Bloody Mary

After watching the infamous South Park Bloody Mary episode, I thought I'd look around some Alcoholics Anonymous sites to see what exactly the 12 steps entailed. I had thought the representation of AA as a cult was South Park being typically absurd. Now I'm not so sure:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol; that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Bloody Hell (or Mary)! If such a faith based programme were adapted to drug users in Westernland, liberals would be screaming blue murder. South Park was on the money, if its choice of imagery to demonstrate its point was somewhat controversial.

Mind your language

I just don't see how people can keep up with blogging. Admittedly I'm extremely busy at the moment, but I don't think I'd ever be able to pace myself to blog as much as others do.

Anyway, flippant quiz time:

You should learn Mandarin You should learn Mandarin. You are very practical, and enjoy setting goals for yourself. You feel very rewarded when you accomplish something big.

Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com

Hah! Guess which language I'm currently learning.

Engage!

Which sci-fi team do you fit into?



The sad thing is, it's probably true.

Are we being served?

The trouble with having a "job" that requires you to focus on a really narrow topic most of the time is that you become a bore at dinner parties, as you increasingly lose touch with the human interest stories that, in theory at least, make life interesting. This goes for 'real world' issues as well. The attention that you pay to the news is limited to the major stories, and you don't have time to think to deeply about them. At the moment, for example, I know what's going on with the Vice President's illegal road hunting/campaign contributer slaying, I know that the New Zealand Labour Party is in the poo over use of the leaders budget to fund pledge cards, and that some poor Olympian Chinese couple wasted themselves on the ice in Turin last night, but managed to get silver anyway. However I just can't bring myself to care about any of these things. My thoughts are elsewhere. And besides, it's still too sunny.

In that respect, a blog is a little bit like a dinner party, I guess. Full of idle chit-chat about what's going on NOW in the 'real world'. I'm going to have to do better.

So here's something I do have an opinion on. I agree with the 31 eminent New Zealanders' letter to Steve Maharey urging him to change programming culture at TVNZ. The letter has largely been misinterpreted by its detractors as endorsing an end to all television advertising for the state broadcaster, however this is not what it is saying at all. As Ian Johstone explained on NATRAD this morning it was more a call to include quality New Zealand programmes at watchable times within TVNZ's programming schedule, and reduce the number of ads on New Zealand public television.

Now I think TVNZ has some seriously good shows included in its prime-time lineup. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I know that on any day of the week at the moment I can turn on the TV between 7.30 and 8.30 and probably find something that will entertain me in a superficial way for an hour. But there is something lacking. There is essentially nothing which performs the functions of a state televion broadcaster in New Zealand. And that is a vital institution which is lacking in this country.

I'm not advocating that TVNZ become the tweedy, austere, "serious" channel as some of our eminent friends no doubt want. But is it too much to ask to abandon Susan Wood's eyelash acrobatics and have a few shows where well-informed interviewers really take our politicians to task (yet still let them speak), like for example, "Meet the Press" in the United States? Is it too much to ask that we have maybe one show a week that showcases local talent and doesn't involve home renovation? And please... Oh please... can we have some good local political satire in the vein of Jon Stewart? And can it all be on at a watchable hour? Johnstone et al. are right when they talk about the role of the state broadcaster in making a better contribution to national life, yet it is something that TV3 is actually doing better than One or Two are doing at the moment, despite the state channels' obligations under the charter. There is obviously room for improvement.

I was speaking to someone fairly well ensconced in the TVNZ machinery today, and she informed me that "serious" shows don't rate. I realise that TVNZ is structured so that ratings are all important all of the time - but this doesn't mean that I agree with the structure. Sure, play what the common denominator wants to watch most of the time. Note I don't say 'lowest' here, as I don't think I should decide for others what they watch. Popular shows are popular for a reason - well most of them are. However, I would expect the same courtesy from people who view such shows. For the twenty or thirty percent of us that wants something a little different, our watching preferences are crowded out by shows that appeal to the other seventy to eighty percent of the audience. Surely we pay into the system so our preferences can be represented once or twice a week in primetime too.

Therefore, it's not TVNZ that has to change its programming, while they're obliged to panda to ratings things are never going to change. It's the government that needs to come up with a new framework that gives us some variety.

Sekushi

Oh dear!

eigoTown has just published the results of a survey asking Japanese which English accent they find most sexy. It's not looking good, I'm afraid.

Am I bad?

Did anyone else not know about the Winter Olympics?

I didn't realise they were on until waaaaaay after they had started. And, I'm ashamed to say (no, not really), I didn't even know where they were taking place until yesterday.

In any case, something bizarre is going on at the Washington Post, whose official games blogger has adopted the New Zealand curling team. There are even references to Mainland Cheese advetisements.

Sad

Holy Cow!

I read thiswhole post without realising the guy who wrote it was only a year younger than me. It would be so sad if it wasn't so funny. I particularly like the bits about how many lovely ladies he's 'courting.' What a tool!

Is this really necessary?

More images of troop violence in the Middle East. QT format.



http://movies.crooksandliars.com/sun_brits_beat_i.mov

Geena vs. Donald

It's a bit late, but I'm going to blog on a TV programme I watched on Thursday: the first episode of Commander in Chief.

I'm not too sure what I think of this one. I'm sure many of you know the gist. America gets its first female vice-president. president dies. Evil (Republican) majority leader attempts to pressure (independent) VP into resigning. VP decides it's better to take over the presidency rather than let America be run by Donald Sutherland. New president threatens to blow stuff up in backward African nation, unless its leaders free a female 'dissident' whose crime was having sex. New president's choice for VP angers Donald Sutherland and scene is set for conflict...

Interesting concept, and despite aspects of poor production here and there and the fact that the botox in Geena Davis' face hardly allowed her lips to move, the plot and screenplay kept this viewer engaged and mildly tittilated.

Yet, I had to pinch myself every now and then, as part of me couldn't believe that the notion of a female American president was enough material to serve as the basis for a television show. I mean, WE're on to our second female PM now and it just doesn't seem to be an issue - and as far as I could tell, it never was. As well as being a fictional character, on the other hand, it seems poor old Geena is not even allowed to be elected into office, having to ride in on the coat-tails of her predecessor instead. Remarkable.

(Yes, yes. I know our first female PM wasn't 'elected' either, but our political system is structured differently and no one 'made way' for Shipley by dying. Quite the contrary; she practically stabbed her predecessor in the back.)

I was also a little unconvinced by the 'Nigerian prisoner' dilemma, which President Geena solved by stating that the U.S. was coming in to get save the prisoner whether Nigeria liked it or not. My wife's workmate said she found it a bit disappointing that Geena's first act as president (threatening the use of force) would prove her no different than her male predecessors, but it wasn't that I had a problem with. Upon entering office real female leaders have generally acted as 'leaders' rather than 'FEMALE leaders', because the role of PM or president or whatever has invariably been constructed by their male counterparts and is inherently gendered.

What irks me is how American material power is depicted in these shows. Because Republicans were shown as either devils incarnate or well-intentioned farts whose deaths act as plot devices, I'm assuming 'Commander in Chief''s world-view is solidly Democrat. Yet it seems to exhibit aspects of the same neo-con con ideas about America's material predominance that deludes the current administration. Despite what Americans may think, threatening a country that sees itself as a leader in its region with a breach of sovereignty is probably not going to make that country acquiesce to your demands. Power simply doesn't work like that, especially when it is a matter of interference in another nation's justice system. In the real world I'd say Nigeria would just tell the United States to get bent, knowing that they wouldn't start a conflict over a single execution.

But, I suppose it is just TV after all.

Know your rights, but also know when to invoke them

The 'debate' over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed is blazing apace in New Zealand, with the Dominion publishing an image of the prophet Mohammed that has offended Muslims in Europe. Muslims have reacted by marching down Queen Street. According to some, it's a toss-up between protecting freedom of speech and allowing disgruntled minorities to dictate what gets published in this country.

I see this situation as one of provocation. Some simple-minded Danish journalist, it turns out, was unaware of the offensive nature to Muslims of his cartoon. European Muslims reacted by telling him it was offensive (as is consistent with their right to freedom of speech), 'provoking' the Western press across the world to republish the cartoon, leading to even more acrimony from Muslims. The whole thing is just silly, and an indictment on Journalistic talent in the West.

Cue Helen Clark, who correctly points out that the issue is not about 'rights' at all. The Dominion has the 'right' to publish the picture of the prophet Mohammed, but that does not mean that it should do so. Newspapers make editorial decisions all the time on what type of material is proper for public comsumption. Off-colour religious cartoons about Christianity or the Holocaust are to be avoided like the plague. A few years ago, a Herald cartoonist was sacked for the latent and reoccurring antisemitism in his work. Papers have a 'right' to print all such material, but they excercise discretion when they deem it necessary.

The argument here is whether the Dominon SHOULD have published the cartoon, not whether it had the right to. The Dominion claims it realised that the cartoon would be offensive to many, but decided that its decision to reprint it was based on the public's right to the free-flow of information. This is another red herring. The actual cartoon itself was fairly simple, meaning its further publication was hardly educative. Better just to describe the image and avoid offending a minority that often feels marginalised in New Zealand society.

Not that this is an argument for violent recriminations towards the Dominion et al. The arson and death threats from the Muslim community in the Middle East should rightly be deplored. However, I think we should reserve a word of praise for New Zealand Muslims, who have shown their diapproval in a peaceful and democratic manner. That's what freedom of speech is about, after all.

Inorgyurayshun

It's blog inauguration time, but I can't be bothered right now. It's almost 3 am and I have to get some shut-eye. Anyway, the gist of this blog is that I post about politics and occasionally include a recipe, usually with some pithy relevance to the post.

Hence the snappy title.

Clever, eh?