Friday, December 31, 2004

there's nothing to say really

let's hope the projections for disease outbreak are woefully over-estimated.

Thursday, December 30, 2004

awwww.... diddums

now here's a shame, one nation going down the gurgler.

redneck uncle-fuckers they are....

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

yup. about time

yeah, when's it's monday night and you know, HAILING IN DECEMBER, i like to have a beer.

yup, nice cold beer on a nice cold night.

damn crazy melbourne weather...

Monday, December 27, 2004

this just in

so, i noticed my brief mention on holden republic a few days back.

it is true that i'm sceptical about the usefulness of closely analysing the Treaty itself, as i may be said elsewhere, there's a tendency for the Treaty to end up meaning whatever the hell you want it to mean, because it is so loosely written.

of course, it was loosely written on purpose because it had to appeal to such a wide range of groups, and because it was written from a very loose set of guidelines laid out by lord 'who-gives-a-fuck-who-i-am-now-i'm-dead-and-gone".

anyhow, it really can only serve as a guideline for a 'bigger' discussion of the relationship it established between the Crown (and it's contemporary representatives), and Maori (as a perpetuating society).

tricky?

absolutely.

hmm

i'm a bit stuck for something to write about for publicaddress this week. the response to the last post was a little overwhelming. to be honest i expected to receive a little hate mail for the use of the expletive 'cunt', but mostly received nods of approval from, you guessed it, guys.

ah well. at least i didn't isolate my female audience tooooo much.

or here's hoping i didn't.

at first i thought i'd do the traditional years wrap-up kind of thing, but everyone's up to that exact same trip. and, considering myself to be all 'alternative' and unusual, i can't condone it.

maybe a wrap-up of another year altogether? 2001 maybe?

back into it

maybe this post should be called "puting your back into it". anyhow, am back after the hiatus of dishpiggery. with any mind kept on the matter at all i should be able to get this damn thesis finished by the end of february, with only minimal attention paid to loose women and fast cars.

as opposed to all of last winter, in which there were no fast cars, and less fast women.

ah well, you can't win (or 'have') them all, ay?

as per the advice of the supervisors, i'm going to rewrite my introduction in a more 'rigorous' manner, along 'proper' academic lines. in a nutshell this means 'structure'. this will then allow me to play a little fast and loose with the ball in the remainder of the thesis (which is already written), because i've already explained that it's my intention to be a little 'odd' in my approach.

but, apparently the 'odd' approach works, and has allowed me to tease out and critically analyse some pretty tricky theoretical material.

other than this, the main drive is to use this part of the year, replete with housemates partying and/or staying up all night watching dvds while they have time off, to create the functional bits, like the bibliography etc.

ho hum.

this is not news.

i don't care if george gave her a rimjob for christmas, this is not news.

Sunday, December 26, 2004

dear diary

it has been a week since my last entry. apologies.

back to work on the thesis either today or tomorrow. have to rewrite the conclusion/intro, and rearrange the structure to suit better read-ability.

yay.

thank god i have a new copy of 'knights of the old republic' to distract me when appropriate.

Sunday, December 19, 2004

ah, the hilarity

was yarning with one of the chefs after work last night. you know, it never ceases to amaze me what a foul mouthed bunch of fuckers those guys really are.

too much time in extreme heat (38 degrees outside and 50 in the kitchen yesterday), too much time watching unobtainable women walk past the kitchen, and too much sensory overload.

anyhow. apparently the head chef wants to name his first cookbook "shit food, for cunts".

Friday, December 17, 2004

.......

now, this is hardly the time to say 'i told you so', but i've always though putting burley in the water to draw in sharks, then dangling a cage with a bit of human meat in it was going to end in tears.

there are some scientists thinking that the increase in shark attacks is linked to associative behaviour by great whites.

but its a good tourist dollar, right?

Thursday, December 16, 2004

soon. so very soon.

only 9 more days straight of dishpiggery before i can get onto doing nothing but writing thesis again.

thank godo i'm not doing doubles like the chefs. those poor fuckers are looking knackered.

might have to write more on this mutual obligation bruhaha over here next week.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

ooohhh... please save western springs

the place where i saw those clapped out oldies the rolling stones, not to mention my first ever big gig 'dire straits' (i was fifteen and took some sandwiches), also where i saw rem.

so this site is very, very funny.

Monday, December 13, 2004

and sorry sandra

sandra, sorry, you haven't become my favourite stalking horse, but....

you're also wrong on many points.

But the Civil Union Bill saw MPs under huge pressure to toe the party line, particularly in the Labour Party, and under huge pressure from lobby groups and members of the public. The vast majority of submissions were against the bill, but that, in the end, counted for little
yeah, i believe that the 'huge pressure' you're talking about is from members of the public. any opposition to the bill in all likelihood didn't carry enough of an argument to change the mind of a Government determined to expand rights, not just to social engineer.

you idiot

jesus ken, you're still harping on this line?

give it up. a. you're wrong on several trival points, like agriculture being first used TEN thousand years ago, in anatolia, but you can be forgiven for that.

b. giving 20 of fisheries to maori interest groups is not anything like aparthied, however much you want to crow on about it.

and as a matter of fact, there was a time when maori were told they had to give their land to pakeha farmers, it was anytime from 1864 to 1964. remember?

Saturday, December 11, 2004

sooooo very tired....

goddamn dishes.... at least i'm eating better than ever.... and a magistrate waived a $A500 fine yesterday because he'd had dinner at la luna once.

now all i need to do is finish working ever day till christmas. doing the late tonight, meaning i finish after midnight, then the early tomorrow, meaning i start at 9am.

ok, enough whinging.

promise to write a PA column next week. this aboriginal hygiene for benefits scheme is so C19th its alarming.

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

god almighty

i forgot what working in kitchens is like.... but, if i work a minimum of 8 hours a day for the next three weeks with no days off i can accumulate enough moola to cover my rent for two months and et stuck into the thesis....

not a bad idea, but will be taking codeine to get my back through it by christmas time.

yay.

oh, and loving the xbox.

Friday, December 03, 2004

constitutional thingo

grey shade has replied to my comments, and i thought i'd do (him?) the courtesy of expanding my ideas.

the rangatiratanga thing is very correct, the maori adherence to the idea has been continual since 1840 because it in effect provides what has also been called 'self-determination' in a wilsonian sense. but, it can also mean 'cultural autonomy', or political sovereignty, or a number of other things dependent on context. i.e. the term has a variety of meanings.

a problem arise therefore around the application of which definition of rangatiratanga. do we go with the 'hard' definition of maori sovereignty, which will inevitability clash with the mainstream version, or do we go with the 'soft' version of social or cultural autonomy, which may be represented by extremists as 'assimilation by another name'?

its a really tricky one.

but, IMHO, you can circumvent this problem by considering the treaty as a basis for partnership, the old mantra that's been doing the rounds in wellington since the 80s. but, you make sure that maori enjoy the ability to contest what is, and is not, up for contestation as being within the parameters of rangatiratanga, i.e. negotiated interests.
the partnership aspect is the willingness of the crown to include maori as maori, and not as merely nzl citizens (who are in a liberal democracy always considered to be culturally neutral). by acknowledging maori as culturally distinct, and engaging with them as such (but not making a big deal out of it and screwing it up with publicisation and politicisation), both groups get to maintain their respective dignity.

example? airwaves. maori groups were making a claim for an interest in some frequencies. ignoring the issue of development of radio frequencies after the signing of the treaty (this line of argument is a furphy), the matter at hand is whether maori have a legitimate interest in this resource. or, can and will maori have control (i.e. one translation of rangatiratanga) over this resource?

it doesn't mater whether you agree or not, or what the outcome is, the negotiation and intercultural engagement is the key.

and, once again IMHO, that's what a constitutional arrangement needs to reflect, the ability of maori to make demands and be knocked back or accepted on the merits of each individual case.

dammit, janet,

the road to surfdom has a good piece criticising that one-eyed slapper janet albrechtson.

good to see, how in the hell she keeps her job with the bullshit she writes is utterly beyond me.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

damn hippies...

now, i know every blogger in the world is going to link to this story, but damn....

why in the hell is it always sunflowers when freaks do things? why not dizzie lizzies or geraniums?

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

dunno.

an interesting post from the Grey Shade, but i think he'll find this type of talk off the agenda when the time somes to debate the constitution.

at the NZPSA conference i attended the other week, there were very clear calls for 'The Treaty' to be specifically excluded from this type of debate, and after reading shade's dramatic over analysis of the matter i can see why.

the thing is, the treaty is all about the establishment of a relation between the two parties, and not a basis for a 'modern' legal relationship. trying to bind the treaty with a formal framework runs the risk of an endless stream of litigation filtered through weird 'cultural relativity' arguments and is very, very likely to become embroiled in controversy.

the line i tried to push at the conference was one forwarded by various contemporary authors who would rather interpret the relation as one between societies, and not lawyers, thereby freeing the treaty relationship up and letting it remain slightly aloof.