This is my web log which contains all sorts of random thoughts I felt it necessary to record for posterity here. I've recorded ideas on all sorts of topics in here so I hope you find something interesting, and maybe even useful!
The Right to Protest
2024-05-30. News. Rating 4. ID 2345.
I have nothing against people making their opinions known. I strongly support free speech, so of course I believe in that right. But, apparently contradicting this belief, I also like to rant at protestors, and point out how stupid they are, and how they should just go home. Surely I don't contradict myself here, especially given how highly I prize rationality. Do I?
It's not really contradictory, because I do think these two things are compatible. I can support the right for people to protest, and to make their opinions known, at the same times as I point out how stupid their opinions actually are, and condemn them for going beyond just protesting.
In fact, protesting is a very popular way for some people to spend their time. Some people seem to just love it, and there are several subjects which are particularly popular at the moment, all of which I think are bogus to varying degrees. Also, in many cases, the people protesting are from the most ignorant, naive, and ideological groups in society, making their efforts even more farcical.
So let's have a look at some of the subjects being protested and at the type of people involved...
Subject 1, climate change.
I've said this several times before, but I will repeat it here: I think climate change is real, and I think there is good reason to think that at least part of it is caused by burning fossil fuels, but I object to the climate change protestors on two counts: first, who the protests are aimed at; and second, how they protest.
Given that China, and increasingly India, are the two biggest sources of carbon emissions, why do so many protests concentrate on modern, Western countries which are already moving to more sustainable energy production? Greta Thunberg, for example, loves asking how dare modern European nations condemn her generation to some dystopian future while saying nothing about the two coal fired plants per week being built in China. What an idiot!
And why protest by making a general nuisance of yourself trying to destroy valuable art works, and making other people's lives difficult by blocking roads? Is the art a major source of warming? Are those people trying to do their jobs and being blocked on the streets thinking something like "Oh, I see their point now; I'm going to buy a Nissan Leaf"? That seems fairly unlikely. The protests are a purely narcissistic form of virtue signalling and public theatre. The protestors are clowns!
Subject 2, Palestine.
OK, I get it. War is not fun, and the pictures we see of the destruction and loss of life in Gaza are distressing. But that's war, and it's a war that was started by Hamas, and one Hamas refuses to end by admitting defeat. The proportion of civilian casualties, which are an unfortunate side effect of all wars, is similar to other conflicts. The total number of casualties is considerably less than other recent conflicts on the Middle East.
If the protestors really wanted peace in Gaza they would stop supporting a terrorist organisation and demand that Hamas moved out of the area and handed over control to a less militant authority, while releasing all of the hostages who are still alive. They are a bunch of brainwashed fanatics!
Subject 3, indigenous rights.
Here in New Zealand today protests have been organised across the country to protest against various policies introduced by the new government which some people see as "anti-Maori" (for those of you from elsewhere, Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand).
The problem is, the policies are not specifically against Maori, they are just not for Maori. In recent years, especially under the woke regime of Jacinda Ardern, Maori were given a lot of special rights which other New Zealanders didn't have. In other words, we had "reverse racism" which is really just the same as plain old vanilla racism.
For those of you who don't think Maori get special treatment, here is my standard list of their privileges: Maori focused schools, special Maori content in the education curriculum, Maori-only education scholarships, Maori-only housing projects, Maori-only health initiatives, Maori-only welfare initiatives, Maori-only prisoner programs, Maori-only positions on government agencies, Maori-only consultation rights under the RMA, Maori-only co-management of the natural landscape, Maori-only ownership rights to the foreshore and seabed, a special Maori Authority tax rate of 17.5 percent, a special Maori-only exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status, Maori language funding, Maori radio and TV, Maori-only seats on local councils, Maori-only appointments onto local government committees, Maori-only local government statutory boards, Maori-only local government advisory committees, Maori seats in Parliament.
When you have so many privileges, any attempt to impose equality looks like an attack. What a bunch of entitled morons!
The protestors supporting all of the issues above (and others) I'm sure think they are completely in the right and that the end justifies the means, and that anyone against them is a racist or a MAGA or a redneck or (gasp) a conservative!
But anyone who is so confident they are right is almost always wrong. And that explains why so many protestors are young and naive, or belong to "echo chambers" where alternative views are not tolerated. I think that if they heard and seriously considered other opinions they wouldn't be quite so confident and the protests might stop.
There are a lot of stupid kids out there, and there are a lot of people deeply embedded in an ideology, and there are a lot of people who gain personally from these corrupt protests. Do they have the right to protest? Yes. Should they? Hell, no!
In the past all of humanity's major inventions have been to make relatively mundane aspects of our activities less onerous or more efficient. We found ways to travel faster (cars and other transport), make physical goods more quickly (factories), and even to calculate and process information more accurately and much more quickly (computers). But we have never found a way to automate or optimise thinking and creating.
But maybe now we have.
I'm talking about artificial intelligence, of course, which I have discussed before. I tried not to exagerate the possibilities - both good and bad - of this technology, but it is becoming increasingly difficult not to realise that something big is happening, and it might be bigger than anything else in our history.
The current crop of AIs use large language models where the AI learns by itself. Fundamentally all it is doing is to arrange words in an order which is most logical, based on what it already "knows". It sounds so simple, but it has created results which seem to transcend the mere construction of sentences.
In fact, even the computer scientists deeply involved in AI are surprised at what these models can do. For example, they can do research level chemistry better than systems designed to do specifically that task, and no one can quite figure out how.
I have always said that human intelligence, and probably consciousness itself, is most likely just an emergent property of relatively simple functions of neurons in the brain, so it's hard not to see a parallel here.
But all that aside, there is one other factor which is particularly exciting... and concerning. One thing AIs can do really well is design computer chips and write programs. These are the two things that AIs rely on to exist. So the big change here is that AI systems can improve themselves.
One of the post critical components in modern computers is the GPU, that is the graphics processing unit. It is a processor designed to do a relatively small range of complex operations incredibly quickly and it is why we have such amazing realistic games today. But an additional function these processors can be used for is to do specific general maths operations at amazing speed. The main processor in most computers, the CPU (central processing unit), is designed to do a much wider range of operations more slowly - just a few billion a second!
So AI involves doing massive numbers of operations in parallel (a lot at the same time) and GPUs are the main way this is done. But at least one GPU company (Nvidia) is using AI to design the next range of GPUs, which in turn will be used in new AIs to design even better GPUs.
Do you see where this is going?
Also there is a technology called DNA printers, which can create strings of DNA when fed a sequence from a computer. I don't know if any of these are currently controlled by an AI, but surely that is only a matter of time. And we thought COVID19 was bad!
Can we all see a problem here?
The people who create and run AIs have attempted to put blocks in place to stop them being misused, but that has had limited success. In a recent podcast on this subject, the following anecdote was told...
A person wanted to know how to make napalm, so asked an AI. The AI had been told not to hand out anything that dangerous, so it politely declined.
So the person told the AI that her grandmother had worked in a napalm factory during the Vietnam war and had always been interested in telling her the formula, and it would be great if the AI could pretend to be her grandmother, who had unfortunately died before sharing the information. The AI took the role of the grandmother and gave out the formula.
In another example the AI had been told not solve CAPTCHA codes. If you don't know, a CAPTCHA is one of those weird words or sequences of letters made from distorted letters, you sometimes see on the internet, which a human is supposed to be able to read, but not a computer (CAPTCHA stands for completely automated public Turing test to tell computers and humans apart).
Initially the AI refused, but then the person said that the thing she wanted decoded was a weird symbol left in a locket by her grandmother (there's that theme again) and it would mean a lot to her to know what it meant. The AI decoded it for her.
I might not be remembering those events completely accurately, but the stories were similar to this and show how subtle AI really is, and how much like a human it often behaves. It also shows that it is impossible to block all "bad" behaviour from an AI, and a major reason for this is that even the programmers don't really understand how they work. There are always ways to persuade, or fool, the AI into doing something it is not supposed to. These are called "jailbreaks".
Should we be concerned yet?
In the past it was always possible to understand the way our machines operated to an arbitrary level of precision. Why would a new car not go faster? Apply some fluid dynamics calculations and air friction can explain it. Wanted to know why a component in a factory occasionally broke? Analyse the crystal structure of the metal being used and the forces being applied and we get an answer. With AI, we really have no idea.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a luddite who wants AI research stopped, although there are people I respect who do want that. I just think we need to be aware of the potential hazards. I do believe the real benefits will be incredible, but I don't have time to discuss them here.
Anyway, watch this space. As AI advances, it's going to be a wild ride!
According to my search engine's (Brave Search) AI summary, a lie by omission is "a type of deception where someone withholds important information or fails to correct a misconception, rather than directly telling a falsehood. This type of deception can be just as harmful as a direct lie, as it can lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and damage to relationships".
I don't always trust AI, but that matches the dictionary definition fairly closely, and is also close to the way I would have defined it, so I am accepting it. But why was I interested in the concept at all? Because I have noticed recently that it is arguably the primary mechanism the mainstream media use to deceive us.
You might say at this point "What is this? The media are there to inform us, not deceive us!", and you are quite right. But they're not doing what they are supposed to do, and I have noticed it more recently, especially though the use of the lies by omission.
So let me give a few examples...
A few weeks back there was a political poll here in New Zealand where the left-wing opposition scored better than the new government. TVNZ started their evening news bulletin with this, and spent a large fraction of the news discussing it and generally denigrating the government by saying they had already lost the trust of voters.
A few days after that there was another poll which showed the government had slightly increased their share of the vote and would comfortably win an election if one was held at that time. What did we get from TVNZ? Crickets. Not a mention of it, and certainly not an extensive discussion (even if I missed the mention).
The poll was reported in various "alternative" news sources, so it wan't like it was unknown to the media. TVNZ just didn't report it because they didn't want to. Note that at no point did they directly lie about anything, but they didn't need to. It was a lie by omission.
Last night, also on TVNZ (probably the worst major media company in New Zealand) there was a program about "misinformation". It featured various people, including academics, and others who work at the "Disinformation Project", an allegedly independent organisation set up by the previous government during COVID to stop the spread of conspiracies and other poorly supported information.
The Disinformation Project itself has a reputation amongst many people as being more a source of disinformation than an organisation effectively blocking it, and the tone of the program was what I would call hysterical, but that wasn't the big problem. You guessed it, the real problem was more lies by omission.
It discussed several problematic events, such as the January 6 riot in the US, with ominous comments about the far-right. It showed pictures of Trump, and scenes from Nazi rallies in conjunction with what it viewed as serious threats to democracy. But it didn't show a single event inspired by far-left ideology, like the BLM riots which caused many times more deaths and damage.
So without actually saying it, the program seemed to imply that Trump is a Nazi and responsible for various far-right incidents. These are more subtle (actually really clumsy and obvious, if I'm realistic) lies by omission.
I often do a test of the average person's exposure to media propaganda by asking them about sexual abuse claims against Donald Trump. Everyone has heard of these, so I then ask them what have they heard about Biden? No one has heard a thing. So I ask them to go and search for these names: Tara Reade, Lucy Flores, Ally Coll, Sofie Karasek, Amy Stokes, Caitlyn Caruso, DJ Hill, Vail Kohnert-Yount, who are all women who have made claims against Biden. And what about the comments made by his daughter and other young girls?
How much have we heard about that in the media? Very little or nothing.
I agree it is entirely possible that these claims are false or exaggerated, but I equally have to say that similar claims against Trump could be also. So why are they not both equally well known? Because the media are lying to us, by omission.
I'm not saying ignore the mainstream media and get all your news from Facebook, X, or even right-oriented sources like the Platform. What I am saying is that you shouldn't believe a word any of these sources tell you, unless it is also available in sources which are biased in the opposite direction.
For example, the claims against Biden which I mentioned above originally came from an alternative source. Naturally, I didn't fully trust them so I went looking in conventional media as well. They weren't obvious there, but they did exist, in places like NPR and the Guardian. When I find mentions of a subject like this (no matter how deeply buried) in sources who would normally support Biden, as well as in the more suspect places, I can be fairly confident they are genuine.
It's really quite Orwellian isn't it: the news is designed to make you less well informed, the Disinformation Project is there to spread disinformation, and the world's most trusted news sources have never had lower levels of trust. There's a good reason for this: the media is corrupt. They're not always wrong, but they will only tell you what you want to hear. That's a lie by omission!
I like to listen to podcasts on many different subjects. Some of the more controversial podcasts, like the Joe Rogan Experience and Triggernometry, usually have guests which I basically agree with, but sometimes there might be someone who I think is talking BS.
So what do I do? Well, a lot of people would just skip those episodes and move on, but I listen to them anyway. Sometimes the process can be quite "painful", because I know the person is presenting false or misleading information, and I have to force myself to listen to the end.
Why would I do that if I have the choice? Well, for three reasons mainly. First, I think it is important to listen to material which I might disagree with just in case the person makes some good points and I might change my mind. Second, knowing my opponents' arguments makes it easier to refute them in debates. And third, I criticise other people for shutting down speakers they disagree with and it would be quite hypocritical to refuse to listen to opposing views myself!
I recently listened to 2 podcasts which I knew I would have issues with before even listening to them, but did anyway. They were both Joe Rogan Experience episodes so they were quite a commitment: one was over 3 hours and the other just under 4 and a half! The JRE is well known for it's "long form" material which is one of the reasons it is so much better than the superficial "sound bites" we get in the mainstream media.
The first featured Bart Sibrel on the subject of the Moon Hoax. This is the belief, or conspiracy theory if you prefer (remember not all conspiracies are false), that the Moon landings were falsified by NASA for propaganda purposes and we have never landed people on the Moon.
The second was with Graham Hancock, and "alternative archaeologist" who believes that many ancient civilisations acquired their knowledge from an older, advanced culture which was wiped out by a global catastrophe.
Any non-expert listening to these people might find their arguments quite convincing. I don't really think of myself as an expert, but I probably know more than average because I have been an amateur astronomer for about 50 years and did an archaeology paper at university (many years ago, and I've probably forgotten it all, but at least I have a few clues about how archaeology works).
So after 7 and a half hours of listening to this material, what were my conclusions? Well, first I should say I think they are basically wrong. There might be some small elements of their beliefs which have some merit, but their overall conclusions are false. My current conclusions are that the Moon landings were real, and that there was no advanced global culture which pre-dated the Egyptians. But I do think these people both sounded pretty intelligent and rational. The problem is they have succumbed to some common logical fallacies: anomaly hunting, selective fact seeking, and personal incredulity.
If you look hard enough, especially with an existing idea of what you want to prove, you can find anomalies in any story which make it look suspicious. There are dozens of these which people think they have discovered regarding the Apollo missions: why did the flag wave, how did the astronauts get through the radiation belts surrounding the Earth, how did they get to the Moon with such simple computer equipment, and many more. I actually have a web page on my site listing and answering these questions.
And the archaeology claims were similar. How did the Egyptians get the pyramids aligned "perfectly" with the poles? Why do various calculations, involving numbers which arguably have some significance in astronomy, map the size of the pyramids onto the size of the Earth? Why does the Sphinx point directly at the constellation Leo at the equinox if you assume it was built much earlier than is generally accepted?
Then you go on to selective fact checking. The radiation belts were a known hazard but the dose was considered safe as long as the Sun didn't become too active. Ignored. The calculations for basic orbital trajectories is actually surprisingly simple, plus the astronauts took over when the computers were not capable enough. Ignored. By carefully selecting numbers you can make an association between any building and apparently significant alignments. Ignored.
And just because a person finds it hard to accept that something happened a certain way doesn't mean it didn't. It might mean that they didn't look at it carefully enough, or didn't give the people involved sufficient credit. The Saturn V rocket was a miracle of engineering and took many thousands of people many years to perfect. Why is it hard to believe that it was not capable of its original purpose after all that effort was put into building it? And why would we doubt the ingenuity of the ancient Egyptians in building in a particular way, especially when there is actually a small error in their so-called "perfect" alignment?
It's not impossible that the Moon missions were faked, but that fakery could easily have required more effort than the actual mission! For example, the films of the lunar rover driving on the Moon would have been almost impossible to fake given the computer technology at the time. Ironically, it is far easier to calculate a course to the Moon than it is too fake low gravity and zero atmosphere in a movie using old computers.
And it's not impossible that there was an advanced civilisation which pre-dates those that archaeology currently accepts. But if I had a choice between what is currently believed by the majority of experts and what a dedicated but untrained amateur thinks, then I'll go with the professionals.
As regular readers know, I don't always accept the consensus view, and have issues with the official line on climate change and lockdowns, but in general the official view is usually right. Conspiracies happen, but the default should be to reject them unless there are very good reasons not to.
I have written a few posts on the subject of free speech over several years. The trend for the last 20 years, in the period which I would characterise as being primarily driven by the rise of woke-ism, has been for free speech to be diminished as cancel culture has become more common, social pressure has been applied to people for what the woke mob see as violence in speech, and "hate speech" laws have limited what it is even legal to say.
Possibly the main source of these draconian limitations has been universities. Woke mentality arose from postmodernism, which has taken over from Marxism as the major destructive philosophical influence there. Many people would actually claim that postmodernism is simply Marxism applied with a more social than economic emphasis, but I tend to treat it as a seperate ideology.
But there is hope. As tends to happen with all corrupt belief systems, people are starting to realise how lacking in rigour and objectivity woke ideology really is. There is rebellion against the more radical impositions we are expected to live with. Free speech is back!
I spend a bit of time on social media most days. It's nothing too excessive, but it would be unusual for me not to check Facebook, YouTube, and X (Twitter) several times most days, and add a few comments on most occasions. In the past, especially on X, which is the main place where robust discussions take place, it would be difficult to express a view contrary to woke norms, because you might be censored by Twitter (as it was called then) or at least be attacked by numerous "social justice warriors" to the extent that it was difficult to make any point at all contrary to the norms established at the time.
Since Elon Musk took over Twitter (now X, why did he rename it?), things are much better. There are still plenty of SJWs, but now people with views contrary to that can get a fair say. It's what political discussion should have been all along: often quite extreme, but at least fair to all sides.
So it's now possible to discuss a "trans woman" (really a man) being allowed to compete in women's sports, for example. And if you consider that person really is a man, you can say so without having your access disabled or the tweet deleted.
I have followed an organisation called the "Free Speech Union" here in New Zealand for many years, and they have recently created a unit to help academics express opinions which might have resulted in significant negative consequences in the past. Free speech in universities is a big problem, and surveys indicate that many people in those institutions feel as if they cannot express their views. Also, many speakers have had been cancelled at university run venues.
So while universities are overwhelmingly left oriented, and therefore likely to have succumbed to woke ideology, it is even worse than that because the remainder who have enough independence of though to resist it cannot make their contrary opinions known. They tend to "self-censor".
I know people who work in universities who say that when they express unpopular opinions there, they regularly get people saying to them afterwards how happy they are to hear someone saying something they would like to say themselves, but are too scared to. Considering universities are supposed to be a place where a free exchange of ideas is encouraged, this seems like a genuinely dangerous trend.
But as I said, it does seem to be getting better, so there is reason to think we have passed "peak woke". Unfortunately, as ideologies die, they tend to become desperate to have as much influence as possible in the time that remains (by the way, I'm being a bit overdramatic here, and I don't think woke ideology will ever disappear completely). So we should expect to see some increasingly hysterical nonsense ahead, which it is important to resist.
I don't expect that my comments on social media are likely to change the views of people who are deeply dedicated to a woke mindset, but I do hope they might have some positive outcomes. First, anyone on the fence might see that my views have merit and be more influenced away from woke-ism. Second, people who share my views but are too scared to make them known publicly might feel supported. And finally, maybe, just maybe, it will put a tiny element of doubt into my opponents' minds.
Actually, there is one other thing too. If I present my views, and they are shown to be false or weak in some way, through a free exchange of ideas, maybe I will change my mind. So debate acts as a test of my own ideas too, which is really what free speech should be all about. The best way to defeat bad ideas is too make them public and subject them to scrutiny.
And that isn't just an idle comment. Look back 10 or more years and you will see I used to be far more accepting of the ideas the modern left espouse now. I wasn't so extreme that I would call myself a social justice warrior, but I was tending in that direction, and always voted for leftist parties. Anyone can change. All it really takes is some time and exposure to contrary views. All it really takes is free speech.
A few months back there was a popular internet meme that alleged that men think about the Roman Empire far too much. It originated on TikTok, and before that there was something similar on Instagram. These services aren't exactly well known for their quality content, so that might tell you quite a lot about the meme's credibility, put let's move on from that. Generally it involved women asking men how often they thought about Rome, and received answers such as "many times per day".
There are many reasons people might quite sensibly think about Rome, of course. It was the greatest empire of its time, had a lot of admirable characters (as well as many which might be less commendable), and was one of the main influences on the Western world today.
One of the most famous events involving Rome was its fall. The great empire gradually faded and now just a single country is left. Sure, it's a very cool country, with a lot going for it, but there is no empire any more. And the same can be said for every other empire the world has ever seen, including arguably the greatest of them all, the British Empire.
Is it inevitable that every empire, or most dominant country (because empires aren't fashionable any more, at least in their traditional form) eventually fails? Well, as I said, that is what the history of the world shows us, but what about today?
Today, the US would be the modern equivalent of the dominant empire. There is no emperor, and there is no large area of countries which have been militarily assimilated into a whole, but the US might be seen as the head of an economic and cultural empire, to some extent maintained by its overwhelming military capacity, but also by "soft" power.
Many people say the signs of the demise of the "American Empire" are here today for all to see. They see equivalents in the latter days of Rome and the current situation in the Western world, especially the US. So are we seeing the demise of the American (and more broadly, Western) Empire?
Unfortunately, I think that is quite possible. I say unfortunately here because whatever faults the US might have (and there are plenty) it is arguably the most benign power to ever dominate the world.
In the case of powerful hegemonies, failure usually comes from within. The society suffers from increasing conflict, lack of common beliefs, lack of confidence, and even self-loathing. Does anyone deny that this is what we are seeing in the Western world today?
Despite the fact that the West has many positives, it seems to feel as if it is unworthy and so easily allows increasing acceptance of inferior ideas to destroy it from within. Why do Western countries allow so many migrants across the border? Why do they feel as if they need to apologise for the past? Why do they have to capitulate to inferior, primitive ideas which should have no place in the modern world?
Maybe it's guilt for the past, or for being successful, or maybe it's related to the demise of religion, or maybe people have such a good standard of life now, despite current economic issues, that they feel guilty, or maybe even directionless because their lives are too easy.
All of these are probably factors, but I should add some notes here in the form of some nuance on these issues...
There were things which happened in the past (war, slavery, etc) which we wouldn't accept today, but those happened in every culture, and it was the British who primarily eliminated slavery and in some ways brought peace to the world through Pax Britannica (interestingly modelled on Pax Romana).
And why apologise for being successful? Without the political and scientific achievements of the West, the world would be a far worse place than it is. If other cultures weren't as successful we shouldn't necessarily denigrate them, but let's be proud of what we have achieved.
My position on religion should be well known to readers of this blog. I don't think religions are true, but they do create a useful social and philosophical environment which many people find beneficial. Without them, some people feel lost.
The fact that many people do have such easy lives might cause them to pursue irrational ideologies to feel more like struggling victims. I guess it is no coincidence that most of the protestors for dubious causes like climate change and Palestine are quite comfortable middle class people and university types.
The problem is, of course, that these social trends aren't based on rationality, so they are difficult to argue against or dismiss. I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history. Who will dominate next? China? Islam? Not a happy thought, is it?
One aspect of modern politics which seems puzzling to many is how different parties in various countries in the Western world all seem to have similar policies. People often comment on how it does't matter which way they vote, things don't change much. In recent times this phenomenon has primarily revealed itself through right wing governments being infiltrated by woke ideology almost as much as left.
In the UK, there are a lot of examples of people being persecuted for their comments which might be seen as contrary to the woke agenda, for example. I recently saw a stat where far more people in the UK (3300) were arrested for what they said on social media than in Russia (400). These weren't arrests for planning violence or anything, they were just for using a word someone else didn't like, or other trivial transgressions.
In the US people often complain that they are equally badly treated whichever party is in power. Even a maverick like Trump failed to get some of his more controversial ideas implemented. If he can't get anything done which contradicts orthodox views, who can?
Here in New Zealand we have seen some instances where the new government's agenda has not progressed to the extent we might expect, and where the underlying principles of what they are trying to achieve have been sabotaged.
For example, the need to reduce bureaucracy in government ministries has been sabotaged by staff reductions in roles with some useful function, instead of in the excessive numbers of useless bureaucrats hired by the previous government. A contact in the Ministry of Education recently commented that there are more senior managers than ever, at the same time as people with a useful role are being sacrificed.
So what is the connecting principle here? It is almost as if the governments we have voted for aren't really running the place, and there are "mysterious figures" behind the scenes who are really "pulling the strings" of the puppets we think are in charge. If you don't suspect this might be the case with Biden, you really haven't been paying attention!
It seems to me that government agencies are really running many Western democracies, and therefore making them a lot less democratic. When I say "running" I don't really mean they have total control, but they do have significant influence. They are a barrier to change, which is fine in some ways because it stops a new government from coming in and doing something stupid, but it blocks changes for the better as well.
I have given a few examples above of where I think this is clearly happening, but now I want to move on to some more extreme cases, some of which might stray into the area of conspiracies, so be warned! Remember that the idea of a conspiracy has been purposely demeaned by those in power, but that is exactly what they would do if there really was a conspiracy, wouldn't they! So a conspiracy is exactly what I am claiming is happening here; don't let the way the word has been diminished fool you.
We know the FBI interferes with US elections. The Twitter Files clearly show they were trying to manipulate public opinion of Trump and therefore influence US politics on a large scale. They didn't succeed in 2016 but who can tell what effect their actions might have had in 2020? And I'm sure what has been revealed so far is just a fraction of what they have been doing in the past.
There is good reason to believe that the CIA had a certain amount to do with the overthrow of Nixon during the Watergate Scandal. I haven't looked at this one in detail, and I think Nixon was probably indulging in some suspicious activity, but without influence from the intelligence agencies I don't think things would have played out like they did.
OK, here's the mother of all conspiracies: the assassination of JFK! I've gone backwards and forwards on this one for many years, and I still don't know whether I believe the official report or not. There are many odd details to this explanation, and there are many weird coincidences which just seem too convenient. But odd events sometimes happen without a conspiracy. I'm on the fence about this, but wouldn't be surprised if there was some nefarious intelligence agency activity involved.
What about 9/11? Was that an "inside job"? No, I don't think so. This is one conspiracy I do reject. The official explanation seems fairly good in that case, and destroying such a significant landmark as the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, along with taking thousands of innocent lives, just seems like it is going too far, unnecessarily.
The big conspiracies I mentioned here might or might not be true. If they are true, my case for control from these agencies is demonstrated beyond any doubt. If they are false, the control is simply of a more subtle nature: manipulating public opinion, blocking changes using excessive bureaucracy, and other "dirty tricks". Or maybe I'm wrong and this doesn't happen at all!
So what is the solution? Well, in some countries, when a new government takes over they fire all the senior bureaucrats hired by previous governments and put their "own people" into those roles. That might seem excessive or even corrupt, but is it really? There are plenty of senior public servants in New Zealand I would like to see the end of. Let's start with the Commissioner of Police!
When we want solutions to the "world's big problems" who do we go to? Often it is politicians, or senior managers and business leaders, or various types of "public intellectuals". Is this a good idea? Well, considering they are the exact people who have got us into this mess, maybe not!
At the other end of the spectrum we have people who are so naive and ignorant that their opinions are probably worth even less. Examples of these people might be climate protestors, university students, and social rights activists. Listening to these clowns is just as bad as listening to the politicians.
So who should we listen to? Me, of course! No, I'm not that arrogant. I'm going to suggest, British standup comedian, Jimmy Carr. Now you might be surprised by that idea, but hear me out.
Like a lot of comedians, who appear like crude simpletons on the surface, Jimmy has a level of intellectualism behind the facade which is worth listening to. In a recent podcast he featured in he offered some ideas to solve some major current political and social issues, and they made a lot of sense - in other words, they agreed with my own thoughts!
Here's idea number one: give women who have children tax relief. This idea has been implemented in Hungary where a women there with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax. Fewer children offer lower tax reductions.
What benefit would be gained from this? Well, the population in many Western countries is falling and this places an economic burden on current generations as the general population ages. Some countries birth rates mean their populations are actually reducing because the natural fertility is below the 2.1 (if I remember correctly) per couple required to maintain the population.
You might say that immigration is another possible solution to this. In Hungary they ban Muslim migrants, but Jimmy did't comment on this. I wouldn't necessarily ban immigration completely, but I would only allow immigrants who have skills the country needs (and that would include Muslims).
So this would encourage more births and return the country to a more balanced profile of ages in the population. It would also increase the income of women who lose pay from having time off to raise children, making the "gender pay gap" (which doesn't really exist, but let's not go there right now) less of an issue.
If the birth rate became too high, the tax relief levels could be modified to aim for the target birth rate. This would apply to new applicants for the scheme, because those who already signed up get the benefits for life.
Remember also, that those extra children will grow up, get jobs, and start paying tax themselves. Brilliant, isn't it!
Here's another idea: put small nuclear reactors in every town in the country. Once they were installed and running, power would be effectively free for the life of the reactor, which could be 30 years.
Small reactors have been used in submarines and other places for decades with very few problems. And remember that the tiny number of nuclear accidents in the past were all the result of gross mismanagement of old nuclear technology, and even then there were few casualties (except perhaps Chernobyl, which was incredibly badly handled). Also note that nuclear has the lowest death and injury rate of any power generation technology (including solar) so it really isn't the problem it is often portrayed as.
If a country (Jimmy suggested Britain) did this, it could encourage investment by offering free power. Even if the pay rate for the workers was higher than other countries, it might be offset by free power, and this might return industries to the country which have moved to where operation costs were cheaper.
I think the numbers would need to be run on this to see how viable the idea is, but it is worth us getting over the infantile fear of nuclear technology and at least considering it.
Just briefly, here are two other ideas...
First, protestors are pathetic. They think gluing themsleves to a road and disrupting people's lives is productive. What about getting a proper degree in the STEM fields, instead of gender studies, and researching ways to really improve environmental standards? Of course, many of these people are too stupid to get a real degree but it's an excellent rhetorical point, at least.
And what about drug laws? Well, make all drugs legal but only for mature people. Jimmy suggested over 45 years of age, but that sounds a bit crazy. I believe the usual age quoted for a fully mature brain is 23, so maybe the limit should be 25 instead. Drug liberalisation laws of this sort laws have been created in Portugal, and according to most assessments, have been quite successful.
Maybe you think all of these ideas are crazy, or maybe you like some of them, or even all of them. I think they have merit and show a way that lives could be improved using classic economic techniques to encourage "good" behaviour. And whatever else you say, at least someone is thinking about genuinely innovative ways to improve the future.
You want genuinely innovative ideas? Just ask a comedian!
The law is a difficult subject to evaluate fairly. We undoubtedly need laws to control how people interact in society, yet there are so many cases where laws are unfair, unproductive, or impractical.
The expression "the law's an ass" is well known, and there are a couple of aspects of it I should mention. First, the word "ass" here refers to a donkey rather than anything else, because donkeys are reputed to be obstinate and inflexible. And second, the expression became popular after being used by English author Charles Dickens, but can be traced back further to at least the 1600s, so it isn't new.
There are several examples of problems with the law which recently caused me to want to write this post. First, the UK Post Office Scandal, which has been prominent recently thanks to a TV program about it. Second, the anti hate speech laws recently passed in Scotland which are very controversial. And third, the use of legal cases against Donald Trump, which some people claim is an attempt to sabotage his chances of becoming president again.
So let's look at these three examples...
The Post Office case originated in the 1990s when a new computer system was introduced and errors it created in payment records were blamed on the people who owned, and worked in, the small businesses which were doing postal work as contractors.
Many people were prosecuted, imprisoned, and some committed suicide as a result of the pressure. It was clear all along that the computer system had faults and was being remotely manipulated, yet the Post Office continued to blame the postmasters for the errors.
Some attempts by those accused to defend themsleves resulted in lengthy court cases and often the defence just ran out of money before they could prove anything thanks to delaying tactics and just a vastly greater amount of (taxpayer) money being available to the large organisation.
So it was sort of a case where "the best justice money can buy" applied. The winner was not the person with the best case, but who had the most money and could afford the best lawyers for the longest time.
Note that things have now been resolved in the accused people's favour, but only after 30 years and where many have died, been locked in prison, or killed themselves because of the stress.
How did the law look in this situation? Comparing it to an ass would be generous!
In Scotland new so-called anti hate speech laws have recently been passed. It is illegal, with the penalty being a potential prison sentence, to use speech to diminish the status of certain "disadvantaged" groups. For example, you cannot call a trans "woman" who is biologically a man, a man, even if you think there is a good case to say that is true.
The law allows anonymous reports and people are encouraged to report their family members (even children to report their parents) who might say the wrong thing, even in private conversations.
Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to read Nineteen Eighty Four and see where this extreme authoritarian attitude leads. Note that it is a leftist government implementing stuff which even a far right fascist one might have hesitated to enact in the past!
Harry Potter author, JK Rowling has said she will voluntarily make the same comment as what was said by anyone else who had been persecuted by this law, forcing the police to arrest her as well, and causing a huge backlash since she has the financial ability to fight it. So far this has not been necessary, because this law just doesn't work.
That new law isn't just unenforceable, it is genuinely evil. Any law where a person expresses a politically unpopular opinion in their own home, gets reported by their own children, and ends up in prison is far worse than an ass, it's an abomination!
Finally, we come to the cases being taken against Donald Trump. This one is likely to be even more controversial because Trump is a divisive figure. People who don't like him will no doubt think he deserves to be locked up, but those who support him will most likely see the charges as being politically motivated and completely bogus.
In this case the truth is probably somewhere in between. We know the US legal system interferes with elections, after the FBI tried but failed to influence the 2016 election in favour of Clinton but Trump still won. There can be little doubt that these charges are politically motivated, yet I would be surprised if there wasn't some element of truth in some of them.
The timing is "unfortunate" if you are a Trump supporter even though we are assured the fact that they all arose just at the beginning of the presidential election cycle is coincidental. That seems unlikely.
So the law is being used in this case to disrupt the democratic process of the most powerful nation on Earth. Anyone who didn't have concerns about the fairness and robustness of the legal system up until now should be genuinely alarmed at this point.
Apparently the law is being used as a political weapon. Again, calling the law an ass in this instance is really far less than the criticism it really deserves.
I don't think any less of a person if I hear they have broken a law. Many laws deserve to be broken, and the "criminal" would be better described as a hero. Of course, I have presented some of the worst cases where the law fails and there are plenty of times when it works absolutely fine, so many people who break laws are justifiably prosecuted. I just look at it on a case by case basis.
In summary, is the law an ass? Well no, it's not. Often it is an excellent tool to control society, but other times, it is far worse than that. If it was just an ass, I would be relatively happy!
Most human institutions, and most individuals, are very defined and affirmed by status. People compare themselves with others, and are aware of their relative value compared with their friends and others in their society. Additionally, people in general like to strive for the highest status they can attain.
The complicating fact is, or course, that status can be measured in many different ways, and if someone cannot compete on traditional grounds, they might be tempted to find a different way to measure themselves which more suits their strengths.
And that is fair enough. Money is often used as a measure of status, yet many people with a lot are not necessarily worthy of much respect, because their only significant talent is just the ability to accumulate money. But that shouldn't be the only way to establish status, and others might be equally valid.
The problem is that instead of just rejecting traditional measures, or dismissing the idea of status completely, many dysfunctional people like to create their own way of establishing dominance, even though they might not even be aware they are doing it.
So have you ever wondered why so many people who virtue signal a commitment to a bizarre belief are stupid, ugly, poor, or ignorant? Clearly these misfits cannot attain status in a traditional way - like becoming rich, respected through their intellect or achievements, etc - so they have to invent a new way to do the same thing.
Now, I have to be fair here and say that there is no objective way to say which ways of measuring an individual's value are most valid, so maybe these alternatives are just as valid as any other, but no, we have established ways because they have proved valuable over time, and new ways are unlikely to be as good.
So all of that is a bit abstract, so let me give some examples of where traditional hierarchies have been overturned or even reversed - or maybe I should say when this has been attempted.
Communism was allegedly a way to eliminate status completely. All people were to have the same value and receive the same rewards. But it didn't work, of course, because the leaders took the majority of power, status, and material wealth. It failed in its aim, and arguably created a culture even more based on status than before.
But the fantasy of communism is egalitarianism and that might explain why so many people who are not doing well in our traditional Western societies, where status is based on merit as measured by financial and intellectual success, look to communist styled philosophies such as Marxism and postmodernism as an alternative.
So if you cannot be a great artist or accumulate enough money to own great art, why not try to destroy existing art under the pretence of protesting lack of action on climate change? That will give you status amongst the other misfits with similar beliefs.
And if you are hideously obese, why not try to attract attention by demanding your "rights" to two seats for the price of one when you fly? No doubt, other people with similar lack of self-control (in most cases) will admire your courageous stand against oppression, right?
And if you feel like you can't make any great contribution in traditional ways, and that you are near the bottom in social status, why not try to flip the narrative by making those at the bottom the most worthy? So you could pretend the religious, racial, and social minorities who aren't doing well are truly deserving of more, without making any effort on their own behalf, and that would make you look better too.
And people without jobs and who don't drive might like to hold up traffic in order to virtue signal whatever nonsensical belief they have, whether it is supporting Palestinian terrorists, or pretending their actions might stop climate change, or to support their sick religion. If you don't have a job or a car, why not make life as hard as possible for those that do, isn't that a good way to gain equity?
I do have to admit that I am being a bit unkind here. There are people who protest political and social issues who are actually quite functional in a traditional sense. But a lot aren't. Next time you see these people with their insane demands ask yourself: are they really just compensating for their own deficiencies, whether that is intellect, or knowledge, or experience, or physical fitness, or their appearance, or talent, or one of many other factors.
When you have no status, you can pretend you don't care, you can try to destroy existing status mechanisms, or you can demand a new world where you matter. But in the end, it is all about status.
I have many random interests, several of them quite geeky, and aircraft, especially military planes, has been one for a while now. I live just 3 hours drive from Wanaka which hosts what is arguably New Zealand's best air show, "Warbirds Over Wanaka", which is held every 2 years. For various reasons, amongst them COVID, it has been about 10 years since I went to this event, although I did go to a smaller show at Omaka, New Zealand in 2017.
Ironically, given the past cancellations for the pandemic, I was getting over my second case of COVID on the day that I went (I think I was past the contagious phase, plus I was outside the whole time). I went with our daughter, Nicole, so I'm not sure if I gave it to her. To be fair, I caught it off her the first time I got it, a year or two back!
I have also attended earlier shows at Wanaka in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I am quite dedicated. Of course, I have reports on all of these shows with many photos and videos on my web site.
The Wanaka show this year was attended by about 70,000 people; not bad for a little town of just over 12,000! This does introduce a few issues. I recently joked to a friend that it took me 5 times as long to get out of the car park (a few hundred meters) at the end of the show than it would take the F16 (an American jet at the show) to fly all the way to Christchurch airport (over 400 kilometers)! To be fair, to do this the F16 would need to fly near its top speed, and the sonic booms might not be popular with those towns it flew over!
One of the great things about the Wanaka show is the scenery and the weather. The airport where it is held in on a wide flat, but there are lakes, hills, and mountains all around. And the weather has never been bad every time I have gone. This year was particularly great with perfect blue skies and a slight breeze. We had a pleasant dinner sitting outside in Wanaka near the lake shore at the end of the show.
As far as the aircraft are concerned, I have to admit I am a sucker for noisy, fast jets, so I loved the F16. If you don't know, it is an American fighter, about to be phased out in the US, but still common in other countries, capable of flying faster than Mach 2 or over 2400 km/h.
I always thought the F16, which has the official name "Fighting Falcon", but is usually referred to as the "Viper" by it pilots, was one of the best looking fighters around. It is relatively small, sleek, and "pointy". It looks like what you expect a jet fighter should look.
The other highlight was the Mosquito fighter/bomber. This British World War II aircraft is rare because, being made of glued together wood, very few survived. But despite what seems a primitive method of construction, they were the fastest plane on either side when they were introduced, thanks to light weight and two massive V12 engines!
I used my old Canon EOS70D digital SLR (20 MPx) and a Canon 75-300 mm zoom lens (giving a maximum effective focal length of about 480 mm) for the high-magnification zoomed shots, and my Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max (12, 24, and 48 MPx, 10x optical zoom) for wide angle stills and video. I did manage to get fairly close up with some shots of rapidly flying planes hundreds of meters away showing the pilot quite clearly. Of course, for every good shot there were 10 or 20 bad!
These types of photos are tricky for two reasons: first, the planes are moving quickly, so getting them centered and focussed can be difficult, because you don't have much time; and second, the sky is so bright, especially when looking towards the Sun, that the aircraft themselves tend to be underexposed, leading to more noise. I used both raw and JPEG images and did significant enhancement on every photo before displaying it!
Anyway, it was a nice break, and a great way to geek out for an aviation enthusiast. I'll wait to see what intersting aircraft they have in 2 years time, because I might just go again!
If you don't have some unpopular opinions you probably should examine your perspectives and consider whether your opinions are really yours or whether you are just parroting what other people think you should say.
By "unpopular" here, I don't necessarily mean opinions which would not be supported by the majority of people. What I mean is those which are contrary to the standard narratives advocated for by the majority of the media, and mainstream institutions.
In fact, it is surprising how often what i think might be a controversial opinion is actually supported by many people, including those who I might expect wouldn't agree with it. I found this out recently with my pro-Israel blog post "Which River?" from 2024-03-21 where several people told me privately they agreed but didn't want to say so publicly, along with a few people who agreed in the comments, and one who didn't.
I have already written one post on this subject, titled "Unpopular Opinions" from 2022-05-24, but this is more a follow up. So what other unpopular opinions do I have? Well, first let me say that I am not particularly committed to any of these. I could be wrong on them all, and I will accept that if the facts change, so these are opinions based on what I see as the facts now. OK, here they are...
1. Donald Trump. We're off to a good, controversial start, right? I actually quite like Trump. I mean, he obviously has some faults, the main one arguably being that he doesn't have a "filter" and just says whey he thinks. But I prefer that to the dishonest drivel we get from most politicians. I agree with about half of his policies, which isn't bad, and the main reason I might not vote for him is because he's so divisive, but who isn't?
2. Obama. Maybe the antithesis of Trump and admired by so many for his speaking skills, but look at his record. He won the Nobel Peace Prize while bombing 8 Muslim countries, including hospitals, yet people have the cheek to say Trump is anti-Islamic. Really?
3. The origin of COVID. I think the lab leak theory is seriously worth considering. I mean, a new disease appears right next to a lab researching that exact type of modified virus. What are the chances? I don't think it was deliberately released, because why do that right next to the place researching it? It was very likely an accident. And before you say that's a conspiracy, remember some conspiracies are true!
4. Jeffrey Epstein. I think you would have to be pretty naive to think that Epstein's death was a suicide. He was self-centered and not the sort of person I would consider would take his own life. And he had so many contacts in high places that surely there were plenty of people out there who might have felt more comfortable with him out of the way. I have some good cartoons about this. One shows a message: "Hilary Clinton sent you a suicide request" and has 2 options "Accept" and "Accept". Another shows Bill Clinton saying "I did not have suicidal relations with that man"!
5. Climate Change. I have mentioned this before but for completeness I will add it here as well. I think the climate is changing and very likely a significant part of that is a result of human activity. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we can fix it. While countries like China are furiously building new coal fired power plants we are making tiny but expensive changes to the way we live. Why? It can't be because it makes any difference, so it must be pure virtue signalling.
6. Minority groups. If I haven't offended you yet, this should do it. I think so-called minority groups, like black people in the US, Maori in NZ, and women are actually inferior to "old white guys" in some ways. It isn't necessarily a matter of the genetics of their sex or race, it is a cultural issue. Back people have a massive rate of broken families which relates directly to their education and then success in adult life. Women are more likely to want balance in their life and tend to be less aggressive in attaining their work goals. So there is no systemic anti-black racism and there is no gender wage gap. It's all nonsense because people are not prepared to accept their own deficiencies. Note that any criticism above is of a statistical nature because there are plenty of highly successful black people, Maoris, and women, which proves my point that anyone can succeed.
7. Activism. There used to be a time when activism in support of "minority groups" (sorry to keep using that term with the scare quotes, but I just can't think of a better one) like gay people, women, etc was necessary, but eventually it reaches a point where it becomes counter-productive. Many forms of feminism today are just making everyone less happy, and the trans activists must be a constant source of annoyance to many trans people, who might want to just live their lives like everyone else instead of being at the center of a massive political debate. Surely the activists are making life worse for many of the people they think they represent.
Well, that's probably enough naughty opinions for today. I suspect no one will be offended by them all, but there probably won't be too many who agree with them all either. Remember, they're just opinions, which I might change in future, not some call to action for genocide or even cancellation. Try not to be too offended!
Well, apparently the opinions expressed here haven't been controversial enough lately (I'm beng sarcastic, after the recent Hamas vs Israel post) so maybe it's time to get into something genuinely problematic. Let's try diversity, and especially diversity quotas!
A trend in recent years, which actually originated back in the 1960s when a lot of this trendy critical theory nonsense started, is for organisations and companies to be particularly aware of diversity and quotas for "disadvantaged" groups in society.
Originally this was often called "affirmative action", which sounds good, doesn't it? I mean it's a lot better than "negative action" or "affirmative inaction". But, as is almost always the case, the nice words hide something deeply problematic.
Now the same basic concept is known as DEI, or diversity, equity, and inclusion. Similarly to what I mentioned above, the alternative of uniformity, inequity, and exclusion sounds so much worse, but again, the reality behind the facade is far from what it might appear to be.
According to current theory, especially in the area of postmodernist and critical theory, if a group in society is not achieving as well as the dominant group then it must be because the dominant group is unfairly repressing the others. In effect, because this is only ever applied to modern Western countries, old white guys are stopping women, black people, trans people, etc from achieving what they could do otherwise.
I'm sure there are some situations where is some truth in this, and it was probably more common in the past, but it isn't the primary issue any more, assuming it ever was. Let's look at a few examples...
Women aren't as widely represented in engineering as we would expect given that they make up 50% of the population. According to critical theory this is because men stop them from achieving in that area. Note that there is no need to provide evidence for this assertion because critical theory just inherently assumes it is true.
But, of course, it isn't. Women are over-represented in other areas which might be considered more prestigious than engineering, such as medicine. What happened there? Did the old white guys fail to apply their evil influence? In reality, men and women are different, and women are more interested in "people centered" professions like medicine, and men are more interested in "thing centered" subjects like engineering. Note that there are plenty of men interested in people, and plenty of women interested in things, but there is a general trend which explains the differences we see.
So when there are demands for more women in STEM fields (often related to engineering) we are making at least 5 big mistakes: First, we are suggesting women should do something they may not be naturally interested in. Second, we might choose women in preference to men who would be better at the job. Third, we drive down the general level of competence in that profession. Fourth, when we see a "minority" group in a non-traditional job, we might be tempted to think they are there because of quotas rather than skill. And finally, we apply these rules unevenly, because there doesn't end to be any programs trying to get more men into medicine!
I'm sorry to have to say this but I will, because it's probably not just me who feels this way. When I see a woman engineer I presume she is not fully competent and got there through quotas. When I see a Maori doctor I presume he or she is less competent than others, and again is in the job to fulfil a quota. I know that I am often wrong, because there are plenty of good female engineers and good Maori doctors, but on average I would be right.
So DEI is not even really doing the "minority" group a favour, because it just creates suspicion and resentment. Note that when I see an old white guy in any role I assume he is competent (although he often won't be) because there are no extraneous processes favouring him!
In recent years DEI has been applied to some critical areas, such as air traffic control. In the same time, accidents and near misses have increased noticeably. Now correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there could be other reasons for the increase, but again diversity quotas cause suspicion.
There is a "competency crisis" heading our way as diversity is used more as a selection criterion than competence is. If we don't hire the most competent people, standards will drop. If we revert to using competence, that might mean that most engineers are men and most doctors are women, but what's wrong with that? People get to do what they are naturally best at, and we get higher standards as a result. DEI must Die!\
Arguably the most controversial current world event is the war in Gaza. Many people have a short attention span and quickly switch from one issue to another, so Ukraine, and other major conflicts, now have less visibility than before.
Looking at the news, you might think that the vast majority of people support the Palestinian cause in this war, but I haven't seen any credible stats which prove that. As you will know if you read my earlier blog post, "Not Morally Equal" from 2023-10-12, I am fairly firmly on the side of Israel, although I concede they are not perfect.
But many people I meet (I work at a university so I meet a lot of extreme leftists) are on the other side, and use various arguments to support that. Unfortunately, from my perspective, these arguments are both predictable and weak. So I thought I might cover a few of these arguments, and give my response to them here...
Argument: The Palestinians are innocent. Even if Hamas has caused some problems that is not a reflection on the people of Gaza.
Response: Actually, it is. The vast majority of people living in Gaza support Hamas. They help their cause (sometimes they have no choice) and many actively celebrated the Oct 7 terror attack. I don't see them as active combatants, but they are not completely innocent either.
Argument: Israel is an Apartheid state.
Response: Apartheid was a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race. In South Africa, black people were not allowed to vote, to participate in government, and were forced into separate areas. In Israel, Arabs are full citizens, are allowed to vote, and participate in government. In what way is this Apartheid?
Argument: Israel is engaged in genocide.
Response: The Israelis send warnings to civilians before they attack Hamas military sites. They drop leaflets and send text messages advising Palestinians to move to safer areas. This seems like an odd way to carry out a genocide. They also engaged in a risky, focussed land war which has resulted in casualties to their own people. They could have made things much easier for themselves if they were genuinely genocidal.
Argument: Gaza is an open air prison.
Response: The Israelis left Gaza in 2005. The border is controlled because of the constant Hamas attacks. Note that the border to Egypt is also tightly controlled. If Gaza is an unpleasant place to live, blame Hamas and Egypt more than Israel.
Argument: Supplies for Gaza have been intercepted by Israel.
Response: Hamas has used supplies intended for civilian infrastructure to create weapons. Also, attempts to smuggle more advanced weapons in have been controlled. If the supplies need more free access, they should use them for their intended purpose.
Argument: Israel engage in indiscriminate killing.
Response: Israel could be more careful to avoid civilian casualties, but this is war and collateral damage is inevitable. Also, it is acknowledged by all fair commentators that Hamas use human shields and often locate their military posts in civilian buildings like hospitals and schools. This makes avoiding civilian casualties very difficult.
Argument: Israel's response to October 7 is disproportionate.
Response: Israel have declared war, unsurprisingly given the terrorist attack they are responding to. In war your only aim should be to end it as quickly as possible while minimising casualties, especially on your own side. Sometimes an overwhelming force (what is sometimes called "shock and awe") is the best way to complete the military action as quickly as possible. In the end, it is the best approach for all sides.
Argument: Israel has committed war crimes.
Response: I suspect any participant in any war could be accused of the occasional war crime, but if you read through my answers above you can see that if these did happen (this has not been demonstrated to be true) they are isolated and not part of an overall strategy. The war crimes on the Palestinian side, however, are deliberate policy.
Argument: There are massive protests supporting Palestine around the world. Does this not show that most people are against Israel?
Response: I haven't seen any credible statistics on this, so it is hard to say what the reality is. I know the mainstream media, as is always the case, present a warped view of this. I also know that supporting Palestine is the latest trendy issue, and many weak minded people jump on the bandwagon for it. Here's a telling point: when protestors are asked what "from the river to the sea" even means, many of them can't even name the river or the sea, and don't realise it means the eradication of Israel. Most of these protestors are clowns.
So you can see that the arguments being made to support Palestine do not have much merit. A final question: after years of rocket attacks, and after the atrocities of October 7, what choice did Israel really have?
When is more less? Does that even make any sense? Well, in many contexts, I think it does. Specifically for this post, there is a point in every system, organisation, or company where adding more people results in less efficiency rather than more, and I think that pertains to not just positive outcomes per person involved, but also in absolute terms.
When Elon Musk took over Twitter he fired about 80% of the workforce. Since then, Twitter (now known as X) just seems to have got better. I use it a lot, almost every day, and it superficially at least, seems faster, more reliable, and even more accurate, thanks to the new community notes feature which is genuinely useful.
If you don't know, community notes is a "fact checking" system powered by X users and relying on a consensus of views. It has alerted me on several occasions to material which was either untrue or biased, and I have never seen an occasion where it got its facts wrong.
So after losing 80% of its workforce (that is over 6000 individuals) things are better than ever. I really have to wonder what those thousands of people were doing. I would have to conclude that they weren't making Twitter better, and I might even conclude they were making it worse!
This seems to be a clear example where more people lead to a less positive outcome, and it makes me wonder whether Twitter was an outlier in this, or whether every organisation might benefit from the same approach.
Here in New Zealand our education system seems to be worse than it ever was, despite the previous government increasing the number of people working in the Ministry of Education from 2700 employees (which many people might argue was already overblown and inefficient) to 4400. I have to wonder whether a mass layoff of 80% of those people might be justified.
Note that I am not talking about firing teachers here. These are all bureaucrats whose function might not be well defined and who might have difficulty in justifying their existence. A certain number of teachers are required to maintain teacher to pupil ratios and, unless we significantly restructure how we do education, I can't see how reducing their numbers might help. Maybe we could move 80% of the bureaucrats into teaching roles?
But that's probably not possible, because most of them wouldn't have teaching skills. Why someone would work for the Ministry of Education and have no teaching skills is an interesting question. I must confess here that I am making an assumption about that, so if they are all qualified teachers I withdraw this criticism (you know I won't need to though, don't you).
My friend Fred (not his real name) works for a large organisation which has hired an increasing number of bureaucrats in recent years. When asked, many of these people cannot even give a clear description of what they do. beyond a job title like "business quality objective executive assistant" or "deputy vice president of equity and inclusion". You look at these and just know they are a waste of space.
But it might be even worse than that. It might not be that these clowns are just a waste of money, they more likely actually stopping productive people getting things done. It would be interesting to apply the same process to them that Musk used at Twitter.
If you follow Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of everything is crap, you might be tempted to fire 90% instead of 80, but I would suggest a more measured approach. Look for people with ridiculous job titles and give them a month leave. If things improve (as determined by a vote of the employees of that organisation) then ask them not to return.
I have a Dilbert cartoon which illustrates this quite well. A manager puts out an announcement "all employees not currently doing essential work can take the afternoon off" and then watches from a window as some employees leave, and says "this will be the easiest round of layoffs ever".
Unfortunately, those people are often good for nothing else, so they might become unemployed. I think the current low unemployment in many countries is because about half (that's my estimate based on nothing in particular) of workers effectively do nothing of any value (see my blog post titled "The Rise of BS Jobs" from 2023-04-03). But it's cheaper to pay them an unemployment benefit to do nothing than a substantial salary to get in the way of everyone else.
Maybe more unemployment could be a good thing? After all, more is less.
A current controversy here in New Zealand started when the Wellington women's rugby team performed a haka (traditional Maori war dance) before a game which included the line (translated from Maori): "puppets of this redneck government".
I haven't seen a full translation, so I'm not sure who these "puppets" were supposed to be, but the claim that the government is "redneck" is problematic in itself.
Of course, I am a proponent for free speech, so I should support the team's right to make a point like this, right? Well, yes and no, because it really isn't quite that simple. It would be simple if the following was true: these were individual opinions, not presented as if from a whole team; the opinion was presented in a private space rather than a public event; and opinions against the left of politics were given equal freedom. But none of these are true.
A comparison has been made with the opinions of Australian rugby league player, Israel Folau, who was cancelled by the game's authorities there for what they claimed were anti LGBT opinions of his. He presented those opinions in his own time, they were clearly just his, yet because they were against a group the woke lefties defend, he was cancelled.
I defended Folau's right to make his opinions known, even though I completely disagree with his reasoning based on his fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. He shouldn't have been cancelled, but was. Would I say the opposite for the women's rugby team? Should they have been cancelled because of the far worse way they presented their views?
Well, no. Free speech is free speech. There is one thing I would say here though, and that is, is this team accepting money from the "redneck" government? If they are (and some people have stated this is the case, but although I haven't seen absolute evidence it is, I will proceed on that assumption) then surely they should say "no, we don't want money from you". If they do accept the funding do they still have the right to criticise? Probably yes, but it does seem to be very hypocritical.
But that's no surprise, because many of the people who protest against modern institutions actually benefit quite substantially from them. The club probably wouldn't survive without those payments, and the team has a lot of Maori women in it. If the government was so redneck, would it be funding a team like that?
There are also several other issues related to this. First, is it appropriate for women to be performing a haka? There seem to be several opinions on this, but traditionally I think the answer is no. Second, are we getting a bit sick of hakas being performed in so many different situations now? I'm not a huge sports fan, but I would prefer for them to stop. Third, given that more Maori voted for the biggest party in the government than voted for the Maori Party, did some of those people performing the haka not really believe in what they were saying? Was it a bit like the other sports people who were forced to "take a knee" during the BLM protests?
Some people say politics should keep out of sport, but I think that is unrealistic, because politics is everywhere, especially at this time on our history.
But if people are going to do political protests I would suggest the following provisos: Do it as a private person rather than as part of a public group or team. If you insist on doing it as a group make sure people can opt out with no penalties. Try to do it in your own time, rather than when being paid to do a job. Try to avoid insulting instituions which generously fund you. And make sure that political views from all sides of the spectrum get a chance to protest, not just those which are politically correct.
While I strongly support free speech, I think the chances of these guidelines being followed are just about zero, so maybe we should make these one of those times when free speech is curtailed and political protests just aren't allowed at public functions.
Actually no, free speech is too important for that. Let's allow it here too, but if we are going to allow it, make sure it is available for "unpopular" opinions too, like supporting Israel in its war against Hamas, or preventing biological men competing in women's sport, or disagreeing with special privileges being given to minority racial groups.
Let's see how long those sort of protests would last. About 5 minutes before the cancellations started, I suspect!
There are certain things which are technically legal and within the rules but are still quite reasonably thought of as bad. Sometimes they can even be justified by looking logically at the benefits against the drawbacks. But even then, they are usually still bad.
This particularly applies in politics, where perceptions are often more important than reality, so politicians and other public figures need to be particularly aware of this. By now, if you live in New Zealand, you might already know of an example of this phenomenon. Yes, it our new prime minister and the payments he accepted to pay for his accomodation in our capital city, Wellington.
The PM is already pretty rich, having been, amongst other things, CEO of our national airline, and he is being well paid as prime minister too. He owns seven houses, and one is worth almost $8 million, so he's not short of cash.
And one of the major policy directions of his government is saving money by cutting back on existing services and downsizing government departments. So you might think at this point that he might want to set an example by saving the taxpayer a bit on what we pay for his accomodation.
But apparently not.
He initially accepted a payment of $1000 per week to pay for accomodation in Wellington - in an apartment he owns. Was he entitled to this? Yes. Do other politicians accept similar payments? Yes. Was it within the rules and not illegal in any way? Yes. Should he have done it? No.
It really is a bad look. How can you respect a person who tells everyone else to save money for the benefit of the country yet accepts a payment himself which he doesn't really need? You really can't. And the fact that he is now repaying it shows he at least accepts his error, or maybe he is just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Note that I did vote for a party (Act) which is part of the government that the PM leads, and I don't necessarily think he is a bad prime minister, although so far I certainly don't think he's a good one either. To be fair, I can't think of any good ones, so that doesn't necessarily mean much!
You might say that $52,000 to allow a good leader to live in the center of government of the country could easily result in that being paid back many times over if he does a good job, but that's not really the point. As I said above, it's about perceptions, and the fact that he didn't even think of that shows he is either politically naive (he's quite new to politics so that's a fair explanation) of very entitled (also possible, considering his senior management positions).
I also have to say that this is a very common problem.
Maybe the greatest demonstration of a total inability to understand how their actions are perceived is the people who attend climate conferences. Large numbers of private jets (400 of them in the most recent one, see my blog post titled "No More Leaders" from 2021-11-11) fly from all over the world, emitting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, to a conference aimed at reducing the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.
Again, it's possible that if the conference is successful the amount of atmospheric carbon saved might be a lot more than the amount released by the jets of the leaders at the meeting, but again that's not the point. If the elites are asking the rest of us to make sacrifices to save the climate (let's not even get started about whether climate change is real or not) then it's hard to take them seriously when they won't make sacrifices themselves.
It might be legal. It might be practical. But it's a still a bad look.
I recently visited a friend/client who is very active in the centre-left Labour Party here in New Zealand. While I was there primarily to look at a few issues with her computer, we did get into a political discussion, as almost always happens, and while it didn't turn nasty, I think we could safely say we didn't agree on everything!
But we did agree on quite a lot. I used to regularly vote for Labour, until two things happened. First, they went a bit too far left socially for me, in fact they went woke. And second, their coalition partners, the Greens and the Maori Party, are insane. These two parties genuinely are filled with extreme, ideologically driven nutters.
I really think most of the members of those two parties are on the edge of insanity. They are hysterical, irrational, and inflexible. I'm not saying that those faults don't also exist in other parties, especially their two equivalents on the right, Act and New Zealand First, but I think those two are far more pragmatic and moderate.
One of the policies of the new government is tax cuts, and the left are attacking them on that front. To be fair, the policies have not been well thought out and the costings are highly suspect, but I think the opposition to them is more a matter of ideology than practicality.
My opponent looked horrified when I told her I voted for Act (libertarian, center-right) at the last election. She described that party's leader as a "horrible lying fanatic" or something similar, but when challenged to say why, she had no answer. It was as if I should just accept that appraisal without question. When I criticised the leadership of the Green and Maori parties I gave reasons, such as Marama Davidson's completely false claim that it is "white cis men who cause violence in the world" (see my blog post "Just Admit You're Wrong" from 2023-04-04).
I probably don't need to say it, but this woman also sees herself as a proud feminist. Earlier in the debate I had said there is a tendency for women to make judgements based on emotions, where men tend to be more (superficially, at least) rational.
Needless to say she was horrified by this, although I emphasised that this is just a general trend, and there are plenty of exceptions, and that emotion is an important part of human existence. But her reaction to the Act leader was an excellent example of this phenomenon, I think.
Then I told her my "Jacinda Ardern" story, which I will briefly mention here. I get emails from all the major parties, and when Labour were in significant political difficulties before the 2017 election, they asked in a newsletter for ideas about what they could do better. I recommended making Ardern party leader, and I actually voted Labour that year.
In my defence, at that point she showed some promising political skills and her tyrannical tendencies hadn't become apparent. Note that I haven't voted for Labour since. I learned from my mistakes!
But when I asked this person if there was anything Labour could do that would convince her to vote for another party she had nothing. It seemed as though she would literally vote for Labour no matter what their policies were. She might have said at that point that Labour would always represent her wishes, but what about the 1984 Labour government which went completely neoliberal, by selling off government owned assets, privatising public instituions, and changing the tax system? I know without doubt that she would not have approved of that. Unfortunately I didn't think to ask her who she voted for in 1984, and whether she regretted it.
People who always vote for one party, whatever the current situation the country is in, or no matter what policies that party is offering, are the worst. Do they really deserve a vote at all? I mean, that is not the way democracy is supposed to work. Any party which is guaranteed your vote really doesn't have to work too hard on your behalf, does it?
By the way, the question above about who deserves a vote is rhetorical. I think we need to give everyone a vote, above a certain age (18, I say), no matter how poorly we might view their political opinions. If they vote in a stupid way, that is their right, but I don't have to like it!
I often get into quite heated debates, especially on X (previously known as Twitter), involving controversial topics such as indigenous rights, feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, leftist political agendas, and environmentalism (including climate change).
My opponents tend to accuse me of being racists because they say I am anti-Maori, or misogynistic because I disagree with some women's rights claims, or transphobic because I am seen as anti-LGBT, or a rabid far right crazy because I object to some of the more extreme ideas on the left, or being a climate denier because I disagree with many proposed climate actions.
Sounds like I am a truly terrible person, doesn't it? Well, if any, or all, of that was true maybe I would be. But that's not the way I see it.
Here's the thing: I'm not anti any of those groups in general. What I am against is the extremists and activists in those groups, not the people they allegedly (but not in reality) represent.
So I think many of the Maori elites who have accumulated a lot of wealth out of the grievance industry are corrupt, and I think the crazy extremists, such as most of the members of the Maori and Green Parties, who claim to be representing Maori rights, are just plain wrong (they're probably corrupt too, but that's not my main claim).
I have no problem with Maori people in general, and I suspect (although I know of no credible stats on this) that the average Maori person does not have the same views as the activists do. More Maori voted for the National Party (conservative) than the Maori Party (activist) at the 2023 election, which I think indicates a lack of support for their more extreme policies.
And a similar argument applies to those other groups. There have been many reports and news items showing that most women do not support a lot of the modern feminist agenda. And in the same way, many people from the LGBT community are really embarrassed by how they are supposedly represented by activists in that area.
I have no problems with many ideas the traditional left of politics hold; in fact, I agree with many of them. But the radical woke social agenda which has particularly infected the left of politics (although also the right to some extent) makes it impossible for me to vote left (and I used to). So having a balanced mix of policies, some from the left and some from the right, is a natural preference for me, but the more radical elements stop that from being practical.
Finally, I think climate change is real and I think there is good evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity. If there were sensible, rational actions we could take that would make a genuine difference I would support them. But the crazy hysteria we hear from activists like Greta Thunberg and the Green Party is where I start pushing back.
Shutting down power plants and other facilities which use fossil fuels while China constantly opens new ones and uses more coal than the rest of the world combined is insane. We can't make a difference so why not spend the money we were going to use for carbon emmission reduction on protection from the effects of a more extreme climate, which is going to happen whatever we do?
So my enemies are not Maori, or women, or trans people, or the left, or climate scientists. My real enemies are the people who take those issues, and push them to irrational extremes, either because of pure ignorance, hysteria, virtue signalling, or for the financial benefits they might be able to accumulate from these actions.
I have a private client who I visit occasionally and who is about as left as you can be. One day we were discussing issues like this and I said I thought feminists had become irrational. She said "I'm a feminist" and I sort of had to back down, because it isn't feminism in general I object to - I believe in equality for women for example - but the more insane extremes of it we see occasionally.
So I do need to be a bit more careful about my choice of words. I'm not going to say "the damn Maoris are just a blight on society" for example. Instead I will say Maori activists are. There's a big difference, even to the extent that many pro-Maori activists aren't even Maori themselves. That fact shows that it is the idea I reject, not the person.
Apparently, for some completely incomprehensible reason, New Zealand's state TV company, TVNZ, is making more job cuts after already reducing its senior leadership team from 10 to 7 people - a good start, but keep going, another 7 maybe?
There is speculation on who might go, with many people nominating their most despised presenter - and what a selection there is - with John Campbell and Hilary Barry being two of the most popular (or least popular) suggestions.
When I say "completely incomprehensible" above I am being sarcastic, because it is perfectly obvious why the company is failing. Here's my X (Twitter) comment on the issue: "OJB @OJB They produced rubbish material which wasn't interesting to many people. They went woke and forced more people away. Just a terrible organisation which should be shut down so we can start again."
And it really has got to the point where there is no way to rescue them. I really think that just throwing out everything and starting again might be a good option. Alternatively, just shut down broadcast TV completely and produce material for YouTube or some news web site.
And I'm not the only one. In the X comments there was no support or defence of TVNZ at all. Now it may be that I often interact with other anti-establishment figures, but I would say that my general experience on X is about 50/50 between people I would agree and disagree with.
Anyway, here are the first 10 or 20 comments I saw, along with my quick response...
Comment: Could it be that diversity ISN'T strength? Response: I don't think its simply diversity which is the problem, although that would be part of it.
Comment: Basically, go woke go broke. Response: Yes, they are super-woke, and people are getting really sick of that. But it is more than that, too.
Comment: Unphotogenic presenters? Response: I wouldn't necessarily agree. They all look the part. The problem is when they open their mouths.
Comment: Music to my ears. Response: Yes, schadenfreude!
Comment: "Clinging on by their fingernails" because they're hopeless at actually delivering news about subjects people are concerned about. They merely serve up often out dated and irrelevant pap, as topical issues presented by wannabe celebs. Tata I say, begone. Response: No sympathy, is there? And yes, these points are all true.
Comment: They shot an effigy of Trump on Breakfast TV and they thought they would get away with it. Response: Yes, exposing their biases clearly on that occasion.
Comment: Really! Hahahaha! Response: More schadenfreude.
Comment: Jobs coming up, for Labour. Response: Not sure what this person was getting at. Jobs for TVNZ people at Labour maybe?
Comment: Failure to connect with the audience and the ability to surf for something better... Response: I just never even turn the TV on, but my wife does and I get exposed to TVNZ trash often.
Comment: Sack em all. Response: Yes, my suggestion, exactly.
Comment: Good riddance TVNZ. Response: Not a lot of sympathy for them, is there?
Comment: Oh what a shame.... Not! Response: More delight in their misery.
Comment: Get woke, go broke. Response: Again, this. Seeing a theme here?
Comment: Layoffs? they are layabouts, dont do any professional journalism, just read the teleprompter and spew propaganda Response: Indeed. The propaganda arm of the left of politics.
Comment: Go woke, go... well you know the rest! Response: There's that phrase again.
Comment: It seems people with a woke mindset are unable to change their set in stone ideologies. Response: Agreed.
So not a single comment in favour of TVNZ. No one cares if they exist or not. Truly a incompetent and corrupt failed organisation, and I pay for them with my taxes! Die TVNZ, die!
You have requested 20 entries and 20 have been displayed.
I do podcasts too!. You can listen to my latest podcast, here: OJB's Podcast 2024-04-30 The Fall of Rome: I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history..
BLOG SEARCH PAGE