Piracy on the High Stones

Part of me is disappointed that the rumours saying Disney is dropping Keef from Pirates of the Caribbean 4: Is This Thing Still Going? following the drug-taking "revalations" contained in his memoir are untrue, because it would be an awesome rant.

I'm also disappointed because it would mean I don't have to turn up to the Auckland premier in costume like I did for Pirates 3, nursing a beer and sitting on a full bladder waiting to toast Keef. Aaah well, it's a small price to pay for seeing God on film. And I DO look cute in that pirate costume.

Steal a brain while you're at it

Dear NZ Media:

I know times are tough at the moment so I sorta applaud you for not giving ANY attention whatsoever to Stolen Everythings Club's appallingly bad taste "We belong to the Stolen Generation" tee which was pulled from the latest collection once somebody had a coffee and remembered that the term "Stolen Generation" already refers to something.

Something like thousands of Aboriginal children being removed to white-run orphanages for decades. [At the end of 2008, New South Wales were removing more Aboriginal children from their homes than during the "Stolen" period - but thats another rant.]

Ok, I lie, I don't applaud you at all. I sigh at your fail. I don't bother to sigh at Stolen Girlfriends fail because they fail simply on principle and I can't sigh all the time.

Part of me was initially surprised that Stolen Everything stopped at "Welcome to Nowhere", before I realised they were far too hip to have heard Neil Young's "Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere", so the quote remained safe. For now. If you see it next season, you know where they stole it from. Not that they'd care.

One Herald blogger noticed the blunder, labelling the slogan as the worst of NZFW. "No Stolen Girlfriends Club sales expectations for this T-shirt over the Ditch then" said Janetta Mackay. Hilariously, the same Janetta Mackay said in her revue of the collection "No doubt cult followers will be lining up for the T-shirt reading 'I belong to the Stolen generation'."

It was bad enough when they decided to simply put a well known song lyric on a tee in block print and call it "fashion designing" (WHY can't I find a pic of the "We Don't Need No Education" tee? Are Stolen Everythings as embarassed of it as they should rightly be?) but to be god damned DUMB enough to put out a tee for rich white Remuera indie kids linking them to the Stolen Generations is flabbergasting.

FAIL:

Love, Pepper

Alexander McQueen no angel... Hells Angel, that is

Hells Angels sue Alexander McQueen over winged death head trademark

Nice one, A McQ. Just completely rip off a highly recognisable logo which belongs to one of the scariest and staunchest organisations in the world - the Hells Angels. You've seen Gimme Shelter, you know what they'll do to anyone who they feel threatened by.

Not only is it a dumb idea, it's the laziest of "fashion designing". ALMOST as lazy as Stolen Everythings Club's horrific "We Don't Need No Education" tee (which I can't find a photo of, strangely).

Dear Alexander McQueen (and, for that matter, Stolen Girlfriends Club) - please do better. Love, Pepper.

The Hells Angels logo:

Some of the designs:

Gonna get me a new job... Maybe Head of the Defence Technology Agency?

So the NZ Defence Force have a job going as the Head of the Defence Technology Agency, since the last guy lied like a loungeroom lizard about his qualifications and experience - and neither the recruitment company or the security checks for clearance found him out.

Defence is blaming Momentum Consulting, who in turn are blaming Defence. Defence say that basic reference checks are not part of their security clearing; Momentum say the Defence department "verbally agreed" to undertake basic reference checks themselves despite Momentum's contract with the government specifically stipulating that Momentum was required to do the checks.

There are many instances in which the blame game is played, however this isn't one of them. Both Defence and Momentum failed HARD. Momentum should have sticked by the contract and their usual best practice in phoning at least one of the guy's references. The Security Intelligence Service claims that reference checks aren't part of their security vetting process, which is a problem in itself, however even if they didn't contact his listed referees there is something seriously wrong with the vetting process if it didn't turn up any evidence whatsoever of exaggerated claims.

Hmmm, all this has got me thinking maybe I should apply for the vacant posish. After all, I was in the Gold Medal winning 1998 Winter Olympics Canadian Curling Team, fought in the Crimean war, invented Google Earth and have a Doctorate in Quantum Mechanics.

Hobbit Hysteria

It is 10am and the following stories have already appeared TODAY on just the Herald.co.nz and Stuff.co.nz websites regarding the Hobbit:

Death threats fly over Hobbit

Sparks fly in 'Hobbit law' debate

Editorial: Price to keep Hobbit in NZ is extortionate

Hobbit deal details under wraps

Film promo funding questioned

Hobbit deal saves a way of life

Politicians urge Hobbit producers to talk to union

Qtowners happy with Hobbit news

Law change a step backwards for film workers

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in the story... but not that much. So many words to say so little! The Hobbit will be filmed in NZ, Key gave them tax breaks and money and stuff, employment law is going to be changed and people are happy/unhappy. Yawn.

I think I'm going to be sick - not compared to Gulf Coast residents though.

"BP dispersants 'causing sickness'"

As if the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster didn't make me sick enough, people are now being severely poisoned by the toxic, illegal dispersants BP has "admitted" spraying over the spill area.

"The dispersants are being added to the water and are causing chemical compounds to become water soluble, which is then given off into the air, so it is coming down as rain, in addition to being in the water and beaches of these areas of the Gulf".

One woman reported a plane spraying dispersant over her house - "fine mist covered everything, and it smelled like pool chemicals. Noah [her asthmatic son] is waking up unable to breath, and my husband has head and chest congestion and burning eyes".

Others who came into contact with the dispersed oil reported vomiting and peeing brown, bloody mucus-filled diarrhea, coughing up "white foam with spots of brown in it", bleeding private parts and ears, burning eyes, sore throats, headaches, coughing... "toxified people who have been chemically poisoned".

This literally makes me feel ill. As if the spill and BP's response weren't sickening enough, as if poisoning the water and removing people's livlihoods wasn't enough, they have started directly killing people. Who will be held responsible? What will their punishment be? How long will BP be allowed to continue given their hideous disreguard for human life and the environment? My guesses - no one, nothing, and indefinitely. Christ what a mess.

Sacrebleu!

So much of France has been forcibly shut down over the past couple of weeks by massive strikes over the proposed raising of the retirement age from 60 to 62, or so one would think by the reportage of the NZ media.

As I've complained about before, the press here in Aotearoa tend to talk about strikes in terms of the disruption they cause and the emotive rhetoric of the strike leaders - only giving the briefest description of the overall issue/s which are disputed.

In the case of the French strikes as with others, this lack of specificity paints the strikers as overreactive whiners and gives them little chance of gaining public support.

Oh no, you have to wait 'till you're 62 to retire now? Poor diddums! Those damned Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys, they'll agitate over anything. Remember the riots in 2005?

However, if you look past the headlines, you'll find the changes are to raise the minimum retirement age to 62, and to raise the "normal retirement age for public pensions" from 65 to 67. So the problem isn't having to wait 'till you're 62 to retire, it's that you have to wait 'till you're 67 to get your public pension. Now that makes the protest a little more reasonable, doesn't it?

Unfortunately both NZ and international media have made a clear decision in their reporting of the dispute, choosing to focus on the retirement age change rather than that of the pension age. As per always, this slant downgrades the percieved legitimacy of the industrial action. Sigh.

Like Putting a Band-aid on a Broken Leg

Burma (Myanmar) has chosen a new flag to go with it's new name and national anthem.

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar (no longer the Union of Myanmar) has finally implimented changes which were included in the new constitution - which wasn't that new, since it was written in 2007 and won a referendum in 08.

After two years of being too busy making sure Aung San Suu Kyi can't participate in elections (why do they even bother pretending to have elections?) Burma's military junta (or "State Peace and Development Council" as they would prefer to be known) have finally gotten around to making some cosmetic changes in a nation in desperate need of real, meaningful change.

Some real changes were also included in the new constitution, but certainly not for the better - for example, it guarantees the military a quarter of parliamentary seats regardless of elections.

Anyway, the new flag features a yellow stripe representing solidarity; green symbolising peace, tranquility and lush greenery; red for courage and determination; and a white star for the significance of the union of the country. With the exception of the meaning of the white star, the flag could easily have been designed as Aung San Suu Kyi's personal standard.

"I don't think it's the tattoo you were after"

"Charges after penis tattooed on mans back"

So there's this dude with a tattoo gun. He has an argument with his mate, but nonetheless proceeds to convince his mate to be the recipient of a home-job tattoo.

Apparently the hapless "victim" believed he was getting some sort of dragon design with a yin-yang symbol. A friend watches the tattoo being done and assures the "victim" that the tattoo looks great.

The tattoo "artist" tells the "victim" to keep it out of the sun and not show anyone. However, as people do, the "victim" went home and showed his flatmate who memorably said "I don't think it's the tattoo you were after". Unsurprising as the man had a 40cm penis with a "misspelled slogan implying the man is gay" tattooed across his back.

With regards to the story, the idiot deserves all he got (which is a $2000 removal bill). How could anyone be stupid enough to trust someone they'd just had a fight with to tattoo their back?

With regards to the media, where the fuck are my pics? They don't even say what the mispelled slogan was. FAIL.

Credit where Credit is Due

Ok, the bodysuit in the front seriously rocks. If more aliens were dressed like this, I'd watch more sci-fi. Shame about the monstrosity to the right though.

Thanks Alpana and Neeraj - India Fashion Week looks mad! Sure puts this year's fizzler of a NZ Fashion Week in it's place, sadly.

Selling the Farm(s)

"Natural Dairy bid still best offer - receiver"

So a huge Chinese company wants to buy a bunch of kiwi farms which are in receivership. An awful lot of people have come out of the woodwork decrying the sale of our homeland; Natural Dairy NZ (the Chinese-owned company) placed ads in the paper trying to convince kiwis it's a good idea; John Key warned that disallowing foreign ownership of dairy farms would force farmers off their farms and erode land values. Basically, a lot of people have been saying a lot of things.

I come down on the don't sell side of the debate and here's why. Natural Dairy wants to buy the farms from the receivers. For some reason, they weren't profitable enough to repay debts and make money, but Natural Dairy doesn't mind because it's got lots of money to spend to make them profitable ($1.5 billion already earmarked). As with any acquisition, Natural Dairy are taking a bet that the outlay they have to make in buying and operating the farms will be repaid by the income from the farms - and there's no reason why this isn't a pretty safe bet. The price of cheese and butter if nothing else should make it clear that dairy farming is an increasingly profitable business.

Once Natural Dairy have made the farms profitable again, they'll be worth more. So NZ would have to pay more than it was paid should we want to buy the land back. Given how small the likelihood is of a NZ company (or the government) having the money to buy them back off China, we are faced with a decision now which cannot be reversed. I don't think I'm being extreme or hysterical when I contend that once these farms are sold, NZ will never get them back. Not until the zombie apocalypse renders land titles useless, anyway.

I don't give a rats ass that the company is Chinese - I'd have as much of a problem with an Australian or a Brazilian or a Canadian or a Russian or a German company buying 0.5% of the dairy land in New Zealand - a statistic which, bizarrely, Natural Dairy bandies about as if it was small. Half a percent may not sound big, but 0.5% of New Zealand's population is still 22,000 people. Half a percent adds up pretty damned quickly.

Perhaps the communists were right. Perhaps we shouldn't trust individual people and private companies with the management of... everything. Why did these farms fail? Dairy prices are high and rising. Somewhere along the way someone in the controlling company started making bad decisions and what should have been liquid money wasn't enough to pay the bills. Now we have a widely dispersed collection of farms around the country which nobody in NZ has enough to buy - especially if they're bidding against China.

Natural Dairy has deep pockets and, since China IS communist, isn't a private company in the way we think of such entities. They have specifically outlined medium term plans to acquire more farms all over NZ. The most I can find out about Natural Dairy is that they are "backed by reputable large scale investors, primarily from Asia". They are currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and one of the 3 NZ Directors of the project, May Yan Wang, had charges brought against her by the Companies Office relating to the management of a group of companies which collapsed into liquidation in 2008. Sigh. Not a great way to put your best foot forward.

What happens will happen, and I've never harboured any illusions of owning property in NZ. Perhaps a plot of land out by East Cape when I'm old at most. What does it really matter to me? I don't want kids anyway, so I suppose I shouldn't care whether or not they'd be able to own a dairy farm if they so wished.

Lowest Common De-Dumb-Inator

As previously reported, C4 - now FOUR - is going "more mainstream". You can say that again! Predictable, safe, boring as fuck.

How much reality can one nation take? This much and more, apparently:
1. America's Next Top Model
2. Models of the Runway
3. The Biggest Loser
4. Top Chef
5. Top Chef: Just Desserts

So, to summarise your obsessions - pretty people, pretty people, fat people trying to become pretty people, cooking and cooking desserts.

You also really like cartoons:
1. The Simpsons
2. American Dad
3. The Cleveland Show
4. Bob's Burgers
5. Neighbours from Hell
6. Futurama
7. South Park

Ok, I actually do really like cartoons so I'm glad FOUR's "growing up" has, counter-intuitively, involved two new cartoons. A little digging, however, reveals that Bob's Burgers was made as a replacement for my favourite TV show of all time, King of the Hill. Bob, you're on my hit list. I'd start double-checking your meat deliveries, boy.

You have terrible taste in comedy, did you know that? You love nothing better than to sit down to mind-numbingly awful american trash like:
1. Community (about some boring people going to community college)
2. Love Bites
3. How I Met Your Mother (Wow, Neil Patrick Harris wears a suit and acts like a misogynist. Hilarity!)
4. 30 Rock (I'm sorry, it's just not funny)
5. Friends With Benefits
6. Mixed Signals
7. Perfect Couples
8. Outsourced
9. The Office (not the good one, of course)
10. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
11. The Jono Project
12. Parks and Recreation (for some reason, this manages to tickle my funny bone. Amy Poehler just gets it right somehow)

In summary, you find nothing funnier than 30-somethings playing 20-somethings and having relationship dramas. Prime has just started replaying Home Improvement - switch over to see all the familiar situational setups, moral teachings and sanctimonious advice before they got recycled and updated with email and cell phones and Barack Obama references to bring you most of the above shows.

You're interest in medicos and cops seems to be waning, as you only want the following:
1. Covert Affairs
2. Mercy
3. The Good Guys

Only one medical drama, and only two cop dramas? What gives? Oh, I see, TV3 are trying to position themselves as "the cop drama channel" (with 14 cop shows scheduled for next year) and are only leaving meagre pickings for FOUR. Boo hoo, I need to see more murdered people! It's so uplifting!

Oh I see, so to beef up the crime drama stats you're going to give some ex-cop-now-in-ridiculous-situation shows a go too, since everyone liked Life on Mars so much. Or something.
1. The Gates (Small town cop runs up against vampires, werewolves et al)
2. The Cape (Supposedly dead ex-cop dresses up like a superhero)
3. The The (cop, ex-cop and ghost of ex-cops-dead-ex-cop-wife fight the scourge of internet movie piracy, and learn a little something along the way)

Ok, so I made that last one up on the spot. And it still sounds better than either The Gates or The Cape, dontcha think?

Then you have 90210, since the 90's was so awesome, Skins, since the 2000's were so awesome, and Misfits, since too much TV makes sense these days.

Well, congratulations FOUR. I can't say you've gone more mainstream because you already were the white lines in the middle of the road, but you sure have managed to offer me nothing I want to watch but cartoons. Remind me what's changed?

Oh (90 Day) Law-die!

"15,000 rally against workplace changes"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10681884

It seems strange that so many people I talk to about this issue seem to not get why unions, workers and anyone with a heart feel so strongly against the Government's proposed workplace changes. As per usual, the media has failed to put across the core facts of the issue, instead focusing on the emotive protests and snappy press releases.

In case you've had your head under a rock, the changes are:
- Extending the 90-day "trial period" (during which an employee can be dismissed without explanation)
- Allowing employers to demand a medical certificate for one day's absence
- Requiring unions to get permission before entering workplace (I'd love to know more about what EXACTLY this means - are union representatives physically disallowed from coming onto company premises without permission? And, if so, how is that any different to our Trespassing laws?)
- Allowing workers to trade one week's holiday for a cash payment.

Last things first, that's fine with me. Taking cash rather than a holiday is a great choice to have available - as long as it IS a choice.

"Union" is such a dirty word in NZ that I wouldn't join a union for fear of rocking the boat with my employer, so I don't much care about the union rule. Certain industries need unions - teachers, medical professionals, laborers, fast food workers, miners etc - but not all of them, not by a long shot. Industries dominated by large employers, such as those mentioned above, need a union. But not me - I'm fine. So, sorry unionists, but I can't say I care terribly much about this one either.

Needing a medical certificate for even a single day's absence is a bit bloody rough though guys. I'm about to change doctors because I found one near my house which only charges $15 per appointment for registered patients, a big improvement on the $40-45 fee I have always encountered and assumed was standard. A quick survey of 4 of my workmates shows they pay $40-60 when visiting their own doctors. Not only is it unfair to ask a sick person who only needs a single day off - someone with the flu or a stomach virus or a minor injury - to get themselves to the doctor, many kiwis simply do not have $40 in disposable cash to drop on a doctors visit with no notice. Also, will this impact the provision for employees to take their sick leave to take care of their partner or dependents? Anyway, it's pretty rough. If an employee is obviously pulling sickies there are already provisions within existing law for them to be reprimanded.

It's the extension of the 90-day trial that is the kick in the teeth as far as I'm concerned. It was a mistake to give this option to any companies, but to extend it to large multi-national corporations is just plain wrong. You see, the problem isn't that I'm worried companies will hire workers then fire them after 89 days to avoid giving them the benefits associated with a full time position (more on the erosion of the full time job in another post). The problem lies within the fact that NO REASON HAS TO BE GIVEN. Perhaps the person with firing power discovers something about the employee, like their sexuality, politics, culture, religious views or family situation, which they dislike. This law gives them the power to fire the trial employee with impunity, opening the door to all sorts of discrimination.

The reason why employees deserve a reason for their dismissal is not to make it difficult to fire unfit workers, it is to ensure that discrimination cannot flourish in our workplaces. Anecdotal evidence from close friends of my family agrees with the prevailing view that NZ employers are unreasonably shackled to unsuitable employees - one business owner I know was taken to court over the firing of an employee whom he caught smoking P on the job. However, the 90 day trial is NOT the answer. It doesn't even really address the problem.

So, ladies and gentlemen, for those who don't see what all the fuss is about, here it is. The most vulnerable people in our society - those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder and those who differ in any way from the norm - are the ones most in need of legal protection. A $40 doctors bill for a day off work can literally break the budget of a large number of families and workers. Being fired without any sort of reason given allows huge scope for discriminatory practices and also leaves the worker telling their next prospective employer that they were fired from their last job but have no idea why - not exactly a compelling selling point for the jobseeker.

Aren't we trying to get MORE people working? Supposedly companies are happier to hire employees knowing they can fire them at will within the first 3 months. I really don't know if I believe that, however. Companies of course want the changes to become law and are DEFINITELY likely to claim to researchers that they hired employees when the system was trialled which they wouldn't have otherwise. But how are we to know?

The Hobbit Debacle

"Filming of The Hobbit moving overseas"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682024

Well congratulations, Actors Equity. You've almost managed to become less popular than Paul Henry. What I don't get is, what on earth made you think you a) spoke for all NZ actors and b) would get any sort of positive outcome from this whole affair?

18 months ago, producers of The Hobbit offered Actors Equity the chance to revise "The Pink Book", the industry standards and guidelines document used as a basis for the treatment of actors in NZ. Apparently, they didn't hear a peep out of the "union"... until we all did. Now, according to the latest release from actors (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682058), they say they are happy for the issue to be decided through updating the Pink Book. Nobody has an answer as to why this didn't happen last year.

From what I've been able to find out - which, despite actually going to an Actors Equity meeting and digging around both local and international websites, is surprisingly little - Actors Equity, by which we are really saying MEAA, Australia's Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, feel that NZ actors are getting screwed out of "residual" payments (basically a share of the back end profits), or something. Originally I heard the dispute was over residual payments for actors who didn't fulfill their contracts (were fired or quit).

Strangely enough, what with the Boycott order being so public, and given that actors are in the public eye by profession, Artists Equity and MEAA have been very secretive about what it is they specifically have an issue with. Perhaps if they had been more open, public opinion wouldn't have been so strongly against them. The latest release simply states they want "basic terms and conditions such as hours, breaks, overtime payments etc".

Whether actors really would be getting screwed over if they signed on to The Hobbit under the currently offered contracts, I don't know. I don't think there are many people who do. What I do know, however, is that an awful lot of people, not just actors but technicians, caterers, laborers, artists and artisans, drivers, hotels - the list goes on - who are now going to miss out on some very valuable work.

Actors who weren't happy with their contract have always been able to say "No thanks", which is what they're effectively doing now. If you don't get the work because you decide the contract isn't good enough for you, or if you don't get the work because the production is no longer being made in NZ, you're in the same position - not working.

Given the response of "up to 1500" Wellington technicians, actors etc who marched on an Actors Equity meeting last night as well as the strongly worded online shit-storms which have cluttered comments sections on articles relating to the issue, it's pretty clear that everyone else involved in the Hobbit besides actors would much rather have the choice whether to accept contracts or not.

Sigh. What a mess. What a pathetic, petty, childish, confusing, needless mess. Thank god I'm not an actor.

However, this blog is called Media Lashes and the NZ media definitely deserve a taste of the old cat-o-nine-tails for their dismal reporting on the issue. Sure, the fluffy stuff - the increasingly nasty back-and-forth media releases, the protests, the threats, the endless comment - fills up the column inches real easy like. But, as has happened with teachers, junior doctors, radiographers etc, information on the ACTUAL point or points of contention is sorely lacking.

Intentional or not, unions are consistently portrayed as money grubbing shit stirrers - and a big part of that is due to the actual requests and offers made by either side taking a backseat to "newsworthy" parts of the story - threats of industrial action, strikes, protests etc. Indeed, to get any sort of attention a union pretty much HAS to threaten a strike. Then, as the public isn't informed what the actual problem/s are, the union looks overreactive, greedy and bullying.

I understand that often the parties try to keep negotiation specifics under their hats, but as journalists it is your JOB to look beyond the media releases and find out what is really going on. And whenever you get those specifics, they should be a major part of the story. In order to present the issue in an unbiased manner, journalists need to dig deeper and get as close to the facts as possible - and present those facts to the reader. Like what the situation is, what the demands are, what the offers are, what the points of contention are and what the likely outcome will be, given historical precedent and the current context. PLEASE?

"Stirring the Pot"

Once again the media is discussing marijuana law reform in New Zealand...

Wait, nope, just The Listener. A search of the NZ Herald website for "marijuana law reform" brings up a 5 month old article on a study showing that under-18s who smoke pot are less likely to do well in school - and that's about it. 8 months ago an editorial was published on the subject in the Dominion Post. Why don't we like talking about this, NZ?

Perhaps because nobody is brave enough to stick their hand up and say "I want the pot laws to change" as this would probably be considered as good as an admission of smoking the stuff. Ergo, anyone who DOES poke their head out of the sand is dismissed as a lazy stoner, only interested in making procurement easier for themselves and their lazy stoner mates.

Perhaps it is because the entire media industry is permeated by the stuff. I once worked with a photographer who was known within the industry as Stoner Simon (name changed). Another time at a photo shoot, I was sent to procure Stoner Simon, the makeup artist and the stylist a bag of the green stuff each. Smoking pot is most definitely not uncommon, not analogous to a lack of success or ambition, and not limited to any group or groups.

There are several points to consider here. Number one - cannabis law reform isn't about stoners, it's about New Zealand. New Zealand is so good at growing cannabis that it is LITERALLY a weed. With international Medical Marijuana laws relaxing in fits and starts, a lucrative market exists for cannabis and hemp products. Of course pot smokers feel more strongly about the reform of NZ's outdated drugs laws - everyone else can just ignore the issue with impunity. But never forget that prohibition is an unmitigated failure - it has rarely ever taken more than a day for me to find a new supply if "my guy" has run out. While it would be very handy to no longer be a criminal, the illegality of the substance is no barrier to procurement.

Of course, decriminalisation of cannabis would mean an awful lot less work for NZ police. Funnily enough however, international experience has seen more smokers in jail in a decriminalised environment - for unpaid fines. So perhaps decriminalisation isn't the answer. After all, growers and dealers would still be criminals.

Dealers - now here we come to the major problem with cannabis prohibition. YES cannabis is a gateway drug - because it introduces the user to the practice of buying illegal drugs, and it introduces the user to the people who can supply them with drugs other than marijuana. Once a person buys pot, all of a sudden the purchase of illegal drugs seems like no big deal. Alcohol would be a gateway drug too, if you had to buy it illegally, because again one would enter the world of the illicit drug trade. The key to vastly reducing the impact of cannabis as a gateway drug is cutting out the dealers.

I would dearly love to see New Zealand continue it's historically progressive path by legalisation and taxation of marijuana, but I don't expect to see it happen. Partly because the NZ media is too shit scared to say "we smoke too and we turned out fine!", instead presenting the issue as unimportant and abstract. Party because we have gutless politicians who look no further than the next election. And partly because everyone seems real happy to be lied to.

Welcome to Media Lashes!

Right. That's it. I'm sick to fucking DEATH of the whitewash. The pussyfooting around. The boring as beige buttons representatives of my generation, terrified of showing an original thought or an unpalatable opinion. So, Pepper, whatcha gonna do about it?

The answer is... this. It's not much, but by god I need to do something.

"Major changes for TV3 - C4 to go mainstream"

When I first saw this article with it's picture of cardboard cutout Shannon Ryan, I assumed they had to be taking the piss. How the hell could C4 get any more mainstream? The bravest thing C4 has ever done was... nope, didn't think so, can't find anything. Sure it got in trouble way back in '05 for screening Popetown but it was super lame anyway so who gave a shit?

With any luck the airways will be slightly less clogged after the changearound. Complete and utter tripe like Rock of Love, Daisy of Love, Rock of Love Charm School (IS there a lower common denominator than the "Rock of Love" franchise?) and Tough Love will definitely not be missed. Unfortunately, it's the gleefully youth-oriented programming - Animation Stations, Bogan Family Films, even Skins - which provided the most compelling drawcard for C4.

New Zealand doesn't need C4 to go more "mainstream" - it needs it to put up or shut up. To start being bold, brave and innovative or make way for a station which can.