Canary in the Mine

The case regarding the female probation officer reprimanded for refusing to bow to Maori protocol has some interesting twists. Josie Bullock says although she has been given a verbal warning, the department seems to have relaxed its approach since she kicked up a fuss about women being required to stand behind men. Ms Bullock said the probation service was a government department and was supposed to be non-sexist and secular. Yet she was obliged to attend functions where there were prayers and to take second place to men purely because she was a woman. Since the incident in which she got into trouble, she said she had attended several other departmental ceremonies where women were not required to go to the back. However, feminists and Maori women are not leaping to her defence. Maori activist lawyer Annette Sykes said she did not support Ms Bullock. As a probation officer, she was obliged to abide by rigid court protocols, and in the same way, she should abide by and respect Maori protocols. Prominent Wellington feminist Margaret Shields, co-convener of the recent Women's Convention, said if Maori protocol was used it was not for others to define what that should be. It would seem that feminism has stopped manning the barricades when faced with multiculturalism. And it's obviously official that Maori culture takes precedence over Pakeha culture.

The Spanish parliament has legalised gay marriage, angering conservatives and clergy as it made the heavily Roman Catholic country the world's third country to grant full recognition to same-sex couples, even letting them adopt children. The 350-seat Congress of Deputies approved the measure by a vote of 187-147 with four abstentions. The bill, a divisive plank in the ruling Socialists' platform for social reform, gives homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual ones.

But two years after predominantly Catholic Belgium legalised gay marriages, a majority of Belgians oppose giving gay couples the right to adopt children, a survey published yesterday showed. The poll, published in the daily La Libre Belgique, showed that 54 per cent of the 2000 people questioned opposed a bill now being debated in parliament that would grant such a right.

Stephanie Coontz says she has been studying family history for 30 years, but began focusing on marriage only in the mid-1990s, when reporters and audiences started asking her if the institution of marriage was falling apart. "My initial response was that marriage is not undergoing an unprecedented crisis, but has always been in flux. Furthermore, many of the things people think are unprecedented in family life today are not actually new. Almost every marital and sexual arrangement we have seen in recent years, however startling it may appear, has been tried somewhere before....But when it comes to the overall place of marriage in society and the relationship between husbands and wives, nothing in the past is anything like what we have today, even if it may look similar at first glance. The forms, values, and arrangements of marriage are indeed changing dramatically all around the globe. We are living in an historical moment as far=reaching as the Industrial Revolution."

The Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the world's largest publicly owned petroleum companies, has quietly joined the ranks of those who are predicting an impending plateau in non-OPEC oil production. Their report, The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View, forecasts a peak in just five years.

You can rest easy in your bed. Despite claims to the contrary, China's nuclear arsenal is about the same size it was a decade ago, and the missile that prompted a Washington Times fright article has been under development since the mid-1980s. "Contrary to reports you might have recently read that Chinese nukes number in the hundreds--if not the thousands--the true size of the country's operationally deployed arsenal is probably about 80 nuclear weapons." So that's all right, then.

The viewers organisation VoTE (Viewers for Television Excellence) has begun a campaign to get the time when adult programmes can be shown (the "watershed") pushed back from 8.30pm to 9pm.

A lot of research about the effect of violence on TV is coming out. A survey in New Zealand of 15- to 17-year-olds showed almost two-thirds had played R18 video games, and a few had played Manhunt, which is banned there. Three-quarters of the 330 who took part in the survey said their parents knew they were playing restricted games, and over a third said parents bought them the games. One in five said an age restriction made them appealing.

And a team from the University of Aachen, Germany, says video games may "prime" the brains of players for violence.

Labour's backdown yesterday over proposed land-access legislation joins a raft of other issues and potential law changes in Labour's "too hard" basket, including the drinking age, Transpower's new electricity corridor between Hamilton and Auckland, Georgina Beyer's Gender Identity Amendment Bill, vehicle emission-testing rules and use of cellphones while driving, changes to rural school bus services, the review of the constitution and the Treaty of Waitangi, marine reserves extension legislation and MP John Tamihere.

A majority of Parliament looks set to support sending Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial anti-smacking bill to a select committee for public submissions. A lineup of all eight parliamentary parties at a child summit in Hamilton yesterday saw New Zealand First, the Progressives and the Greens totally support the bill, and Labour and the Maori Party support sending it to select committee. United Future MP Judy Turner said her party had not yet fixed a position but also wanted "to see what potential there is at select committee for further changes". National social services spokeswoman Judith Collins said her party opposed the bill and would replace it with a full review of the child abuse issue if it won power. The Act party said it had not yet decided on the bill but was also likely to oppose it.

Meanwhile, Rex Ahdar has some words of caution on the smacking debate: "It may be that a careful redrafting of the section [59 of the Crimes Act] is desirable to clarify what is unreasonable and illegitimate – for example, prohibition of smacks involving hazardous implements or to a child's head – but this proposal is not the one Parliament has to consider. No, it is the outright ban on smacking. Complete abolition is clumsy and arrogant. Because some enlightened individuals believe the line has been drawn wrongly on some occasions by ordinary citizens (as represented by the jury) we will not leave them to perform that task. Instead, we will ban the practice and thus eliminate "mistaken" verdicts. Importantly, and as some abolitionists now seem to grasp, repealing the section 59 defence would expose well-meaning parents to the full force of the criminal law.

Sir Edmund Hillary is the most trustworthy New Zealander, according to a Readers Digest poll of Kiwi attitudes, while National leader Don Brash and broadcaster Paul Holmes are languishing among the least trusted. [The poll results show that some very hazy thinking goes into the concept of "trust". Considering that sports stars take 8 of the top 10 places, what do we mean when we say we "trust" them? Granted, on the surface of it most of them appear fairly nice characters and we don't have any particular reason to distrust them; but considering that most of us have never had any interaction with them at a personal level, or that their sporting prowess has involved no element of trust beyond turning up on time for their events and not taking drugs, it's all a bit meaningless.] Anyway, here are some of the rankings: 1. Edmund Hillary; 2. Sarah Ulmer; 3. Peter Jackson; 4. Evers-Swindell sisters; also in top 10. Colin Meads, Peter Snell, Hamish Carter and Irene van Dyk; 43. Helen Clark; 45. Rachel Hunter, followed by Suzanne Paul, Russell Crowe and Paul Holmes; 49. Don Brash; 50. Winston Peters.

The Government is proposing sweeping changes to court processes to remove delays, including imposing penalties on lawyers who unnecessarily prevent trials going ahead. Among the proposals are: * Lawyers who cause delays through non-appearance or failing to file documents could have legal aid payments withheld; * Judges will be able to award costs directly against prosecution and defence lawyers where they cause delays. * Judges should have powers to order trials to proceed in some cases where defendants fail to show up; * Where there is agreement on matters such as legal aid, bail and name suppression they should be dealt with by court staff, not judges.

New Zealand's first Children's Commissioner has turned on both major political parties for pushing mothers back to work too soon. Dr Ian Hassall, commissioner from 1989 to 1994, told a child summit in Hamilton yesterday that mothers should not be financially or socially coerced into the paid workforce. He attacked Prime Minister Helen Clark for her opening speech to Parliament this year about women's participation in the paid workforce. He also criticised National leader Don Brash's Orewa speech about getting solo mothers off the domestic purposes benefit.

The United Nations has shut pro-lifers out of a conference designed to set the UN's future agenda, while abortion advocates have free reign. [Most New Zealanders don't realise just how strongly abortion is woven into the UN agenda.]

Canada's Parliament has approved legislation to allow same sex marriages across the country, despite fierce opposition from conservative politicians and religious groups. Legislators voted by 158-133 to support the bill, which makes Canada only the third country in the world after Belgium and the Netherlands to permit gay marriages.

Plans to launch the world's most ambitious biometric identity cards have cleared their first hurdle in the UK parliament, despite the first revolt against Prime Minister Tony Blair since his re-election. Blair's 66-seat majority in the lower house was cut to 31 when lawmakers voted in favour of the cards, designed to counter terrorism, crime and illegal immigration. If the proposals become law, it would be the first time Britons have carried ID cards since they were abolished after World War Two by the government of Winston Churchill.

Tony Blair yesterday gave his clearest signal yet that he will authorise the controversial building of a new generation of nuclear reactors. To the dismay of environmental campaigners, the Prime Minister answered a question about new nuclear stations by casting doubt on whether wind and wave farms or solar power were viable alternatives.

Tail-out: If it's okay to sponsor sports events, why not weddings? So Sandra Crisp and her partner, butcher John Taina, went touting, and have met with a strong response from businesses as they prepare for New Zealand's first sponsored wedding next April. So far they've 65 per cent of the wedding's estimated $19,000 cost. Sponsors have lined up to provide services ranging from the wedding disco, to the cake, to chocolate favours for the couple's 100 guests.

The Government has backed down over plans to increase public access to waterways, saying there is "too much conflict" to introduce the legislation now. Pity it did not apply that logic to some of its other contentious legislation! But then, it wasn't falling behind in the polls then.

The next generation's violent criminals can be spotted by the age of about three, Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft says, but early intervention in the often troubled lives of these "human time bombs" is seriously lacking. (The article provides some pointers to look out for in kids.)

The Importers Institute has taken a dig at the government over increasing bureaucracy in the Customs Service: "Since 2002/03, the number of people employed by the New Zealand Customs Service has increased by 61 percent. In 2002, Customs employed 716 people. Today, it employs 1,274. Customs did considerably better than other Government departments, whose numbers have expanded by 'only' about 30% under the current Labour government. This sort of thing is known in government circles as 'capability
improvement'."

Student loan debt has reached mountainous proportions for some. New figures show the highest loan balance for a single student is $230,810.

I am seriously considering starting a website devoted to posting the idiocies that academics and bureaucrats say (and unfortunately teach). Here's an example: "In an important sense, a limb that is not experienced as one's own is not in fact one's own." Comes from a debate about whether surgeons should amputate healthy limbs of people who suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). A Scottish surgeon has amputated at least two limbs from sufferers before he was told to stop. ~ Journal of Applied Philosophy, 1, 2005; blog.bioethics.net

American doctors are a religious lot. A survey of 1,044 doctors has found that 76% believe in God, 59% believe in an afterlife, and 55% allow their religious beliefs to influence how they practice medicine.

More than 80 per cent of Italian men aged between 18 and 30 still live with their parents and a new study says it is because they are "bribed" by mum and dad. The study found high rent and unemployment might also be among the reasons for so many mamma's boys. However, mostly they stay at home because they are spoilt by doting parents.

I'm sure you know the King Kong trailer is out. If you want to see it, you will find it here.

The latest opinion poll out today confirms that National is now running neck-and-neck with Labour. Enough's been said on the competition between the two not to need my two cents worth. Something that has not been picked up on by the mainstream media, though, is the split between the major and minor parties. The combined support for National and Labour - depending on the poll - is running in the mid to high 70% range, while the minor parties are gathering well under 30%. This is well under the voting patterns of the 3 MMP elections so far held, where minor parties have picked up as much as 38% of the total vote. Either we are seeing something new happening, or else National and Labour are going to shed support closer to the election. My pick is the latter.

National Party leader Don Brash has landed himself in the cross-fire over comments at the weekend's party conference that they were "Tackling the issues of mainstream New Zealand". I think I know what Dr Brash meant, but he picked a very bad choice of phrase to say it. Since 1999, the Labour government has relentlessly pursued the advancement of special interest groups, introducing such laws as hate crime sentencing and civil unions. More and more, your status before the law is based on your membership of a particular group, rather than as an individual citizen. This is contrary to all the principles of good law. However, "mainstream" is a term as impossible to define as "family values". To consider the latter for a moment, values exist independently of the family, and take their validity from an external source. The family does not create them. They are only "family values" inasmuch as the family embraces what is already there. At best, "mainstream" can only mean the general concensus of society, or prevailing trends. There is no absolute standard, or even an external reference point. It is impossible to state at exactly what point someone is "in" or "out" of the mainstream. All of us depart from the mainstream at some point. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as enforced adherence to a centralised norm is the hallmark of a repressive society. Dr Brash's inability to defend his remarks adequately on Morning Report show that it was a bad choice of terms. The "barmy army" TV ads remind us of the World War II slogan, "loose lips sink ships". Loose slogans could sink an election campaign.

New Zealand’s trade balance was again worse than expected in May. Instead of the $300 million surplus predicted by economists, a $25 million deficit was posted, Statistics New Zealand figures out today showed. That took the deficit in the year to May to over $5 billion against economists’ forecasts of $4.69 billion. The annual trade deficit equates to 16.3 per cent of exports, the largest annual deficit as a percentage of exports since the mid-1970s.

Retiring family planning doctor Margaret Sparrow has taken a parting shot at politicians, saying they are too timid to change the abortion laws. She says abortion should be a health, not a criminal issue. She may be correct to say that the laws not changing, but her implication that the laws are too restrictive is a farce. There were 18,210 abortions last year - that's one for every 3 births. How much easier could it be? And if it were, what would be the consequence? Dr Sparrow also ignores the fact that abortion itself is a significant health risk (to the mother, that is - it's an almost 100% health risk to the baby).

Investigate Magazine this month came out with a big expose on effectiveness or otherwise of condoms. In a follow-up story, Investigate says radio station 95BFM’s Noelle McCarthy has gained an admission from Family Planning that the No Rubba No Hubba safe sex campaign may not be accurate. Family Planning’s Dr Christine Roke conceded that the chances of catching Chlamydia, gonorrhea or herpes through a condom may be as high as 60%. The BFM news director asked whether the Hubba website and TV ads were being “honest” to young people when the chances of infection when using a condom were still so high. Dr Roke then admitted that the Hubba campaign “may not be accurate enough”. The Family Planning spokeswoman then stunned listeners by adding that “abstinence is the best protection”.

The UK government's plans to introduce national identity cards hit a speedbump today with a damning report which highlighted 10 potential pitfalls. The report, by a panel of 14 professors at the London School of Economics, came just 24 hours ahead of a crucial Commons vote on the issue. It concluded that the current scheme is "neither safe nor appropriate", and will cost double, triple or even quadruple the government's estimates.

Three major landmark rulings have been made by the US Supreme Court in the last two days.

Ruling 1. A US Supreme Court ruling has hoisted a severe threat to constitutional rights to private property. The Court has ruled that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. State and local governments had sought the ruling for their increasing use of what is called "eminent domain" for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling. Opponents argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."

Churches are among those worried by the decision, as recent eminent domain battles have already had religious aspects to them. California megachurch Cottonwood Christian Center was told by the town of Cyprus to make way for a Costco (supermarket). And Chicago's famous Pacific Garden Mission was embroiled in a long-running battle for its downtown facility. It is relocating.

Ruling 2. A sharply divided US Supreme Court has issued two historic rulings on the Ten Commandments, allowing them to be displayed at a state Capitol but striking down two displays at courthouses. The decisions -- both 5-4 votes -- were the first on the issue since the court ruled 25 years ago that the Commandments could not be displayed in public schools. At issue was the constitutionality of framed copies of the Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses and a monument on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol. In the Kentucky case, the court declined to ban all displays on government property, saying some, like their own courtroom frieze, are allowed if they have a neutral purpose, such as honoring the nation's legal history. But the courthouse displays were deemed a promotion of religion. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Commandments displays "have a proper place in our civil history." In a stinging rebuke to the court, Scalia said, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle." Scalia was joined in his opinion by three other judges. Attorney Mathew D. Staver, who argued the case before the high court in March, said the decision is historic and will have a significant impact on future court decisions regarding the interaction between church and state.

Ruling 3. The US Supreme Court has ruled that Internet song-swapping websites like Grokster can be held liable for copyright infringement. The court is siding with the entertainment industry in its effort to curb online piracy. In a unanimous decision, the court overturned lower court decisions that said the developers of emerging technology cannot be held liable for piracy by third parties who use the technology.

The Internet - like creation - is groaning for redemption. Hackers, viruses, worms, spam, spyware and phishing sites have proliferated to the point where it's nearly impossible for most computer users to go online without falling victim to them. Many criminals roam the network with relative anonymity. Originally developed by the Defense Department, the Internet is now a global electronic communications network made up of hundreds of millions of computers, servers and other devices run by various governments, academic institutions, companies and individuals. Because no one entity owns it, the network depends on goodwill to function smoothly. It has become so huge -- and so misused -- that some worry that its power to improve society has been undermined. Now a movement is gathering steam to upgrade the network, to create an Internet 2.0.

A Jerusalem court has ruled that the city must allow an annual "gay pride" parade to take place on Thursday, despite the Mayor's objections. The Mayor argued the assembly would offend Jerusalem's mostly religious residents, and could spark violent counter-protests. Court Judge Mussia Arad stated Mayor Lupolianski had no right to "act with prejudice" against any group because he disagreed with their "world view." It ordered the mayor to personally pay about $8,000 to the Jerusalem Open House, the city's homosexual and lesbian center, to cover its legal fees and help underwrite the event. The city of Jerusalem was ordered to pay an additional $8,000. In light of the decision, a group that has been previously banned from holding Jewish protests at the Temple Mount told WND it will hold a pride parade of its own Thursday – on the Temple Mount.

I don't know who are the more gullible - journalists or businessmen. An article in the business pages of the Sydney Morning Herald claims corporate Australia is turning to the occult in a bid to boost its bottom line, employing psychics and witches as alternative business consultants. Self-employed professionals, small business owners and executives in major, publicly listed companies are among those joining an expanding network of "covens" organised by businesswoman and self-described witch, Stacey Demarco. The former public relations manager turned pagan and author of There's A Witch In The Boardroom said people were looking for new ways to combine spiritual values with their material success. Elsewhere, Sydney-based psychic and former lawyer, Alana Fairchild, is providing "intuitive diagnostics" sessions to large corporations, focusing on personnel issues. Charging up to $385 per hour, she uses intuition to detect problems or "blockages" within the organisational structure.

The Telegraph reports that a suvey of 2,000 8-14 year old UK children nominated Jesus as the figure who most represents what it means to be a "superhero", followed closely by Florence Nightingale and David Beckham. Asked what makes a superhero, 92 percent said he or she would "stop bad things happening", 91 percent said a superhero "is generally a good guy", and 90 percent said they would "tell the truth".

We are hearing a lot about the ability of eugenics to create a people without defects. Is a perfect society desirable? Angela Beise, the mother of a handicapped child, writes: "I tried to imagine a society devoid of people with disabilities. What if any and all babies with special needs were to be eliminated? What would a society look like if everyone were 'normal', if we never had to make provisions and exceptions for people who are deaf, blind, mute, or lame? I wonder, if our advanced technologies successfully eliminate the weak and needy, will future scholars, theologians, politicians, and poets ponder: "Why has our society become less loving, so selfish, so intolerant, so uncommitted to anything outside of individual gain? Why are we so full of selfish ambition and vain conceit?"

Couples have been slow to take advantage of the introduction of civil unions as a legal alternative to marriage. Five weeks after the relationship-defining status was introduced, only 56 couples - the bulk of them homosexual - have sought civil unions. Only 10 heterosexual couples have been joined in civil unions. "All along we said this was same-sex marriage in all but name," said Amanda McGrail of the Maxim Institute. "The government should have been upfront about that from the beginning."

De facto couples in the UK will receive greater rights, including laws to end the injustices suffered when relationships break up, in a shake-up of the law to be announced within two weeks, The Times has learnt. The Law Commission will announce a study of how to improve the rights of the growing number of people living together without marrying, which has now reached two million couples and is expected to increase to 3.8 million by 2031. Previous attempts to review the law have been opposed by Tory backbenchers and church groups, limiting reforms solely to property rights.

But Mary Ann Sieghart asks why should the law bend to help unmarried couples? "One of the basic tenets of British law is that ignorance is no defence. It’s no use saying to a policeman: “I’m sorry, officer. I had no idea I wasn’t allowed to drive at 50mph down that residential street.” He will book you regardless. So why is the Lord Chancellor now proposing that the law should be changed because of people’s ignorance?

Europe is having great difficulty coming to grips with what constitutes genuine hate speech, while struggling to contain anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim feeling.

The iconic spiritual leader of the Philippines, Cardinal Jaime Sin, has died. Cardinal Sin, who died of diabetes and a heart attack, oversaw the Manila Archdiocese for nearly 30 years and always stressed the need for religion and politics to be closely aligned. He helped end the corrupt presidencies of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada and was influential in the period of transition to democracy. On his retirement the Cardinal said, "My duty is to put Christ in politics. Politics without Christ is the greatest scourge of our nation."

Parents and churches could do more to help young Pacific people realise their potential, says Pacific community leader and former All Black Michael Jones. He said a new Pacific youth development strategy, launched on Friday by Prime Minister Helen Clark, identified key areas that could best be employed to improve wellbeing. They were parents, education and the church - given the significant role spirituality often played in Pacific people's lives. Jones, who chaired a group to co-ordinate consultation on the strategy, said 85 per cent of Pacific people were connected with a church and there was a challenge for churches to realise their potential to help with social issues. "A holistic approach is how we do things. We don't separate out the spiritual," he said. [Which raises an interesting side question: If European Christians demonstrated more convincingly that they did not separate out the spiritual, perhaps the government would find it harder to sideline them.]

The big movie studios are getting worried. Box office receipts have been down 17 weeks in a row, the worst run since 1895, and heading for the first three-years-in-a-row slump since 1962. A major factor could be a broad trend towards the atomisation of entertainment and information consumption - in other words, the mass media are devolving towards micro-media, in which people listen/view in their own highly personalised environments and selections.

The following appears to be a hoax, according to postings on at least one website - ie, it was not written by an Australian economics professor, as claimed. It's also been around a while, but it's fun and has just gained some new life in light of the debate over tax cuts in New Zealand.

You've heard the cry in the last couple of weeks from across Australia: 'It's just a tax cut for the rich!', and it is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean? The following explanation may help.

Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner at La Porchetta's.The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, and it went like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.

* The fifth paid $1.

* The sixth $3.

* The seventh $7.

* The eighth $12.

* The ninth $18.

* The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.

All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:

* The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%saving).

* The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

* The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

* The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

* The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

* The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!" "That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!

That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.