pretty damn generous. Now I'm going to do something far more important - play computer games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)