Fiordland Adventures

As I write this blog entry I am returning from a few days in Te Anau. For those of you not familiar with New Zealand, it is a small town on the eastern edge of Fiordland National Park in southern New Zealand. Fiordland is well known for its wet weather, and is mostly covered with rain forest, but on this occasion the weather has been quite brilliant (it is mid summer in the southern hemisphere of course) which is particularly gratifying considering the poor weather in the rest of the country.

Fiordland is mostly wilderness and covered with dense forest and it has some of New Zealand's best walking tracks, including the Milford and Kepler tracks. We aren't into serious tramping but we did do a few shorter walks along these tracks and I got a few photos which I will post on the relevant sections of my web site when I get the chance.

The main walk involved a bus trip from Te Anau to a small harbour half way up the lake, followed by a boat trip to the head of the lake where the Milford Track begins. The track is about 50 kilometers long and usually takes 3 days to complete but we just walked a couple of hours up the valley and didn't get as far as the big climb up to the pass and out to Milford Sound on the other side.

I walked the whole track many (and I mean many, like about 40) years ago but it is hard to remember what the experience was like so it was good to have a small reminder of it. Of course, I would have loved to have got up the pass for the awesome views and gone down to Sutherland Falls on the other side (one of the tallest waterfalls in the world) but that will have to wait for another occasion.

The main purpose of the visit was to catch up with the rest of the family and to celebrate my brother's 50th birthday. So we had 18 family members for meals and other events including a rather pleasant al fresco dinner at an Italian restaurant where we enjoyed some good New Zealand wines in the sunshine until quite late.

I can write this blog entry now instead of driving like I usually would because my daughter is driving. That has turned out to be quite useful and she is not too bad a driver. Good enough anyway that I feel reasonably secure sitting in the back typing on my iPad.

Yes, I took my iPad on holiday with me but it does get worse because I also took my iPhone and laptop, plus we had another iPhone, two other iPads and two other laptops there as well. I don't think it's bad using technology like that as long as it doesn't keep you too much out of the sun enjoying the great outdoors. And knowing Fiordland it could just as easily have rained most of the time and then the technology would have been really welcome! As it happened I just used the laptop to process photos in the evening after we got back to the house.

So that's by quick report on my summer holiday. Unfortunately the rest of my summer break is most likely going to be spent more on programming work than relaxing but that's my fault for starting too many projects I guess!

Belief in Woo

It's almost Christmas again so I guess it's also time to deal with belief in superstitious nonsense (also known as "woo") again. A recent report showed that belief in the paranormal, superstition, and various other oddities is quite strong in new Zealand although it's better than in some other countries like the US where superstition in the form of religious belief is much stronger.

There were various statistics presented in the report so I might just go through a few of them and comment on related matters of (I hope) interest.

According to the survey of 1000 people about a third think the Earth has been visited by aliens. So called "minority" groups such as Maori and Pacific people had a higher rate of belief than New Zealanders of European origin. I'm not sure what that means.

There's nothing too silly about believing in aliens. After all, just about every rational person thinks there is life elsewhere in the Universe, that life should lead to intelligence at least in some cases, and that some intelligent life must be far more advanced than us since our planet formed almost 10 billion years after the Big Bang.

The problem is that if aliens have visited Earth they have certainly acted strangely. They seem to have been very obvious to certain groups of people and kept themselves well hidden from others (for example, very few UFO reports come from astronomers). So even if we think aliens should exist I think it's still safest to work on the interim hypothesis that they haven't visited Earth.

The same survey found that 55 per cent believe that some people have psychic power, such as ESP. I guess a lot of popular culture does push the idea that psychic powers are real and few people have much familiarity with the real research (and even then there are a few results which seem to support the idea) so this level of belief isn't a surprise.

Psychic powers in general would require new laws of physics because it's hard to see how they could be accommodated within the current understanding of the Universe, but they aren't completely impossible. However the requirement to change the well understood laws of physics to explain a phenomenon which has almost zero evidence for existence is not rational. So people who believe in psychic powers are very likely either ignorant or irrational. Still, the fact that those labels apply to only just over half our population is actually fairly good!

The fact that women (67%), older people (63%), and Maori (60%) are more likely to believe is probably best left alone. It's hard to comment on a phenomenon like that without seeming sexist, ageist or racist!

So what about that ultimate question: Does God exist? In New Zealand 60% of the population believe in a "god or universal spirit". It's rather unfortunate that the "universal spirit" bit was added there because I don't think anyone (myself included) really knows what that means. It can mean so many different things that it really means nothing so the whole statistic is almost useless.

That result is actually quite low, especially when the "universal spirit" stuff is included. Obviously genuine religious belief is low here and other recent statistics seem to indicate it is declining. Good news at last!

Related to this 80% think that Jesus was a real person and 57% believe in life after death. Belief in Jesus as a real person is yet another question which is open to interpretation. Obviously the Bible stories aren't true, and no rational person would believe them, if only for the reason that the stories are contradictory!

So how close to the traditional portrayal of Jesus would a real historic figure have to be before we could say he actually was the person described in the Bible (because he really wasn't described anywhere else, a suspicious fact in itself)? Would it be sufficient to have someone who vaguely fitted the description? Should we say the Bible gospels are "based on a true story" like some movies?

Regarding life after death. Maybe this is based on wishful thinking although it was interesting to note that older people believed in it less than younger! There has been real research in this area with some interesting results but the more solid studies which should reveal good evidence have all revealed nothing, a classic sign of a phenomenon which doesn't exist.

Yet again men were more cynical and women more credulous regarding the existence of god (and don't forget that rather poorly defined "universal spirit"). Obviously women are more open to poorly supported ideas. Is this good or bad? I will leave it to you to decide!

Finally the saddest statistic of all: a quarter of the participants in the survey believe that astrology can predict the future. Astrology is really rather silly and I'm a bit surprised that belief in it is that high. Still, I suppose it's all those women pushing the rate up!

Tax the Rich

Is our society fair and equal? Should it be? And what do we mean by those terms anyway? I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that society is a lot less equal than it used to be and to most people that means it is also less fair. Most people (although certainly not all) would say that we want a fair society but the last point: what fairness and equality actually mean, is the tough one.

A recent OECD report highlighted the increasing unfairness in most societies and put the blame on modern economic policies. This is quite extraordinary from an organisation which has been associated with the economic mainstream in the past. There does seem to be a developing consensus that something must change (a point I've been making for years) and even the IMF has admitted the current system has gone too far.

New Zealand was once seen as a very egalitarian society but recently the gap between the rich and poor has increased here faster than most other countries. Between 1985 and 2008 this was particularly obvious. Of course this was triggered by the great 1984 economic experiment where neo-liberal economics was forced on the unsuspecting New Zealand public.

Predictably the current advocates of this ideology disagree that we have a problem. National and Act (the two right wing New Zealand parties) think we should stick with the same policies, but more of them! Yes, the policies which got us into the mess are what we need to get out of it, apparently. I think few people would agree with this analysis now.

The OECD report totally rejects the famous "trickle down" theory which claims that more money going to the rich also results in increased wealth for the poor. How anyone could believe such nonsense is almost incomprehensible but now we have official confirmation that it's a lie, or worse maybe, a wrong but sincerely held belief of the neo-liberal camp.

It's interesting to listen to our politicians discuss the subject. They just spout a load of unsubstantiated propaganda. Why do the interviewers let them away with this stuff? Still, at least Peters, Dunne and Banks commented. The finance minister didn't even bother. I can imagine his thoughts on this: we've decided what we want to believe, please don't bother us with the facts!

So I think it's beyond doubt now that the economic theories most countries base their politics on lead to greater inequality, unemployment, worsening conditions, and social unrest. The question is this: would we be even worse off following a more interventionist Keynesian approach and is having distinct economic classes like this necessarily a bad thing?

Some people say the rich deserve what they have. They say they work hard for their money. But how do they know that? Many assume that if someone is rich they must have worked hard and they assume that if someone works hard they will get rich. It's just worthless nonsense. In general (and this is a generalisation which there are exceptions for) the rich are rich because they are self centered and greedy and they have found a way to exploit society for their own benefit.

I say tax the rich hard (if they make over $250,000 tax them at 80%) Most people with extreme wealth say they don't do it for the money anyway, and many are actually asking to be taxed more. Let's give them their wish! If they don't like it they can leave, because we don't want them anyway.

Interventionist economics can be taken too far. Most people would say it had gone too far in New Zealand before the 1984 "revolution", but that doesn't mean it isn't a good approach if used more sensibly. Correcting one extreme economic situation by going even more extreme in the opposite direction isn't a valid approach. Interventionism is really the only sensible solution but it must be used correctly.

When the so-called "markets" are allowed to rule we just end up with a very efficient system to do nothing of any value. We get people making a fortune by trading non-existent financial packages and manipulating markets and whole economies for their own benefit, while other people who are doing scientific research, trying to find a cure for diseases, and producing great art have no money to produce genuinely worthwhile outcomes.

We get real progress when long-term research, good education, and social equality are allowed to flourish. For that we need guidance from some entity which has real values beyond simple greed. Unfortunately that generally means governments, which have their own problems, but they are the best we have.

We need a revolution in how society works but that can't happen quickly. Until that revolution happens (and it will) we need to re-align our current systems. We need to re-distribute the wealth. Yes, that is what the OECD said. We do need to tax the rich and tax them hard. But we should be careful with what we use that extra tax income for. It should go to truly useful education, health, technology, and scientific projects, because they are the only route to real progress.

It Might As Well Be Me

In a few recent sources (mostly podcasts) I have come across a recurring theme which relates to many current world problems. It's what I call the "it might as well be me" syndrome. Actually, it might have been called that by others as well but I can't find it anywhere so I'm claiming naming rights here!

This syndrome results from the idea that if anyone is going to do something which itself is bad then it might as well be me who does it. For example, if a resource, such as fish, is being overexploited then eventually the last fish will be taken. If that is going to happen anyway then I might as well be the person to take that last fish before anyone else does, since the end result is the same.

The same applies to many environmental and social phenomena, such as global warming, war, and exploitation of any natural resource.

What did the person think as he cut down the last tree on Easter Island, for example? He must have known that it meant disaster in the long term but he did it anyway. But since someone else was going to do it if he didn't it was actually entirely sensible for that person to do it, just like it's entirely sensible for individual countries to continue to pollute the atmosphere or decimate non-renewable resources because other countries would do the same thing if they didn't.

It's a classic case of the "prisoner's dilemma" where a prisoner must either inform on his fellow prisoner or not, but where the punishment he receives depends on both his and his fellow's actions. If neither informs there are few negative consequences, but if one does and the other doesn't the informer gets off free but the person informed on has a harsh punishment. The best response is to stay silent as long as the other person also says nothing but that risks receiving the worst punishment if the other person does say something against you.

This phenomenon relies on individuals acting independently and exhibiting no collective wisdom and, as I said above, it's the basic cause of many of the world's problems. Why should a fishing company avoid overfishing and why should a forestry company log sustainably when they know that their competitor might not follow the same rules? Competition is usually touted as the solution to all of our problems but (although I admit it can produce good outcomes) the reality is that it actually the cause of most of them.

It's a difficult problem to solve because being greedy and acting in what seems like an illogical and immoral way is actually the only sensible approach in these situations. It is actually entirely rational to act that way in a competitive environment where trust is uncertain. The prisoners' should both betray their partner and individual countries or companies should act in the most self-serving way possible even though the final outcome for both will be worse.

The best solution is to remove the environment where these rules apply. We should base our economic and political systems more on cooperation than competition or we should introduce a higher authority than simple market pressures and have extremely strong controls in place to prevent individual behaviour being detrimental to the long term future of the majority.

That has been contrary to accepted wisdom for many years. But current economic dogma is increasingly obviously a failure. The outcome of neo-liberal economic strategies is clear both through the predictions of gaming theory and the actual observations of what is happening in the world. We should start making the necessary changes now rather than waiting for them to be forced on us. Do we want the whole world to end up like Easter Island?

Education Standards

I often hear interesting stories of apparent incompetence from many different areas, and education is no exception. I wont mention any names, or even the school involved, because it is unfair to criticise individuals without giving them the chance to defend themselves. Yes, I know that I do that to public figures but I think that by becoming politicians, entertainers, etc these people no longer require the protection of anonymity.

First I want to mention a materials scientist who was being interviewed in a podcast who claimed the atomic number of iron was 56 and that it had an odd number of electrons. I'm a computer consultant/programmer and have only a passing interest in chemistry but even I know the atomic weight of iron is (approximately) 56 and that it's atomic number is actually 26. Also, last time I checked, 26 is an even number, not odd!

I guess it's easy to say something in a pressure situation like a public interview that you would know is wrong if you thought about it in a more relaxed situation but I hear this sort of stuff all the time. Many of the computer technology commentators I hear interviewed for example say some really interesting stuff. The basic knowledge of the public regarding sci-tech is poor enough already without them being mislead by "experts".

But why is the basic knowledge of science and technology so poor? Maybe it's because the teaching of the subject is also poor. Here's a few interesting stories from that school I mentioned above...

The ICT (information and communications technology) teacher uses Netscape Navigator as her web browser. According to Wikipedia (I wonder if she's heard of that) the final release of Navigator was in 2007. And yes, it does matter, because the web is a very quickly evolving environment where browsers need to be constantly improved to keep up with new standards such as HTML5.

I have also heard in that class that the teacher is just as often the pupil because the more IT literate members of the class often have to show her how to do things. Sure, it's tough trying to keep up with the latest in an area like IT but you would think a teacher might be able to do a bit better than that!

In the same school I have been told that the class was told by their social studies teacher that global warming is all made up. Luckily a lot of the class hold the teachers, and the school in general, in such low regard that they didn't take them too seriously, but this is not only incompetent it's actually malicious. Most global warming deniers have moved on from denying it is happening to denying that humans caused it. Maybe this clown hasn't caught up with the latest dogma yet.

Again at this school (I have to say this is certainly not the best school in town but it's not the worst either) there is a maths teacher who told his class that they would get detentions unless they learnt the New Zealand national anthem in Maori in a few days. This was just before the end of year exams when the students probably had more critical things to do. I don't think he carried out the threat but I do wonder if anyone failed the exam because they learnt something totally useless instead.

Finally I want to recount another anecdote regarding ICT. During the end of year exam the computer systems were so badly set up that the exam had to be postponed. The computers took 30 minutes (I'm assured this is genuine but there may have been some exaggeration) to launch Word, and then the link to the internet failed. This was the PC lab and the Mac lab works better of course, but even so it does seem rather incompetent.

So these anecdotes indicate some teachers are out of date, ignorant, malicious, politically motivated and incompetent. Of course, it is easy to present any organisation in a bad light if you just list the bad points and ignore the good, and I'm sure there are good points about this school, although I can't think of any right now. I am also sure that I could make any organisation look bad by listing incidents like this (I certainly could for one place in particular which I won't name here).

You might think that a libertarian agenda of performance based pay and personality tests for new teachers might help in these situations but I don't think so. The problem with paying on performance is the definition of that word. It often gets back to who is the best at filling out the paper work and who is most skilled at petty office politics rather than who is genuinely the best at their actual core job (teaching rather than filling in forms) so I have no confidence in that process. And the idea of requiring a personality test is frankly quite scary. I dread to think what sort of mindless automatons are likely to arise from a system like that.

So whatever the education system's deficiencies might be I think it could be worse. The fact is half of the teachers we have are below average, but doesn't that apply to everyone?

Democracy Fails Again

Well, the New Zealand general election is over and, as expected, the center-right National party has been easily returned to lead the new government. That was no surprise to anyone but it was perhaps the only result which wasn't surprising because there were a lot of other unexpected outcomes.

New Zealand First provided the biggest surprise by getting 6.8% of the vote. So Winston Peters has done it again despite John Key's best efforts to discredit him. And it's good to see Winston back in parliament. No matter what else you think of him, he is a real character, plus he actually has some quite worthwhile policies.

Act failed miserably. Despite gaining one seat through the rather unsavoury agreement between them and National, which effectively meant Act only existed because National let them. The Act leader, Don Brash, resigned as leader and perhaps this time he might finally realise that not only is he just not the right type of person for politics but his far right policies are just not wanted by the voting public.

The Greens exceeded their target of 10% (compare that with the opposite extreme of the political spectrum where Act aimed at 10 and got 1) and it looks like they might become a genuine long-term option in the future.

The Maori Party suffered the almost inevitable fate of small parties who get too friendly with a bigger one and lost a lot of support. Why they would ever have entertained the idea of teaming up with National is beyond me. Do they really want to commit political suicide?

So National superficially seem to have a mandate for their agenda of right wing privatisations and nasty social changes. But they don't really. Many polls show the people of New Zealand don't want asset sales, and the pathetic turnout (for New Zealand) of under 70% of eligible voters hardly represents a real mandate.

It's rather depressing that so many people didn't vote (over one million which is a lot for a small country) even though I can see why. Many on the right would have assumed a victory so perhaps not voting seemed OK. And the left equally assumed a defeat and might not have voted for that reason. But under MMP no battle is ever lost and everyone should have voted. If everyone had voted the right would probably not have the power they do now.

It seems to me that people didn't vote for National or for right oriented policies, they voted for John Key. For some reason people really like him. Actually I did when he first became our prime minister too but I was astute enough to soon realise that appearances can be deceptive.

Phil Goff in comparison just didn't really connect with the public and it didn't really matter who had the better policies because that's just not what people were voting on.

National also had the advantage of experiencing some bad luck during their time in power. First there was the continuing global financial crisis then the Christchurch earthquakes. Even though they were average at best in how they handled those that was enough.

So we had a low turnout and even the people who did vote probably voted for poor reasons. It looks like democracy fails again!

More Thought, Less Dogma

I have heard that foreign share and currency traders are getting a bit nervous about the political situation in New Zealand. Up until recently it looked like the existing government would be re-elected comfortably but now it seems that the center-left coalition has a chance of winning.

Is this a good reason to vote for the right? Some people think so but I would encourage the opposite. If greedy, corrupt foreign traders want National to win then I would say they should lose. Not only are these people just intrinsically immoral but their incompetence was a major factor in the failure of various economies around the world.

I find it really disturbing that some people would consider changing their vote based on what some foreign trader wants. People should do what they consider is the right thing of course, and they might consider these traders are an important part of our economy, but I say we need to set up an economy which doesn't rely on immoral behaviour.

New Zealand took the moral high ground when the Labour government of the 80s stopped visits by American nuclear ships. Many were concerned there would be economic repercussions but I don't think there is any real evidence that happened. So doing the right thing is possible and the threats of dire consequences are usually exaggerated.

A similar idea applies to so-called free trade agreements. Many people just assume that all agreements of this type are good. But the much bigger economies we are negotiating with aren't doing it because of their high ethical principles. The secret negotiations this country is currently involved in for the Trans-Pacific Partnership are unlikely to result in a truly positive outcome for the majority. And if these deals are so great why are they negotiated in secret?

If anyone wants to invest in or trade with our country we should be suspicious. They want to deal with us because they think they can make money that way. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it should be regarded with some suspicion and it certainly shouldn't be automatically considered as a good thing.

Global trade can be a good thing but the ultimate aim of completely free trade with no control is just another neo-liberal ideology and I don't think we should have anything to do with it despite the fact that New Zealand has been a leader in the area.

I think a more considered approach is required. The great global free economy is failing. We need more controls and direction, not less. We need more thought and less dogma. And we sure as hell don't need to consider the opinions of people whose sole purpose is to exploit our country for their own greedy purposes.

A Nice Cup of Tea!

They say that if you can't stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen. Politicians are the ultimate seekers of easy publicity and you would think that a well publicised public meeting would be likely to attract a lot of attention. If that's the case why would those same politicians then be concerned or offended that people took a interest in what they said?

I am of course speaking of the infamous "tea pot tapes", a recorded conversation between prime minister John Key and Act candidate John Banks. The recording was made without the politicians' knowledge, accidentally according to the person who was responsible, but now the PM seems to want to take legal action over the recording even though he claims there was nothing of any importance said at the time.

Meanwhile people are becoming almost paranoid wondering what the tapes (whether they actually are old technology like a tape I'm not sure but I'll stick with that description) really contain. Key and Banks won't give permission to allow the material to be released because they claim that would encourage secret recording in the future, but that has just fueled speculation even more.

The fact is the meeting was in a public place, it was well publicised ahead of time, it was an obvious ploy to garner political publicity, it was of unmistakable relevance to the voters of this country, and (if the journalist's story is true) the recording was only made through an error and as a result of intimidation by the extensive security personnel the PM employs. I say release the conversation whether Banks and Key like it or not.

And the symbolism of the meeting over tea is also interesting. In the US the "Tea Party" is a collection of far right political nutters, rabid libertarians, and some other more moderate (mostly) right wingers. Does this sound familiar? Maybe the choice of meeting over a cup of tea was more than just coincidental!

A second political issue where the government seem to be over-reacting is over the so-called vandalism of their political hoardings. A group changed the messages on National's billboards by adding what they say are more realistic comments such as "The Rich Deserve More" and "Drill it! Mine It! Sell it!". It later turned out that the "attack" had been coordinated by a member of the Green Party, but wasn't officially endorsed by them.

In fact the Greens have also over-reacted on this issue and have fired a staff member involved as well as exposing another person responsible. I guess the Greens are trying to gain a more mainstream and respectful image but surely this is unnecessary.

The changes were made with removable stickers and they seem to be very much a reasonable form of political commentary. Any threat by the National Party over this just shows them for what they really are: a petty bunch of hypocrites totally lacking in any real ideas.

National is very much about making the rich even richer and exploiting our resources and selling our assets without much appraisal of the consequences. Drawing these obvious facts to people's attention seems perfectly reasonable.

Interestingly, as the election approaches, it actually seems possible that National might really lose it. Yes, they really might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Sure, National are still by far the most widely supported single party but their coalition partners are disappearing fast and a collection of more left oriented parties, especially Labour and the Greens, looks increasingly viable.

National would still have to be clear favourites to win but if Key continues to be so incompetent who knows what might happen? He really might throw it all away! When it comes to asset sales when will he understand: no means no!

I certainly hope that a miracle happens and National are defeated, because the last thing we need now is more of the inept, unimaginative, unfair policies they have already introduced and are promising to give us much worse of in their next term - if we are stupid enough to let them!

What a Deal!

Here in New Zealand we are preparing for a general election (in about a week and a half) and it looks at this point that the current National (conservative) government should be re-elected fairly comfortably. It's interesting really because if people voted in a logical way they should be thrown out in a landslide.

The key factor (if you'll excuse the pun) in National's favour seems to be their leader, our current Prime Minister John Key. Key is by far the most popular leader and it seems that many people want to vote for National just because he is there. The leader of the main opposition party, Phil Goff, is far less favoured as a leader and although he is gradually gaining a bit more support, he is far behind Key in the current polls.

I must admit that when National first took office about 3 years ago I was fairly positive about them, although they wouldn't have been my usual preferred choice. But as time goes by it has become apparent that they really just represent the same old right-wing unthinking nonsensical policies of the past.

So why is Key so popular? I think he's just like a slick life insurance salesman. He ends up selling you something you don't really want or need but he does it in such a clever way that you don't even notice you've been ripped off! It does make sense because, as I said above even I was fooled initially.

It is unfortunate that people vote for emotional reasons rather than actually looking at what the parties really stand for. Surely the vast majority of New Zealanders would be far better off under a Labour government than they would under National. Even if the election promises (also known as bribes) offered by both parties were discounted it's still obvious that Labour has a far fairer and more reasonable political philosophy than National.

National have already driven our economy down by giving the rich huge tax cuts. This has resulted in the need for increased borrowing and has made refusal to fund worthwhile projects so much easier. The economy is a mess because of National's incompetence therefore we must reduce the minimum wage, sell off assets, and cut funding for useful projects. And yes, I know there have been events beyond the government's control (the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake being the most obvious) but these are even better reasons not to give tax cuts to a sector of the population who most definitely don't need them.

John Key has been caught lying on several occasions, including over significant points such as increasing GST and the country's credit rating. He clearly cannot be trusted and people must realise that anything he says should be viewed with great suspicion. Yet, just like the devious insurance salesman people seem to go along with what he says anyway.

New Zealand still has a few worthwhile assets left, even after the loathsome asset sales of the 80s and 90s (ironically started by a Labour government). One reason we still own anything is that people realised asset sales were a really bad idea so the government stopped them. The other is that many of the companies sold were such a disaster under private ownership that the government had to buy them back at a huge loss. Yet these despicable clowns in National want to start the whole sorry process again. They're either morons or just so intent on following their discredited ideology that they are blind to the facts. Either way, why would any sensible person vote for them?

I've often said that I become quite despondent when I see how poorly democracy really works. John Key with his failure to debate the facts, insistence on repeating carefully designed catch phrases, and just general lack of honesty and integrity really is a poor example of they type of leader we need. Still, if people want a smug, dishonest, sleazy insurance salesman as their leader I guess that's their choice!

Relevant Quotes

Many famous figures have made statements that people like to quote to prove their points. It's a waste of time really because a quote from a great leader, or scientist, or artist, or anything else, is no more a source of real proof than a random statement from anyone else.

But I do think quotes can be a good starting point for pursuing an idea and can be a clear way to express a concept, assuming the quote is supported by the facts of course.

So after that introduction explaining that quotes must be treated with great suspicion I am now going to present some quotes which I think support a theme I want to develop in this entry.

My first quote is this: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." This quote is from legendary science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov.

I have often commented on the threat that the voting power of ignorant groups presents to the modern world. It's entirely possible that through valid democratic processes there will be no action on climate change for example, simply because various groups in society vote based on the ideological premise that climate change is some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy.

Climate change deniers are both ignorant and anti-intellectual. A friend of mine, when challenged over why he believes the opinions of a journalist but rejects that of the vast majority of climate experts, said he doesn't trust scientists and thinks expertise based on "common sense" is more important. What he really meant to say was that he would prefer to believe anyone who supported his ignorant political belief that climate change cannot be true.

My second quote is this: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". This well known quote is from the German philosopher, Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This does seem to be depressingly true. People seem to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe this is a further side effect of the anti-intellectualism I mentioned above. People don't want to listen to historians and other experts because what the experts say often contradicts what they desperately want to believe.

This related quote is from Einstein: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

This seems to get to the core of the world's problems today. The big problems we have: environmental disasters, unstable political systems, dysfunctional economics, and others, are all caused by an economic system which just doesn't work. It relies on constant growth which cannot continue, cheap energy which is running out, and unfair distribution of wealth which is becoming unacceptable.

But the answer most people give is more of the same, sometimes in an even purer form. They say we need even more growth, cheaper energy, and greater redistribution of wealth. It's obvious that this cannot work and we are now seeing the beginning of a revolution which our leaders don't seem to have noticed. Einstein and Hegel were both right: more of the same will not work and we can see from history that is a fact.

I'm not sure what will work better but the first step to improving the current system is to admit that it needs to change. I don't mean we have to fine tune the current system, I mean we have to replace it. And I'm not advocating communism or a return to a pre-technological simpler time. That would also be ignoring the lessons of history.

What we do need to do is decide what we want to achieve and design a system to make that happen. And I'm fairly sure that won't involve rescuing big banks, giving corrupt corporate leaders even more money, or reducing taxes for large multinationals which actually contribute very little.

That is one quote which I think really is true: we can't solve the problems of the world by using the same tactics that caused them in the first place.

That's Blasphemy!

A podcast I listened to recently discussed the idea and relevance of blasphemy. Even a country like New Zealand, where religion is largely irrelevant to the majority, has blasphemy laws and it's technically illegal to say something like this: "Jesus was a cynical invention of the evil leaders of the early church", even if there might be good reason to say that it's true. OK, I'm waiting to be arrested for stating that blasphemous idea in public.

Of course no one has ever been convicted because of an act of blasphemy here and there has only been one court case, many years ago, which failed. So the whole thing is a bit of a joke really, like a lot of laws of this type.

You could say these laws were originally more relevant because at the time they were formulated society took religion a lot more seriously and it was an important part of life in that era. But like many other laws, time has made what might have been a reasonable idea obsolete and irrelevant. But the law is so silly and trivial now that's it's not even really worth removing.

A case could be made to say that some people would be offended by blasphemous statements and should be protected. But should they? Isn't it a problem for the person who was offended, not the person who made the statement? If I say "Christianity is silly and based on ridiculous superstition" an appropriate response by someone who disagrees is to show how I am wrong through the presentation of facts. Relying on laws specifically designed to protect a belief system instead of presenting evidence to support it just shows that I am probably right in criticising it to start with!

The same applies to other organisations. An employee of Apple was recently fired for criticising the company on his Facebook page. So what? If he was wrong in his criticism why didn't someone correct him, and if he was right Apple should do something about it. Individuals, organisations, and companies should welcome criticism. Otherwise how will they know when they need to improve something?

I should say here that I don't know what the specific criticism of Apple was, and I do agree that there are some opinions which shouldn't be allowed. If a person is inciting violence, hatred or other socially unacceptable responses then they should be stopped in some way.

But if they are just saying something like "the historical evidence for Jesus is very weak" or "Apple uses cheap labour in China to keep its costs down" then sure, that's fine. If the statements are true then they should be made public, if they're not then someone should refute them.

Religion has been given a "free pass" on so many things in the past, and continues to enjoy special treatment even today. If a religion is real and true and if a religious figure (Jesus, Allah, or whatever) is so powerful and great then surely they should be able to defend themselves. Why would they need a law which most people would consider a joke? That just makes the religion look even sillier than it did to start with!

IT Support Fun

Being a computer consultant and programmer provides its fair share of challenges. First, there is the temperamental nature of some computers, then there is the constantly changing nature of the IT world, and then there is the ultimate challenge: the users!

I work almost entirely with Macs so I'm not exposed to the same level of troublesome behaviour that my PC colleagues have to put up with. I'm not necessarily saying Macs are totally free from odd and unexplained problems (they certainly aren't) but Apple's control over the hardware, operating system, and some of the software means that most Mac systems suffer less from bizarre behaviour than Windows PCs.

The constant change in the computer world can be seen as both its greatest challenge and as its greatest attraction. Having new technologies appearing so quickly does make working in IT interesting but it also makes it hard to keep up. Supporting whole new technology areas, such as iPads and the extremely capable smart phones we now have, is a challenge but would we really want to do without these cool new toys?

And then there's the users. Few people realise how difficult it can be to support some computer users. It's not so bad if you have direct access to the computer in need of your intervention, or even if you have screen sharing or terminal access to it, but trying to support computer users by "remote control" over the phone is probably the ultimate exercise in frustration!

It's not just computers where this happens, because other forms of technology can suffer from similar problems. A friend recently described an experience she had trying to describe how to change the settings on a new TV over the phone for example. And it's probably significant that TVs (along with almost everything else) are actually controlled by small computers and their on-screen control systems suffer from similar issues to conventional computers.

Ironically it was easier in the "old days" where the primary way to control a computer was through a command-line interface. Asking someone to type a command like "cd /" is often easier than asking them to find the icon for the hard disk and double-click on it. Issues with the "visual" approach include: is the HD icon visible? what does it look like? what is it called? can the user double-click at the correct speed? what display mode is the hard disk window set to display? (and, no doubt, many more) And yes, I know you can control modern computers through a command-line (I love the Mac terminal) but explaining how to launch that can be a major process in itself!

I sometimes wonder what users are thinking. These aren't stupid people but when it comes to working on their computer they can do some odd things. Here's a few examples which illustrate the problem...

First there's the phenomenon of inappropriate use of terminology. A user I was trying to help once told me something like "I pointed my font at the box and clicked but the mouse didn't appear." Say what? I recognise all of those words but I have no idea what they mean in that context!

Then there's the users who just can't respond appropriately when asked a question. I once asked a user "Is the Finder at the front? You can tell that because the first menu at the top-left (next to the Apple) is called Finder." I was assured it is so it was then safe to say "go to the Go menu and choose Connect to Server". But there was no Go menu. That was odd. So I tried a new approach. I said "press command-K" and was informed "it just beeped". Stranger! Anyway after a while I said: look at the top-left of the screen and read out what it says. The response was "an Apple symbol, then Mail, then..." What? Did you say the second word was Mail? I thought it said Finder? Who knows what the explanation for that slight inconsistency was. It's still a mystery!

Many users can't describe real physical objects much better. Recently I was trying to find out what type of computer a person had. She said it was something like a Mac 72. A Mac 72? What is that? The closest thing I could think of was a Power Mac 7200 but that was from the distant past. Anyway it turned out it had a built-in screen, was quite heavy, and didn't have a CD drive. That didn't seem to fit anything either but then the name "eMac" was recalled. So I showed this person an old eMac waiting to be recycled and I was assured it was like that except blue and with no CD drive. When I finally saw the computer it was a white iMac with a CD drive. And one other thing: the person wanted to replace the old machine because it had no ethernet to connect to a broadband router. Except, of course, all iMacs have ethernet built-in! Another mystery!

So, as you can see, working with users is a real treat. It's like a game where they try to deceive you as much as possible and it's your job to help them despite their best efforts to stop you from doing so. It's great fun and I really enjoy it when I finally see through the deception and the truth is fully revealed!

Conflict is Good

At my place of work I'm known as a bit of a rebel, someone who doesn't care too much about the rules and established ways of doing things, and someone who has little regard for my so-called superiors. It's all true and it does occasionally lead to situations where a certain amount of conflict with authority arises, but so far I've managed to escape with no serious consequences.

Most of my colleagues (in fact all of them as far as I'm aware) have a more relaxed view and tend to stick a lot more with the official line. That could be because I'm wrong and the official way really is the best, but I would prefer to think that it's just that they aren't quite as prepared to take the hard route as I am.

There are many ways to bypass bureaucracy and get things done. One of the best is to lie: saying one thing while doing something "subtly" different is a good strategy in my experience. Another is to just do things and keep quiet about them: what people don't know won't hurt them. And another is to do things better than the established standards so the people who get those better outcomes are your supporters.

Many people wonder why I bother. I would get paid the same by just following the tedious and mediocre standards and I would have a lot less work and stress as a result. But I think it's only when I'm involved in this sort of conflict that I'm really doing my job properly. After all, I'm not there to provide the best solutions for managers, I'm there to do that for my clients and that is often quite different to what the managers want.

Management in every organisation tend to claim they are dedicated to providing the best customer service but that is almost never the case, generally because managers don't deal with their clients directly and are primarily involved with playing petty politics instead. Of course there are exceptions and where good guidance is provided there's nothing wrong with following that.

A quote I have used in this blog before is Edward Abbey's "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" and another from Thomas Jefferson is also relevant: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty". They were thinking about the bigger political picture but the same applies on a smaller scale to the workplace, I think.

The principle these quotes endorse is currently being applied in the larger political domain because this is exactly what's happening with the "Occupy Wall Street" and related movements. The world has become unjust and many of the world's governments have become the enemy of the people. Those people protesting across the world are the real patriots and heroes. They are doing their duty.

By the way, I know several people at my workplace read this blog and they might be surprised that I am so openly critical. But it's nothing personal: it's the system that's the problem, not individual people or organisations. If the way I work leads to inferior outcomes for my clients then I think that needs to be discussed but until then I think I'll just continue doing what I think is right.

A Week with iOS 5

I installed iOS5 on my iPhone and iPad about a week ago now, and at the same time I upgraded my Mac and switched to iCloud (I have been a dot Mac and MobileMe user for many years now) so now might be a good time to give a general appraisal of how well the process has gone.

Overall, it went well. Because I downloaded iOS 5 fairly soon after it was released it did take a while, but it did arrive safely for me, unlike the experience of some other users. I guess Apple's servers were just getting a thrashing that soon after the release.

The iPhone did take a long time to fully upgrade but it is a 32G model and was almost full. The iPad was even worse of course: it's a 64G model and was also almost full! So the backup, upgrade, and restore process did take a long time. It really took me almost a whole day before all three devices (including my MacBook Pro) were fully upgraded and operational again.

The most positive outcome after all that time was that all of my data, both stored locally and in the cloud, and all my apps, and all of my in-app downloads (maps, magazines, etc) were fully maintained after the update. The calendars, contacts, and emails shared between all the devices were also completely intact. I know that this is exactly what we should expect but I always feel a bit nervous during such a major change.

The iCloud service seems to be working well: documents from programs like Pages (which know how to use iCloud) synchronise automatically between the iDevices. I haven't got them onto the computer yet though. Surely this is possible. The new mail servers have had a bit of down time but that hasn't been too bad because it has been (for me at least) only for short periods.

I would expect that after introducing such a significant new service (even though it shares a lot of functionality with an existing one) that Apple would have a few initial problems, especially since they don't exactly have a great reputation in this area after the "MobileMe debacle" of a few years ago! So overall I think things have gone OK, but not brilliantly.

So what about iOS 5 itself? Is it a worthwhile improvement? I think so, because apart from the time spent doing the update (during which I lost one phone call while the phone was disabled) I have only found one issue. That is that a process on the phone must be getting a bit out of control. It hogs the CPU sufficiently to make audio playback occasionally skip and it also uses the battery faster than I would expect. I haven't figured out exactly what triggers this but restarting the phone (which I've had to do twice) fixes it. This is a typical "version 1" problem so I hope Apple fixes it soon.

Oddly a similar issue I previously had on the iPad (where a process prevented syncing, shutdown, etc) has gone away, so you win some and you lose some, I guess!

I'm not going to go through all the new iOS 5 features (there's plenty of discussion on the web) but I will say that the new notification system is really nice and the wireless syncing is great although the full advantages of that will only become apparent when/if Apple gives us wireless charging (because currently I still need to plug a USB cable into the devices to charge them).

One other simple but important thing which I appreciate is the quick access to the camera from the lock screen and the volume button being used as a shutter release. Thanks (at last) Apple: that small point where practicality overrides pure design is appreciated.

The biggest thing I want but don't have is Apple's voice control system, Siri. I thought at one point that it might be available on existing phones but unfortunately it is limited to the new iPhone 4S. Since the processing is done in the cloud I thought that existing devices should have been able to use this feature but maybe there's something I don't know (I hope Apple aren't just using this as a feature to force people into upgrading!)

In summary, this seems to be an update which involves a bit of effort but is worth doing. The new system would be even better if I could also upgrade my hardware but I probably won't get an iPhone 4S because my current cell data plan will run out just as (I estimate) the iPhone 5 is released in a year.

Occupying Wall Street

There seems to be a growing global protest movement against the current economic system we have all had inflicted on us. There have been sporadic outbreaks of this unrest for years but now it seems to be gaining real momentum, even in the US which is the home of the model which people are gradually realising doesn't actually work.

The Occupy Wall Street movement shows that even people in the US now understand that things cannot go on the way they are, even though that country has managed quite well until recently. When large corporations pay no tax and are still rescued when they fail at the same time as wage earners pay 30% tax and have their houses taken by those same banks they have just bailed out you are going to get resentment. All I can ask is: why has it taken so long?

The corrupt model I'm talking about is of course, my old favourite, neo-liberalism. The primary dogma of this movement is that we should all be free of excessive government control, that private enterprise should be given free rein, and that free markets will solve all of our economic problems.

With all that use of the word "free" it's hard to argue with the idea, isn't it? And that's the problem: on the surface the ideology of neo-liberalism seems not only reasonable but entirely fair and maybe even the best system possible. After all, who doesn't want more freedom?

The problem is that the reality doesn't live up to the rhetoric. Freedom from government control inevitably leads to greater control by big corporations and other organisations. Giving private enterprise greater freedom leads to lower wages, inferior work conditions, and unemployment. Letting markets rule leads to monopolistic problems, outsourcing to virtual slave economies, and a huge and ever increasing gap between the top and bottom of the income scales.

So in fact the promise of greater freedom really only applies to the top earning one percent and the rest inevitably lose. If anyone can look at the world today and not see that this is exactly what has happened then they must be blind. And many people actually are blinded by propaganda from those who win in this system because they own the media, and in many cases they own the politicians too.

The problem with demands for change - like those form the Wall Street protestors - is that it's not clear what they suggest as an alternative. It seems to be that they don't know what they want - at least as a group - because these are people who see the current system as flawed and they either have no idea what they want instead (they just know that something needs to change) or they hold a wide variety of alternative views which cover a wide gamut of plausibility, from quite benign to totally outrageous.

The protest movement has no obvious leaders because it seems to be organised (if that is the right word) from the bottom up and as a group rather than as a reaction to action demanded from a central figure. And that is entirely appropriate considering that a large part of their message is that we can't trust our leaders.

In the US commentators have pointed out that the protests might be damaging the current president who the protestors would theoretically support. But Obama has failed miserably to make any real change as he promised during his campaigning. Sure, he's a lot better than the alternatives but he's still really bad. The political system in the US only gives the illusion of freedom and control because no matter who Americans vote for they lose. The land of the free? What a joke!

By comparison we have a relatively moderate government here in New Zealand, even though they are nominally right wing. But even they have made it clear that they intend to swing more towards the exact neo-liberal policies which have failed, not only in other countries but also here in the past, if they are re-elected at the election (and that seems likely given the current low popularity of the opposition).

The only good news is that the real right wing nutters, Act, seem to be sinking into oblivion. I can only hope that they do disappear from New Zealand politics. I usually prefer a wide range of ideas to be on offer, but if Act's new leader, the genuinely dangerous and immoral Don Brash, ever gets any control here then we'll be heading the same way as other failed economies around the world.

So if National do win the election and they start selling off our assets again then maybe we'll see an escalation of the small protest movement which has already started here. But it would be preferable to keep them out of power instead. People need to ignore personalities and frivolous electioneering and look at the philosophies behind the different options. Neo-liberalism doesn't work and it never will work, and any party following its dictates is one all voters should avoid.

Think Different

What can I say about Steve Jobs? It has already all been said, both by technology enthusiasts (AKA geeks) and surprisingly by many people with little or no connection to the tech world. Not surprisingly almost every commentary on his life and achievements has been very positive (apart from one by a leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, but more on that later) and why wouldn't it be? It's difficult to tell at this early stage but it seems likely he will be remembered as a genuine genius who really did make a difference.

But was he really a genius? What was it about him which meant he was able to make such a difference and to change the world of technology so much? He wasn't a technical or engineering genius, he wasn't a traditional management genius, he wasn't brilliant at investment, or marketing, or anything else for that matter. But he did have a unique combination of skills and he was in the right place at the right time.

Jobs did what other entrepreneurs say they will do but almost universally fail to deliver on. He did do things differently and he did take real risks. Despite what they say, it seems to me that few modern companies really do that. They actually don't take risks and they never do anything genuinely entrepreneurial.

Every other major company (even including Google to some extent) really just follow along and take the simple and safe route. They copy, they take the easy options, and they follow established business best practice. That might be a good way to keep the board happy and to keep the company safe short term but it's an obvious formula for failure long term.

During the period when Jobs was away (1985 to 1997) Apple was run in a similar way to most other companies, and it gradually failed because of that. It was not the sort of company which flourished under the leadership of a bunch of "suits". It probably could have survived but it would have been just another PC maker no different from all the rest.

Looking at the products introduced by Apple with and without Jobs it's obvious that his guidance was essential. There was just one genuinely brilliant, innovative, and risky product introduced while he was away: that was the Newton. The Newton truly was a superb device. Understanding it from a technical perspective just made how far ahead it was even more obvious. Newton aficionados (of which I was one in case you hadn't guessed) used to say the Newton came to Apple from a time warp into the future, it was that advanced. Maybe too advanced. Jobs killed the Newton project when he returned, just as it was starting to work really well. I'm not sure why. Maybe he just didn't like something so great existing which he didn't create.

Still, we can easily forgive him for killing off one great product because he introduced six even greater ones in return. Yes, I think he introduced six products that were so great that anyone else would be venerated for creating even one of them. OK, so here are the six products: the Apple II, the original Mac, the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Also, if you count the software driving these devices (Mac OS X, iOS) as separate products then his contribution is even greater.

None of these products were the first of their kind but they were the first brilliantly executed examples of their kinds. There were earlier home computers, MP3 players, smart phones, and tablets for example. But no one wanted to use them (I don't mean that literally but they were compromised and not suitable for many users). Apple took a bit longer to create its products but when it did create them it really did the job properly.

I keep talking about Apple's success as if it could be entirely attributed to Jobs. That's not what I really mean. Apple has brilliant engineers and product designers. The main reason Apple succeeds is because its products are just so good. And I totally reject those (who really just don't get it) who say Apple's success is more to do with marketing and the "reality distortion field". People can only be fooled that way temporarily.

I said Apple has a lot of brilliant engineers but surely other companies do as well. Of course they do: they probably have people as good as Apple's. So why don't other companies also produce brilliant products? Because they are all operating according to the old traditional conservative business model. The one which almost caused Apple to fail in the 90s and is gradually leading to the failure of companies like HP, Nokia, and RIM (and maybe even Microsoft).

Apple under Jobs knew how to create a culture where individual brilliance (such as that of Jonathan Ive) could flourish without being buried in a pile of worthless business nonsense like business plans, financial justifications, and (that ultimate source of all mediocrity) best practice. It was as much what Jobs didn't do as what he did do that made the difference.

There was one more thing too (I couldn't resist that). Jobs seemed to know what people wanted before even they did. So many people rubbished the concepts behind the iMac, iPod, and iPad before they were released. It's actually quite amusing to go back and see what the "experts" said. Well they were all wrong and Jobs was right. He almost always was and he wasn't scared to abandon traditional business wisdom to follow his ideas. That's what made him great.

Now I want to share a few of the best comments I have found about Jobs' life.

A lot of commentary came through Twitter so this is relevant: "Once in a rare while, somebody comes along who doesn't just raise the bar, they create an entirely new standard of measurement." (Dick Costolo, Twitter CEO).

Short and to the point: "Steve Jobs was the man." (Tony Hawk, retired pro skateboarder and actor).

This is good advice (but hard to carry out): "Remember Steve Jobs this way, in his own words: Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life." (Dan Gillmor, digital-media entrepreneur and author).

And here's some "intelligent" commentary from our fundamentalist Christian friends: "Westboro will picket his funeral. He had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin." (Margie Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church on Twitter). And when it was discovered that tweet came from an iPhone: "Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell. God created iPhone for that purpose! :)". Well if Jobs is in Hell and scum like this go to Heaven all I can say is I know where I want to go!

And finally the best and saddest (from Twitter user @TechZader): "The world lost some of its magic today...".

Poverty in NZ

I recently listened to a podcast where an economist discussed poverty in New Zealand. Poverty has always been present in some parts of the world but we really should be asking why it should be so common in a country like New Zealand where there should be plenty for all.

One of the problems with discussing the subject in the past has been the definition of poverty. I have heard definitions based on the person's total income in comparison with the median for the country. The problem with that is as the nation's average income gets higher the poverty line becomes easier to reach so high poverty in some ways indicates a better economic situation.

In the podcast some basic statistics were presented and although they don't indicate a good formal definition I think they do show a situation which any reasonable person would consider as representing poverty in the context of a modern western nation like New Zealand.

Here are some of the statistics about child poverty in New Zealand: 20% of children don't have a separate bed, 39% can't replace shoes when they are worn out, many miss out on cultural activities like music and sport, 31% can't invite friends to a birthday party, 39% lack a waterproof coat, 37% don't have a warm room in winter, 63% have cut back on fresh food, 65% postpone visits to the doctor, and 73% lack a holiday away from home once a year. The study was done by the Ministry for Social Welfare and it showed that overall a third of children here live in poverty.

While the numbers are bad I agree that this definition of poverty can hardly be compared with the more extreme hardship suffered by people where there is famine and civil war. And there will be situations where the problems suffered by families in New Zealand are partly the result of the neglect, incompetence, laziness and ignorance of its members.

But that isn't really an excuse. It's just too easy to say that people are poor because they deserve to be. There are examples where the poor could do much better if they just managed their lives properly but the main cause of the problem is our society which no longer has any balance and fairness.

Previous generations had much better access to part-time work, a university education, and apprenticeships. The difference in income between the top and bottom of society was much smaller. And governments weren't afraid to intervene when necessary. Many years of neo-liberal politics have left the country in the state it's in now but the propaganda supporting this approach is so strong people are hesitant to reject it even though it is clear it has huge deficiencies.

So what's the answer? I'm afraid the only things that will really work are completely contrary to current perceived wisdom. We do need to throw more money at the problem and we do need to intervene in the markets to make them work better. Or we could carry on the same path and just ignore the problem, or maybe take the standard libertarian approach and say that it's really for their own good because freeing markets will make everyone better off. But that is both dishonest and ultimately destructive.

New Zealand switched to its current economic model in 1984. That is almost 30 years ago now. I think it's time to admit that it hasn't worked. We do need higher taxes for the rich, we do need intervention in markets, and we do need less investment by overseas multi-nationals and less privatisation.

Many people agree with these aims but few seem to be prepared to act on them by voting for a party who will follow them. That's strange but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised because our political system, like our economic system, never really has worked properly.

Random Comments 8

It has been about a year since I last made a "random comments" entry but fear not! Here is my latest effort...

Another New Zealand SAS soldier has been killed in Afghanistan. The government seems to be changing it's official line on this. Originally they insisted the unit was there to help train the Afghan security forces but now are saying they are there to take part in combat. Does this mean they admit they were lying previously?

Most people would accept this casualty as an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of a just and worthwhile war, but is that really the case here? There are so many questions about the legitimacy of the conflicts the US is currently involved in that sustaining losses like these in a small country like ours should raise a lot of questions.

Of course the prime minister says we must remain courageous and fight on! Well that's easy for him to say from his safe and comfortable office in Wellington. Another of my favourite quotes: nothing's too hard for the person who doesn't have to do it himself!

To make matters worse there have been questions recently about the justification for the raid. Was this really a mistaken attack on an innocent group which turned ugly? Are we now going to be associated with the US and its unfortunate international reputation for shooting first and asking questions later?

My second comment is a bit closer to home. About a week ago the prime minister was speaking in glowing terms about how well our economy is going. He was congratulating himself (who else would) on what a great job he is doing and how well managed our economy really is.

A couple of days later the minister of finance contradicted a lot of what the PM said and commented that it would be unlikely we would meet most of the targets the government has set itself. Today the country's credit rating has been downgraded. If this is an example of good financial management I would hate to see an example of bad!

Finally I must mention the nuttiest political party of all. The rabid libertarian Act party seems to be self-destructing. In fact this phenomenon has been going on for a year or two now and it looks like it's only through the use of dirty tricks that the party will survive. That is, of course, if you think there even is a party. Isn't Don Brash the only one left? All the rest have deserted him. Even the crazies who were in the party in the past don't want to be associated with someone as nutty as Don. Who can blame them?

So the political right gets a big fail mark from me. I don't really know whether Labour would have done any better but their general policies of intervening where it is necessary, doing what is right rather than what will make our political and economic partners happy, and not pulling dirty political tricks to get an unpopular and dangerous party into power make me think that they would be the preferred option.

But the prime minister is a skilled politician if he is anything and he seems to have fooled a lot of the population of the country at this point, so I suspect New Zealand will continue its downward slide because National are likely to win the upcoming election. That's rather unfortunate really.

Free Markets at Work

Most of us barely notice what a pathetic, immoral, and inefficient economic system we live under. We are so used to the "system" not working properly, and we are so inundated with propaganda supporting it, that we just think it's obvious inadequacies are normal. But occasionally it becomes more obvious that in fact free-market capitalism doesn't work and it should be then that people push for change.

I should first talk about what I mean by "work" in this context. Many conservatives and libertarians like to define work as what successful business does and then go on to define success in terms of whether the business works or not. It's a circular argument and that argument is one thing that definitely doesn't work.

I'll give an example. New Zealand has very expensive phone, internet, and other communications despite having two large multinationals allegedly competing with each other. When I talk to people about this many say the prices are fair because that's what the companies can charge and that's just the normal operation of successful business.

There's never any discussion on the quality of service, or the prices compared with other countries, or how the practices of the two companies affect the country as a whole. It's just simply that they get away with it so it's OK.

As I said above, sometimes extreme situations can make these deficiencies more obvious. The Christchurch earthquakes started almost a year ago now but the re-building of the city doesn't seem to be going far. Why? Because insurance companies are slow paying out on damage and they aren't insuring new buildings, and property developers are restricting land for building to keep the prices high. I'm sure there are many other factors, including on-going minor quakes, but they are less significant.

The current government is sticking with its standard laissez faire economic approach. Not interfering with the market is more important to them than helping the victims of the disaster. In contrast the opposition has said they would interfere by buying and re-selling property to bring prices down and by intervening in the insurance market if necessary.

Of course the government ridicules the idea without really saying why because there is no reason except it's against their pernicious political principles to interfere in free markets even when they don't work. But there's that word "work" again. According to the government the system is working because they define that as doing whatever the market wants to. After all, it is "free".

A similar problem exists in other parts of the world. The US has a hopelessly inefficient health system largely because of the insurance companies operating there. Shut down all of them and the problem would be largely solved. But even the so-called socialist Obama wouldn't do that because he also has faith in the free market to solve all the world's problems.

Well it won't. In fact the free market is the source of many of the world's problems. Wasn't that obvious after the banking debacle and the ongoing financial predicament many countries are in?

I'm not advocating moving everything to a government controlled fully socialist system. There are many places where the private sector works adequately. But if it is going to be allowed into essential areas like health, insurance and banking it must be very carefully monitored and controlled. Being allowed to operate in those areas is a privilege and if the companies involved make a mess of it and then are disadvantaged by government intervention then that's their fault for not getting it right to start with.

I'm not a raving lefty, or an advocate for total government control, or a communist, or even an extreme socialist. I just want people to admit that free markets really deliver only one thing: maximum profit to shareholders who don't really care about the side effects of their investments. If that's the system "working" then I think we need to look at a new definition of that word.

Something Incredible

The world is sinking further into a major financial crisis but who cares because there's a possibility that neutrinos might travel faster than light. The US is approaching a major political and economic disaster but does it really matter because Einstein might be wrong. Fundamentalist Islam is gaining power and threatens world peace but so what? CERN might have discovered something really amazing.

In the rhetorical rant above I'm trying to portray my thoughts for what's important and what isn't. I see the global financial, banking, and economic system as a silly exercise in futility where greedy people compete to see who can pull off the dirtiest tricks. But what really matters gets little publicity: fundamental discoveries in science which might truly revolutionise the world.

I know that financial markets have a greater immediate direct influence on most people than discoveries in physics but the key words here are "immediate" and "direct" because I think quantum physics (I use that as an example of something most people see as esoteric and theoretical) has had a greater effect on the world than every financial institution that ever existed.

I won't justify that opinion in this blog entry (although I could) because I want to go on to say a little bit about how incredible this discovery potentially is. But first I need to emphasise this is preliminary and unconfirmed, although an earlier but far less precise experiment at FermiLab found a similar result.

So the observation is that neutrinos produced in an experiment being run by the European physics organisation CERN have been observed to arrive at their destination a few billionths of a second earlier than expected. And that earlier arrival means they would be travelling faster than light would. It probably sounds unremarkable to the average person but to a science geek it is just stunning.

The speed of light being a limit to everything in this universe is such a fundamental part of modern science that the possibility that it isn't true is genuinely astonishing. And there's the point that objects travelling faster than light might have bizarre and useful properties which we might only be able to guess at now.

An alternative explanation is even more amazing. That is that there are extra dimensions involved which allow the neutrinos to take shortcuts which bypass the usual dimensions of our universe. In other words it might be possible to take a path shorter than a straight line between two objects.

Both of these hypotheses aren't entirely new: tachyons (particles which travel faster than light) and extra dimensions (7 extra according to some theories) are already a part of the more speculative parts of physics. But finding evidence that these might be real is something else again.

But how would a neutrino travelling faster than light or an extra dimension really affect the average person on the street? We don't know, but judging from the results of theoretical physics discoveries in the past I would say the potential practical applications would be significant.

Just a few of the discoveries coming from quantum physics have lead to the computer revolution and the information age. That revolution is the most significant for centuries and has changed the world more than any economic or financial intervention.

So yes, I think this could be big but we might not know how big for another 50 years. That's the way truly fundamental scientific research works and it's why it doesn't fit into many of the simple-minded business or political models some people try to force onto it.

And even there does turn out to be a prosaic explanation for these observations I think my thoughts are still relevant because there will be other amazing discoveries out there. As Carl Sagan said: "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

Emotional Atheism

There's a rather clever statement I've heard a few times on atheist and skeptical web sites and podcasts. It's that there is no point in reasoning with fundamentalist religious people because if they responded to reason they wouldn't be fundamentalists to start with. It's a good point and equally applies to extremely political, or sincerely credulous individuals.

There is also the fact that, according to all reasonable measures of reason, religion should be dead, yet it isn't and has actually enjoyed a revival in some parts of the world. Whether this revival is just a last desperate attempt to revive religion's "glorious" past is hard to ascertain at this point, but it does seem real.

So hundreds of years of solid science and the irrefutable logic of atheists hasn't really made a lot of difference because, as I said above, the people who are the targets of these methods of persuasion aren't actually persuaded by them. But what's the alternative?

Actually, before I discuss that I perhaps should ask whether it's a good idea to try to persuade believers that they are wrong. I think it is. It's a good idea for two reasons. First, intellectual debate should occur on every subject and religion should be no exception. Presenting your ideas and examining other people's is just inherently a good idea. And second, people should be given the opportunity to correct false beliefs. I know that not many people will actually follow through with the correction but at least they should be given the opportunity.

So if rational debate and presentation of facts won't work what will? Again I must interrupt myself and say that there are occasions when the facts will work. I have encountered several cases in my discussions on the internet and through email where I have given a believer something new to think about. There was one person who had genuinely never heard about the evidence for evolution for example. When I showed him the huge list of transitional fossils which support evolution he was amazed. I'm sure that after that he was far less certain about the accuracy of creationism. Maybe he realised he had been lied to all those years by people who wanted him to believe in fake Christian pseudoscience.

So finally to answer the question: what alternatives are there to logic and facts? Well there's emotion, and there's a good story, and there's social support, and there's non-confrontational attitude change.

For example, many religious people think atheists are cold, uncaring, and immoral. By arguing from the perspective of simple facts that opinion can be reinforced. Atheists should point out that they are just as committed to emotional experiences, friendship, and doing the right thing as anyone else. They just don't want a church or an old book telling them how they should do that. So emphasising the freedom of being an atheists is a positive point which can be made. And highlighting the fact that atheists are good because they want to be instead of being good because they're scared of God's punishment I think shows where the real morality lies.

By a "good story" I mean that the truth uncovered by science, when presented in an entertaining way, is much more compelling and awe inspiring than any religious story. Compare the scientific history of the universe with the rather lame and insipid Biblical version and you'll see what I mean. The real story of the universe is far more spectacular than any old myth.

Social support is a more difficult one. Many people use their church as a social center for their lives. They meet their friends there and they might have very little in their lives without it. If that is the case then I think it's unfair to try to dissuade anyone from continuing to make use of that support. There are alternatives of course, and being an atheist doesn't mean you instantly become an outcast from society. Maybe all the believers need is to be reminded of that.

Finally there's non-confrontational change of attitudes. Anyone who reads my blog will realise this isn't my usual approach! I tend to like to use a more straightforward, aggressive style. But that's because I'm not really trying to convert people, I'm just trying to present my opinions and challenge them. But reminding people that it is possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time could be more influential than saying that evolution really makes the Christian myth redundant.

There's one last topic I would like to mention too. That's spirituality. The word can mean many different things but in one context at least I think that science enthusiasts are more spiritual than religious people. I'm sure that I feel it as much as anyone when I look at the of the splendour of the night sky from a really dark place. Knowing what I'm looking at makes all the difference. I can easily find the closest galaxy and know that its light has taken thirty times longer to reach the Earth than the whole age of creation according to Christians. Yes, that's the closest galaxy. What can believers have which could possibly stand up to the astounding facts we know about the real world?

So yes, atheism can be emotional, but only when it makes sense to be!

Reflections on 9/11

It has been a couple of days since the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the US and we have just been subjected to the expected outpouring of emotion and political rhetoric on the subject. To be honest, on the other side of the world here in New Zealand, it was fairly moderate and could be avoided if you wanted to (especially since the Rugby World Cup was much bigger news), but it was certainly present.

I'm not saying that the attacks weren't a terrible thing: I'm against the use of violence for political or religious purposes in almost every case, but there are a lot bigger problems in the world and a lot worse atrocities we should be worrying about.

For example, look at the quite understandable grief amongst the friends and families of the 9/11 victims. It's terrible to watch and clearly shows the consequences of violent political and terrorist acts, but we should apply the same standards to everyone.

If the loss of 3000 people in the US has caused so much grief how much has been caused by the slaughter of many times that number of innocent civilians in the unjust wars the US and its partners have engaged in since?

And who is really the most cowardly: a terrorist who takes his own life to attack who he perceives as his enemy, or a modern jet pilot bombing someone who he has been told is his enemy in a residential area in Baghdad?

This isn't really an anti-US rant. The US reacted as any dominant world power would react in a similar situation and it responded in the only way it really could, but who has really caused the greater amount of death, destruction, and misery? I think it's very clear what the answer to that question is.

I felt sickened listening to Bush and Obama speaking at the ceremony marking the anniversary of 9/11. It was pure, unadulterated propaganda. The sort that any dictator would be proud of. There were constant references to working for the will of God, to fighting for freedom, and other truly ridiculous statements.

If the US leadership really believes that the wars it has started were to fulfill the wishes of their god then I think they had better find another one. I wouldn't recommend that alternative supernatural tyrant that the other side follows either! Actually, anyone who believes in a superstition like Christianity or Islam has no right to be leading a powerful, modern country in the first place.

Maybe Obama doesn't really believe that stuff, who really knows. Because the US is so deeply superstitious no one can lead it without at least pretending to believe in Christian mythology and it would be political suicide to admit to not believing in God at all and almost as bad to suggest that God isn't on the US's side in the righteous wars it engages in.

So I would have liked to have seen a lot less rhetoric and a lot more moderation in the commemoration of the attacks. They were an act of evil against the US I agree, but there's been a lot worse done both before and after.

Advice to Conservatives

I'm really sick of conservatives. Not all conservatives of course, but the individuals who are most outrageously offensive to thinking people. In fact, on reconsidering the issue, I probably am sick of them all because even the ones who keep their opinions to themselves still mess the world up when they vote and when they influence the world in other ways.

Yeah sure, people are entitled to believe weird things if they want to. They can believe all people who vote towards the left are lazy and unrealistic, or that global warming is a vast conspiracy to raise taxes, or that liberalism has destroyed the morals that an old fashioned Christian upbringing gave people.

And they can continue to believe that sort of thing, even when good evidence is given to the contrary, if they want to. All that does is confirm that they are what most of the rest of us have suspected all along: unthinking and uncaring idiots.

But as I said above, this simple-minded, arrogant, and obstinate attitude does have significant dangers. People act based on their ideas and sometimes it seems that the more they are demonstrated to be wrong the more determined the person becomes to act unreasonably in defence of their discredited beliefs.

That's why evolution deniers are determined to have their superstition taught in schools, and why global warming deniers are insistent on having no laws in place to reduce the problem, and why conservative Christians want the ten commandments prominently displayed even though they often don't even know what they are and anyone can see that those commandments are either just common sense or ridiculous superstitious dogma anyway.

Conservatism is quite successful at the moment and I think that is because it offers a simple message which people can easily relate to. The fact that the message is so simple that it can never possibly work and the fact that a lot of the message is based on demonstrable fiction doesn't matter because they have struck a winning formula where reality is largely irrelevant.

But there are problems. Obviously there are problems for thinking moderates and liberals, but there will also be problems for the conservatives in the end as well. Most of the conservative policies are counter-productive, so the more success they have the less successful they are.

For example, reducing taxes in the US and spending less on science will just hasten that country's demise, not prevent it. And failing to act on the threat of global warming will affect the rich nations which caused it as well as poor island nations who are the innocent victims. And disguising the fact of evolution by teaching fiction like creationism will just result in a lower standard of medicine and biological sciences in the countries stupid enough to allow it.

So finally I get to my advice to conservatives. There are some things central to your belief systems which are untrue. When the evidence shows these things are untrue don't invent a vast global conspiracy, or refuse to acknowledge any sources of information other than people engaged in the same delusion, or get involved in other behaviours which disguise the truth. Just move on instead.

And if you insist on maintaining your conservative world view you should still be able to do that to some extent. For example, admit global warming is real, admit humans contribute significantly to it, but debate what the response should be. That is where genuine debate is possible and if you do that you will gain the respect of your opponents as well as advancing the state of world knowledge instead of inhibiting it.

You don't need to stop being a conservative but you do have to stop being a brainless conservative idiot. Stop sourcing all of your information from far-right blogs, listen to what science is really saying, genuinely think about whether what you believe agrees with what the experts are saying, and be skeptical of your leaders: they are deceiving their followers as much as they are deceiving their opponents.

That is all. Good luck with achieving a new brand of positive and realistic conservatism!

Land of the Poor

I recently watched a short documentary item titled "Land of the free, home of the poor" which discussed the inequality of the spread of wealth in the US. The documentary presenters asked some members of the public to identify which of three different pie graphs they thought represented America's wealth distribution.

In each graph the pie was broken into 5 parts showing the top, upper, middle, lower, and bottom 20% of the population in terms of total financial value. The first graph showed the segments evenly split representing a flat distribution where the bottom had about the same as the top. The second showed a distribution with the top fifth owning 36%, the next with 21%, the middle with 18%, the lower with 15%, and the bottom with 11%. And the final graph showed the top with 84% of the wealth then 11%, 4%, 0.2%, and 0.1% at the bottom.

Most people thought the middle graph was most realistic. They realised the rich do have more wealth otherwise they wouldn't be the rich, so the equal graph was obviously unrealistic, but the bottom graph showing the bottom half with about 1% was too outrageous to be true, wasn't it?

As you will probably have guessed, no it wasn't. The bottom graph did show the position in the US and the middle graph showed one of the most equal societies: Sweden. The first graph didn't represent any real economy.

So the top 20% have almost a thousand times as much wealth as the bottom 20% and the second bottom aren't much better off. Is this really the way the world's (allegedly) greatest democracy works? It's barely better than slavery although I do admit that even the poorest in the US are better off than many populations in third world countries: at least there isn't mass starvation in America.

So the rhetoric around how great America is is clearly just that: unsubstantiated propaganda. This is the land of opportunity, the place where anyone can pursue the American dream? Apparently that promise is real but only if you are in the top income group and prepared to exploit your fellow citizens or preferably those of another country.

An economist commented that the natural reward for commercial success is wealth and that was somehow a justification. But let's examine that claim. He's saying having lot's of wealth is OK if you are successful in business, but the measure of success is accumulating wealth. Is this not a circular argument? Having wealth is OK if you are successful and that success is measured by wealth. It sounds like a typical economist's double-speak to me!

Those numbers show what a horrendously unequal society the US really is but they barely begin to reveal the real truth. Apparently, in the last 30 years those with the top 1% of the wealth have increased their share by 10% of the total. it's just obscene. I guess the main reason the American people don't revolt against this unfairness is because they have been affected by years of propaganda telling them how great their country is and how deserving the rich are.

But it's all just lies. The US was great once but is rapidly sinking as it becomes more inward looking and corrupt. It seems inevitable that it is on the way out as the world's leading power. Whether China will make a good substitute for this position is, of course, extremely debatable. America has it's problems but on balance it is probably one of the more benign global empires the world has seen.

There is an argument to say that the rich create companies which create jobs and wealth through exports, manufacturing, providing services, etc. OK, that is true and I think someone who works hard and creates employment does deserve some reward. But making a thousand (or a lot more) times what the bottom part of the population does is just too much.

Many big companies and most of the rich pay no taxes yet they benefit from the military, scientific, and social outcomes the taxes of others pay for. So the poor are effectively subsidising the lifestyles of the rich. Again I ask, why has their not been riots in the streets like there has been recently in Britain which is similarly afflicted with a grossly unfair society?

I'm not condoning mindless rioting but I can understand why it happened. And I think it is likely to get worse before it gets better. All grossly corrupt societies are eventually brought down by their own citizens and the western countries following neo-liberal economics will be no exception.

The US often criticises China for its unfair work conditions and "slave labour" economy yet its distribution of wealth is almost identical. The same applies to many African dictatorships. I agree that although the distribution is the same the absolute income is greater in the US, but even that is mainly because of their exploitative business practices in other countries.

The truth is beginning to spread though. The right-wing French government recently introduced more taxes on the rich because they asked for them. Yes, some of the most wealthy people in the country asked to be taxed more. A similar thing has happened here in New Zealand. Sam Morgan, who made millions by selling TradeMe to a foreign corporation, pays no tax and wants to know why.

Billionaire philanthropist, Warren Buffet commented on the documentary that he's rich because he's good at guessing at what to invest in. But he said himself he thinks teachers and nurses are more valuable members of society than he is. Yeah sure, there's probably a bit of rhetorical false modesty there but he has a point. Does he really deserve all that wealth and to make little contribution to society through taxes while enjoying it's benefits? Of course not.

Buffet, along with an increasing number of the very rich such as out old friend Bill Gates, are making donations to worthy causes and I commend them for that. But if they and all the other extremely rich who make no donations paid their fair share of tax I think the world would be a far better place.

The current economic system in most western countries (excluding some of the more progressive social democracies such as Sweden) is just unfair, immoral, and yes, I'll say it: evil. It must change and it will. It's just a matter of how soon.