Add a Comment   Listen to Podcast   Up to OJB's Blog List

Listen to the Crazies

Entry 2205, on 2022-02-16 at 13:00:55 (Rating 3, News)

It was only a matter of time before protests became common in response to the series of arbitrary and inconsistent actions against COVID we have seen around the world. The latest round of protests has included two countries which were allegedly amongst those handling the pandemic the best: Canada and New Zealand. In this post I want to discuss these protests in general, but will concentrate on what is happening here in New Zealand.

I think there is little doubt that New Zealand has handled the COVID crisis better than most other countries. Both our infection rate and death rate are remarkably low, and you might feel that this is because of a well coordinated political response to this event, but is that true?

Like most real social issues it is more complicated than that. Even someone who disagrees with almost everything this government has done (like me) would have to concede that the government's actions seem to have worked quite well for us, because those statistics don't lie, but I would like to add some nuance to this assessment.

From a distance it looks like the government has got everything right. We locked down hard and early, concentrated on saving lives rather than other priorities, and achieved a good rate of vaccination. What's to criticise here?

Well, all of that seems to be true if you just do a superficial analysis, but looking at it closer - which I can do as a New Zealand resident - it's not really like that at all. Because just about every supposedly positive move from our government has been deeply flawed, and our success seems to be as much about good luck as good management, as well as the fact that we are very isolated from the rest of the world.

Most of the narrative the media uses to portray New Zealand is misleading at best. For example, in the original response to the pandemic, we didn't go early as the government and many media sources say. There were warnings for weeks before the lockdown was imposed, and by then a panic was necessary and we went into one of the harshest lockdowns on the planet.

I'm not saying that a harsh lockdown wasn't justified given the circumstances; what I am saying is that the rhetoric describing the original COVID response as brilliantly implemented is nonsense. It was panicked and hysterical. It also worked, but that was at a high cost (again, possibly justified) and probably due to luck as much as anything else.

And that has been the trend in every action the government has taken in New Zealand. These actions have been poorly thought out, usually late, badly organised, arguably unreasonably harsh, and uneven and contradictory. As I said, if this worked it was to a large extent because of luck rather than competence.

And we have had numerous leaks of cases from managed quarantine and other facilities, but we have been incredibly lucky again, because most of these haven't spread. I'm not complaining here; I'd rather be lucky than skilfull any day, but let's stop pretending it's much to do with the government's management.

I should make another point clear here too: while I am criticising our current government, I have no reason to think that if another party had been in control that things would have gone any better. We would have to assume that the more right-oriented party here would have been more hesitant to impose harsh lockdowns, so the result could easily have been worse from the perspective of COVID cases, although at the same time it could easily have been better overall.

Our current prime minister is the greatest exponent of propaganda I have ever known in this country. She is very good at not answering the question, diverting awkward lines of enquiry into other areas, and refusing to interact with elements of the media who aren't friendly to her perspectives.

I admit that all politicians do this, but I think we are currently suffering from an extreme case of this phenomenon. And that's not necessarily bad. During a crisis many people want a leader who they can listen to and obey without having to think too much. They want a mother figure who makes all the right noises without worrying too much about the nuances of the situation. This sounds negative, but the more authoritarian approach of the current government might really be best during periods of crisis, but that has to end some time.

And now is that time, in my opinion (and many others). How do I know this? Well, the PM's approval rating is falling, there are protests against her around the country, and (this is just an anecdote, I know) people I know who were previously approving of the PM are now severely criticising her.

To some people this country has become a joke. Here are a few comments about our PM, and the PM of Canada, from UK right-wing political commentator, Douglas Murray: Ardern and Trudeau are supposedly king and queen of empathy, but they are finally being exposed as the vacuous imposters they are, and all the media adulation can't hide their shortcomings. They are more concerned about performative caring instead of actual expertise. Ardern's face crumples with empathy, and Trudeau has such nice hair and says how much he cares. But is empathy important in politics compared with competency? The new political idea implies that empathy is important, but there is an inability to face challenges. Many other countries are moving out of lockdowns, but New Zealand has even more, and have locked themselves out of the world. Trudeau has no sympathy for protesters, dismissing them with propaganda. He has most of the media on his side, and refuses to answer the rest (just like Ardern).

Just to show how dirty the tactics against their critics are, Trudeau has pressured GoFundMe to freeze the money raised for the protesting truckers, and distribute it to BLM, or another more "worthy" group. He has also put pressure on the banks to freeze the accounts of truckers. Is this criminal? Those actions are clearly morally wrong even if they aren't illegal (which they could be). He has to go.

And that also illustrates another big problem with these political leaders. Why would he confiscate money belonging to one group which is generally quite peaceful, and give it to another organisation, like BLM, which is responsible for significant death and destruction? Note that I would also say the truckers have a fair case in fact, and BLM's beliefs are pure BS, but I don't even need anyone to concede that point, because stealing from one group to give to another, based on political preferences, is corrupt and immoral anyway, whatever the beliefs of the groups involved.

So the objection politicians have to protestors isn't just because they are operating outside the law (or on the edge of lawlessness), or that they don't necessarily represent the majority. The real objection is that they represent a view that the politicians don't like. They support a corrupt organisation like BLM, but do all they can to destroy the anti-mandate protestors. Surely it is obvious that this represents a total failure to act fairly.

The problem here in New Zealand is that the politicians have painted themselves into a corner. The PM, and the leaders of other parties, have portrayed the protestors as irrational, violent, and deluded. By doing that they remove the option of negotiating with them without looking just as bad themselves. If they had said something like "we currently disagree with them, but would like to hear their points which might be valuable to understand as an alternative perspective" then we might have made some progress.

In that situation the politicians might have heard some alternative points which actually make some sense, and the protestors might have been more likely to disperse since their views had been heard. Not only that, but a general attitude of cooperation might have been fostered rather than the contempt (from and to both sides) we have now.

I'm sure there are some completely delusional nutters amongst the protestors in Wellington now, but I am equally sure there are many people who have reasonable doubts about the direction the government is taking. Even someone who is confident about getting the vaccine themselves might find the compulsion to be vaccinated unacceptable, so it's not necessarily a simple anti-vaccine view. I know vaccinated people who support the protestors. In fact, I partly support them myself.

There are plenty of people who are swallowing the media propaganda about the protestors being violent or irrational or unreasonable, but I doubt whether many of those have really looked into this too closely. And that's a real problem because failure to seriously listen to alternative views is the root cause of most of our problems today. It's probably too late now after how the government has already reacted, but it's unfortunate that the PM couldn't have utilised some of her famous "kindness" to treat these people with some respect and actually listen to their concerns, even if some have been labelled "crazies".

That's what a real leader would do, but one thing is becoming increasingly obvious: Ardern isn't a real leader, and neither is Trudeau.

Comment 1 (7095) by Anonymous on 2022-02-18 at 11:50:25:

Wow, hard to know where to start really. Your onions are your own of course, and are merely an interpretation of the facts viewed through your own biased lens.

Don't really care what a UK right ring commentator would say about two left wing governments - take the politics out if it.

"swallowing the media propaganda about the protestors being violent or irrational or unreasonable" Don't know what media you are listening to but the media I listen to have constantly stated that the protest group consists of many different groups some with legitimate protest aims and goals, and some violent and abusive. You're just wrong to make a blanket statement about the so called (by you anyway) MSM.

Good luck? Maybe, but how would you know that for a fact? It's just your opinion informed again by what you see through your lens. One might say there has been n element of luck certainly, but the action has been largely successful, backed up by a largely understanding and supportive population that has, for the most part, put the needs and welfare of others in front of their own perceived and short-term "lack of freedom".

One problem is that the rational protesters are not brave enough to distance themselves from the nutters. Who are the leaders and why aren't they refusing to associate themselves with the "hang em high" rabble?

Comment 2 (7096) by OJB on 2022-02-18 at 17:53:21:

Yes, this is a blog where I present my opinions. And opinions are always formed through a person's biases. If you find anything that is wrong, let me know.

You can't take the politics out of it because it is all politics. And why dismiss a person's opinion because of their political preference rather than reacting to what they say?

My sources are RNZ, TVNZ channel 1, Stuff, Herald. They all unnecessarily mention the alleged negative events even when they aren't relevant. Not sure what the violence and abuse you refer to is, but it seems to have been fairly minimal. There may be MSM (a widely used term) sources which are fair about this, but I haven't heard them. I can only react to what I hear.

I claimed any successes were primarily due to luck because of the well documented failures of the government's actions. Yet we did OK anyway. Luck is a fair hypothesis, I would have thought.

The "hang 'em high" is just overdone rhetoric. No one is really going to hang anyone; the reaction to this is hysterical nonsense, of course. They should never have said it and given the enemy (MSM) ammunition, mind you.

Comment 3 (7097) by Anonymous on 2022-02-19 at 01:42:59:

What's the point of just stating your opinions over and over? Why not try to elevate the blog to something evidence based, solutions focused and forward looking?

You have to take the politics out, otherwise you loose objectivity. And it isn't political - it isn't a left or right issue.

My main source is RNZ and you are wrong. I don't know how much you listen to RNZ, quite superficially I suspect because there have been multiple detailed reports on the composition of the protest as a whole.

"The "hang 'em high" is just overdone rhetoric." It's an example, just like the "Be kind" phrase you are so find of repeating. If you think this form of inappropriate expression was a one-off, once again, become more informed and listen on the detailed experiences of journalists, local residents, and passers by who have all had similar unpleasant experiences.

Comment 4 (7098) by OJB on 2022-02-19 at 10:43:58:

It does vary. Sometimes I am just having a bit if a rant to make myself feel better, other times I am trying to make a genuine case. I'll concede this one was a bit "ranty". There are other parts of my web site reserved for factual material: have a look at my skepticism section, for example.

You can't take the politics out of a political situation and expect to make a useful argument. It doesn't have to be left vs right to be political.

Well clearly our views on RNZ vary a bit. I guess the only way to tell for sure would be to do some sort of qualitative analysis of the content there. I think it is fairly well accepted that RNZ if left leaning, and ultra-PC.

All I know is that there have been no credible attempts at carrying out real acts of violence, so silly statements like this are just unfortunate and nothing more.

Comment 5 (7099) by Anonymous on 2022-02-19 at 10:48:05:

It seems that “you” can’t take the politics out of this situations analysis but I think I can.

Try listening to rnz a bit longer than just skimming. By your own words just because a commentator is left/right leaning it doesn’t mean the message is incorrect. Isn’t that what you said?

Comment 6 (7100) by OJB on 2022-02-19 at 18:03:11:

You can try to take the politics out of a political situation, but you won't get a realistic result from doing that. You've got to use the approach appropriate to the situation.

How would I skim? Do I need to listen all day? I listen to a representative sample of their material and I think there is no doubt they are very biased. I'm not saying RNZ is wrong, just that they're biased and the vast majority of their material shows one side of the news only.

Comment 7 (7101) by Anonymous on 2022-02-21 at 09:16:13:

A little off topic, but I think you're partially wrong about RNZ. There is definitely.a significantly larger number of programmes/stories/interviews that might be described (by you) as being "left". For example, the number of LGBTQ stories is obviously far higher than on the other "MSM" (your term) outlets.

However, I have found their news, in depth, and analysis programmes reasonable and more balanced than you give them credit for. I think you are in partial denial about the number of crazies at this protest and the real issue is the lack of willingness of the "reasonable" people to distance themselves from the crazies.

Comment 8 (7102) by OJB on 2022-02-21 at 13:02:01:

So even you admit RNZ is biased. Also note that I claim other MSM sources are also biased, so if RNZ is even more biased than them then it must be really bad. They might be "more balanced than I give them credit for" but they're still very biased. I admit I only listen to RNZ for an hour or 2 per day, but that should give me a fair sample of their total output. As an example of bias, I would say the stories against the Wellington protest outnumber those for it by at least 10 to 1.

Comment 9 (7103) by Anonymous on 2022-02-21 at 14:09:07:

Good lord, give up. "so if RNZ is even more biased than them then it must be really bad" Says you, without any evidence. Just your jaundiced view.

"As an example of bias, I would say the stories against the Wellington protest outnumber those for it by at least 10 to 1." Well, I'm sure you "would say". Sounds scientific and evidence-based. What's the ratio for climate change supports and climate change deniers?

Comment 10 (7106) by OJB on 2022-02-21 at 20:28:46:

I agree this is about my opinions, I have already admitted that. The only way I could get some objective data would be to some sort of analysis but that would take a lot of work. I could also see if I can find some research on this. But the other problem is where is the line between items supporting the official government line and alternatives.

So how many items on RNZ, TVNZ, etc have you heard which are "friendly" towards the protestors? I would be surprised if you honestly got a number much different to mine. And yes, the ratio for climate change is similar. Note, I am talking about the political aspects of it, not the science, which is fairly well established.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.