Friday, October 10, 2003
The Ant & the Grasshopper - modern New Zealand version
(I don't know the original author of this piece, but am happy to acknowledge him/her if someone can let me know.)
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate like him are cold and starving. The TV crews show up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table filled with food.
New Zealanders are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The Greens, the trade unions and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house. TV1 News, interrupting a cultural festival special from Ngaruawahia with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome." Dun Mihaka rants in an interview with Pam Corkery that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."
In response to polls, the Labour Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. With the help of United Future and Jim Anderton's mob, the bill is quickly passed into law.
The ant's taxes are reassessed and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers. Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive
taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. The ant moves to Asia, and starts a successful agribiz company.
The TV stations later show the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food though Spring is still months away, while the government owned house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hadn't maintained it.
Inadequate government funding is blamed, Margaret Wilson now is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000. The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the NZ Herald blames it on obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity. The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching New Zealand's multicultural diversity, who promptly terrorize the community.
Who says we don't live in a democracy.
(I don't know the original author of this piece, but am happy to acknowledge him/her if someone can let me know.)
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate like him are cold and starving. The TV crews show up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table filled with food.
New Zealanders are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The Greens, the trade unions and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house. TV1 News, interrupting a cultural festival special from Ngaruawahia with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome." Dun Mihaka rants in an interview with Pam Corkery that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."
In response to polls, the Labour Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. With the help of United Future and Jim Anderton's mob, the bill is quickly passed into law.
The ant's taxes are reassessed and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers. Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive
taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. The ant moves to Asia, and starts a successful agribiz company.
The TV stations later show the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food though Spring is still months away, while the government owned house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hadn't maintained it.
Inadequate government funding is blamed, Margaret Wilson now is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000. The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the NZ Herald blames it on obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity. The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching New Zealand's multicultural diversity, who promptly terrorize the community.
Who says we don't live in a democracy.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
When you cut down the tree, you destroy the branch
Marriage was once considered the foundational unit of society. Because of the benefits that it provided society, it was protected. Because it was a society 'good', it was preferred above other relationship arrangements. Out of marriage has sprung a variety of other arrangements, such as de facto relationships and solo parenting. These other arrangements were once considered immoral or looked down upon, then they became accepted, and now they are being celebrated as equal to, or in some cases even superior to, marriage (as we see in songs, movies and on tv). The law has lagged behind popular culture. But law is now being changed to make all relationships equal in law (including same-sex). The aim is to give all relationships the same benefits as marriage. But this is a pathway to destruction of all those relationships. It is equivalent to cutting down a tree in order to preserve the branch.This is because we draw our understanding of the meaning of relationships from our understanding of marriage. Marriage provides the base definition from which all other relationships draw their comparison. Without marriage, there is nothing to compare. Another analogy: it is like going to a pond to look at your reflection, and finding the pond has dried up.
Marriage was once considered the foundational unit of society. Because of the benefits that it provided society, it was protected. Because it was a society 'good', it was preferred above other relationship arrangements. Out of marriage has sprung a variety of other arrangements, such as de facto relationships and solo parenting. These other arrangements were once considered immoral or looked down upon, then they became accepted, and now they are being celebrated as equal to, or in some cases even superior to, marriage (as we see in songs, movies and on tv). The law has lagged behind popular culture. But law is now being changed to make all relationships equal in law (including same-sex). The aim is to give all relationships the same benefits as marriage. But this is a pathway to destruction of all those relationships. It is equivalent to cutting down a tree in order to preserve the branch.This is because we draw our understanding of the meaning of relationships from our understanding of marriage. Marriage provides the base definition from which all other relationships draw their comparison. Without marriage, there is nothing to compare. Another analogy: it is like going to a pond to look at your reflection, and finding the pond has dried up.
Sex in the city
"Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God," said G. K. Chesterton.
Now that prostitution has been made legal in New Zealand, will brothels become the new churches? The new law is certainly an illustration of the way in which we have made a God out of sex. (It is also an illustration of how one man with a corrupt mission can change a whole nation - but that's another story.)
How much better off are we for having deified sex? How much does getting your bit on a regular basis fulfil you? Philip Yancey has written a thought-provoking article which looks at the consequences for society - but also how the church has much to answer for for today's distorted views.
"Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God," said G. K. Chesterton.
Now that prostitution has been made legal in New Zealand, will brothels become the new churches? The new law is certainly an illustration of the way in which we have made a God out of sex. (It is also an illustration of how one man with a corrupt mission can change a whole nation - but that's another story.)
How much better off are we for having deified sex? How much does getting your bit on a regular basis fulfil you? Philip Yancey has written a thought-provoking article which looks at the consequences for society - but also how the church has much to answer for for today's distorted views.
The Tax Man Cometh
The following hilarious piece appeared in The Guardian, Saturday 27 September 2003:
Dear Mr Addison
I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more-than-prompt
reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points
you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a
"begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a
"tax demand". This is how we, at the Inland Revenue, have always, for
reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of
crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox
onto the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not
seen the other letters to which you refer, I would cautiously suggest
that their being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses
and pissant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file
them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little
ill-advised.
In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of
these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin", or come that, a
"sodding charity". More likely they see you as a citizen of Great
Britain, with a responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation
as a whole.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of
truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay "go to shore up the
canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services", a moment's
rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the
government in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned
party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's
disbursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in
fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent
on "junkets for Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores", whilst far
more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that
box-ticking facade of a university system".
A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:
1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to do
with the vagaries of the postal system;
2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of those with
nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because
even if the Personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer
medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way
wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point
out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and
go and live in India", you would still owe us the money. Please forward
it by Friday.
Yours sincerely,
H J Lee, Customer Relations
The following hilarious piece appeared in The Guardian, Saturday 27 September 2003:
Dear Mr Addison
I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more-than-prompt
reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points
you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a
"begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a
"tax demand". This is how we, at the Inland Revenue, have always, for
reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of
crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox
onto the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not
seen the other letters to which you refer, I would cautiously suggest
that their being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses
and pissant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file
them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little
ill-advised.
In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of
these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin", or come that, a
"sodding charity". More likely they see you as a citizen of Great
Britain, with a responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation
as a whole.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of
truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay "go to shore up the
canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services", a moment's
rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the
government in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned
party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's
disbursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in
fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent
on "junkets for Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores", whilst far
more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that
box-ticking facade of a university system".
A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:
1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to do
with the vagaries of the postal system;
2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of those with
nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because
even if the Personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer
medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way
wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point
out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and
go and live in India", you would still owe us the money. Please forward
it by Friday.
Yours sincerely,
H J Lee, Customer Relations
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
The German philosopher Nietzsche made a grim prediction about the family in 1886: "‘The family will be slowly ground into a random collection of individuals,’ haphazardly bound together ‘in the common pursuit of selfish ends.’" (Letter of August 1886, in
Friederich Merzbacher, Liebe, Ehe, Und Familie 113 (1958))
The tragedy is, we are seeing it come to pass. It is already effectively the Government's view of the family, as witness this little gem from the Families Commission Bill:
The New Zealand government seems determined to kill marriage. There ought to be marching in the street over what's been happening (and what's still to come), but we are suffering from the "boiling frog" syndrome. Things started deteriorating in the 1970s, but have really been hotting up over the past two years. Here's an article to get you started.
Friederich Merzbacher, Liebe, Ehe, Und Familie 113 (1958))
The tragedy is, we are seeing it come to pass. It is already effectively the Government's view of the family, as witness this little gem from the Families Commission Bill:
Section 10 Diversity of New Zealand families and family groups
(1) In the exercise and performance of its powers and functions, the Commission must have regard to the kinds, structures, and diversity of families and family groups.
(2) In this section, family group means a family group (for example, an extended family)---
(a) whose members have biological relationships or legal relationships with one another; or
(b) whose members have significant psychological attachments to one another.
The New Zealand government seems determined to kill marriage. There ought to be marching in the street over what's been happening (and what's still to come), but we are suffering from the "boiling frog" syndrome. Things started deteriorating in the 1970s, but have really been hotting up over the past two years. Here's an article to get you started.
