I'm sure due to the careers that John Key has had that his son has not seen him as much as he might like. I'm sure that's true for many families out there, especially the ones that are pulling down more than one job trying to scrape by. I'm sure there were also advantages of growing up in that household, including going to the best schools, living in a mansion in a good area, holidaying at the families bach in Hawaii, and being able to attend baseball games overseas. That was me being bitchy, I thought I should point that out.
Key said that he will attend his sons baseball game in America and will not go to the funeral of the soldiers killed in action because his son has made so many sacrifices. I can't think of a more inappropriate or insensitive remark to make under the circumstances.
It's not like we have a huge contingent stationed out in Afghanistan, and it's not like we've had huge loses. So when there is a loss it resonates. We know that because in 2010 Key left a trade mission to come back to NZ to attend the funeral of three fallen soldiers. Key put aside business dealings because it was the right thing to do.
Those soldiers are employed by this country and as part of their job description gave up their lives; it is only fitting that Key, as leader of this country, showed up to show his respects and to represent us at those funerals. His political decisions put those two soldiers in a situation where they gave up their lives for this country, at the very least he could pay them and their families the respect of being there at the end.
Yes, missing out on a child's sporting event, even an important sporting event, is hard for any parent. But there is a certain degree of responsibility and weight to the position he holds. He interrupted a business trip under the same circumstances, but wont interrupt a personal one. That's not only a case of a glaring lack of priorities on his part, but is also, in my opinion, a sad indictment of his character.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Family First, Dictionaries Never
Family First, and First Family, and Family Family First First have launched a website to protect the current definition of marriage. The current definition, according to Collins dictionary:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/marriage
Websters define it as:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
So basically dictionaries aren't being 'attacked by twink' and the definition is in no way being changed, because unless you're taking a solely fundo-Christian Western view of marriage in this time and place, the definition of marriage for human beings have included a multiple of different arrangements, including more than two people and sometimes even same sex. All Family First have succeeded in doing is showing that the only book they've picked up is the Bible (selective reading only) and are completely ignorant of human history.
They say the state didn't invent marriage. That's because they think their god did and now want to use legislation to push their religious agenda. Last time I look I wasn't living in a religious fundamentalist state, and quite frankly I would like to continue this - that's one tradition I'm quite keen on.They also say that the state doesn't have authority to reinvent...what? The law? Because I'm pretty sure it does, unless they believe laws can only come down on stone tablets.
McCoskrie also trots out again the old tired slippery slope argument: if we allow same-sex marriage we'll have to allow everything. Yes, because every time we modify a law even a teensy bit society goes on a bender of excess and collapses. Okay, lets ban marriage altogether then and shut that door closed since it's a gateway drug to social depravity.
“Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, and it has always been associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the role and purpose of marriage.”
Family First have essentially just said that every marriage between people where one or more are infertile, where a decision has been made to not have kids, those marriage have no purpose since procreation will not happen. Has anyone also sat them down and explained that there are a number of people on the planet today that were born outside of marriage, or that gay couples can raise children? Some men and women can't produce children, and some men and women shouldn't. Maybe they could have a test before getting a wedding license; you must be this fertile to marry. At least their wedding vows must be short: I'm marrying you to have kids - kiss the bride!
“We would encourage politicians to spend their valuable time focussing on important issues such as family poverty, negotiating our way through the world recession, child abuse, and getting people employed – rather than taking to the dictionary with a twink bottle,” says Mr McCoskrie.
I would encourage religious fanatics to spend their valuable time focussing on important issues such as screaming their message from street corners, arm waving and pointing dramatically, printing off scripture and shoving it in to the hands of startled passersby and practising penmanship for The End is Near signs - rather than wasting everyone's times with coming up with arguements that are little more than 'I think about gay people constantly, am completely obsessed, and they make my pants feel funny'.
ENDS
noun
- the state or relationship of living together in a legal partnership
-
- the legal union or contract made by two people to live together
- (as modifier) ⇒
marriage licence
,marriage certificate
- the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding
- a close or intimate union, relationship, etc ⇒
a marriage of ideas
- (in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit
Websters define it as:
1
a (1) :
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or
wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
So basically dictionaries aren't being 'attacked by twink' and the definition is in no way being changed, because unless you're taking a solely fundo-Christian Western view of marriage in this time and place, the definition of marriage for human beings have included a multiple of different arrangements, including more than two people and sometimes even same sex. All Family First have succeeded in doing is showing that the only book they've picked up is the Bible (selective reading only) and are completely ignorant of human history.
They say the state didn't invent marriage. That's because they think their god did and now want to use legislation to push their religious agenda. Last time I look I wasn't living in a religious fundamentalist state, and quite frankly I would like to continue this - that's one tradition I'm quite keen on.They also say that the state doesn't have authority to reinvent...what? The law? Because I'm pretty sure it does, unless they believe laws can only come down on stone tablets.
McCoskrie also trots out again the old tired slippery slope argument: if we allow same-sex marriage we'll have to allow everything. Yes, because every time we modify a law even a teensy bit society goes on a bender of excess and collapses. Okay, lets ban marriage altogether then and shut that door closed since it's a gateway drug to social depravity.
“Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, and it has always been associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the role and purpose of marriage.”
Family First have essentially just said that every marriage between people where one or more are infertile, where a decision has been made to not have kids, those marriage have no purpose since procreation will not happen. Has anyone also sat them down and explained that there are a number of people on the planet today that were born outside of marriage, or that gay couples can raise children? Some men and women can't produce children, and some men and women shouldn't. Maybe they could have a test before getting a wedding license; you must be this fertile to marry. At least their wedding vows must be short: I'm marrying you to have kids - kiss the bride!
“We would encourage politicians to spend their valuable time focussing on important issues such as family poverty, negotiating our way through the world recession, child abuse, and getting people employed – rather than taking to the dictionary with a twink bottle,” says Mr McCoskrie.
I would encourage religious fanatics to spend their valuable time focussing on important issues such as screaming their message from street corners, arm waving and pointing dramatically, printing off scripture and shoving it in to the hands of startled passersby and practising penmanship for The End is Near signs - rather than wasting everyone's times with coming up with arguements that are little more than 'I think about gay people constantly, am completely obsessed, and they make my pants feel funny'.
ENDS
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
May the Fourth Estate Be With You
The state of our media in New Zealand gets quite a pasting within some areas, and for good reason because it's a little bit shit. It tells us what is happening (if there are attention grabbing pictures or video to accompany it), with the mandatory explosions, people sobbing, gorillas cuddling kittens etc, but fails to give us the requisite context and background to make any real sense of why it's happening. Dammit, sometimes I want to know why the gorilla is cuddling Mr Boots, and how many kittens they went through to get that simply adorable shot.
There's no surprises why this is happened. Journalism is business. It's about revenue generation in a time where getting peoples attention is harder and harder. While you're reading this for free you could instead have nipped out and bought a newspaper. My god, you killed print journalism. You bastard.
Before railing against the journalists though don't forget they're required to churn out x number of stories a day, and when you've got those restraints around you, and you're under resourced because regional stations have been shut down and the fax machine was traded in for wine, you just don't have the luxury of time to be reflective. There are more people working in public relations than journalism, and if someone hands over pre-prepared pr release it must be pretty tempting to just slip it into the pile, unless you want to speed dial the requisite 'experts' who come up with wildly differing accounts, no narrative is given, and bang, you've got a story and a public that is not necessarily any the wiser.
Another point is that unless you're Paul's Henry and Holmes, or were the Mother of Our Nation (cue: Angel's singing) the pay scale for ground floor journalists are pathetic. We're talking 30k pathetic1. We shouldn't berate them, we should sponsor them.
One of the reasons that people were so upset about the death of publicly funded TVNZ 7 was because it could mean news where the focus could be on delivering just that, instead of profit. Less sensationalist murder trials and celebrity gossip and more depth and analysis. Treating the viewer as if they were an adult instead of an attention deficit deprived child who needs items that are there to appeal to emotions instead of intellect. Questioning politicians about their policies and their reasons for them, instead of most of our political news being dedicated to scandals and whether they're Nice People (sometimes I wonder how interested some of our political commentators are in politics. Not very, or they think we're not, is the conclusion I've come to).
The private model where news is sponsored by business and where it's dumbed down so far that sports, human interest, weather and ads are the sheer bulk of the hour, is not doing us any favours. If we're not informed (and we're not) democracy is just a popularity contest where we get to select our three-year mini dictator of choice.
The Fourth Estate has become the 3 1/4 Housing Development.
1. http://www.careers.govt.nz/default.aspx?id0=60103&id1=j32331
2. There is good media to be found: Backbenchers, Media 7, Native Affairs...but it's not exactly mainstream.
There's no surprises why this is happened. Journalism is business. It's about revenue generation in a time where getting peoples attention is harder and harder. While you're reading this for free you could instead have nipped out and bought a newspaper. My god, you killed print journalism. You bastard.
Before railing against the journalists though don't forget they're required to churn out x number of stories a day, and when you've got those restraints around you, and you're under resourced because regional stations have been shut down and the fax machine was traded in for wine, you just don't have the luxury of time to be reflective. There are more people working in public relations than journalism, and if someone hands over pre-prepared pr release it must be pretty tempting to just slip it into the pile, unless you want to speed dial the requisite 'experts' who come up with wildly differing accounts, no narrative is given, and bang, you've got a story and a public that is not necessarily any the wiser.
Another point is that unless you're Paul's Henry and Holmes, or were the Mother of Our Nation (cue: Angel's singing) the pay scale for ground floor journalists are pathetic. We're talking 30k pathetic1. We shouldn't berate them, we should sponsor them.
One of the reasons that people were so upset about the death of publicly funded TVNZ 7 was because it could mean news where the focus could be on delivering just that, instead of profit. Less sensationalist murder trials and celebrity gossip and more depth and analysis. Treating the viewer as if they were an adult instead of an attention deficit deprived child who needs items that are there to appeal to emotions instead of intellect. Questioning politicians about their policies and their reasons for them, instead of most of our political news being dedicated to scandals and whether they're Nice People (sometimes I wonder how interested some of our political commentators are in politics. Not very, or they think we're not, is the conclusion I've come to).
The private model where news is sponsored by business and where it's dumbed down so far that sports, human interest, weather and ads are the sheer bulk of the hour, is not doing us any favours. If we're not informed (and we're not) democracy is just a popularity contest where we get to select our three-year mini dictator of choice.
The Fourth Estate has become the 3 1/4 Housing Development.
1. http://www.careers.govt.nz/default.aspx?id0=60103&id1=j32331
2. There is good media to be found: Backbenchers, Media 7, Native Affairs...but it's not exactly mainstream.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Sir Bob Jones: I don't particularly care for your sort
As a boy I was taken for my annual trip to view the working class at the A&P show in Upper Hutt. Mama feigned an interest in the peasants parading around and insisted I do likewise, she deeming this "educational". “Look young Sir Bob,” she’d say. “Look at the quaint lower classes wearing man made synthetics and under enunciating their vowels. If you don’t eat your vegetables you’ll become one of these sad creatures.” After that I never refused an offering of brussel spouts again.
But my attention was focused longingly on the out-of-bounds carnival clamour at the park end, though my mother dismissed it as being for people of low-breeding. Instead we stood around looking at cows and horses while the sounds of the carnival and the laughter of children played out in the background. I think that day was behind the start of my hatred for the poor, and Ferris wheels.
One year, I escaped and ventured into this forbidden wonderland of wickedness. There were dodgems, rides and candyfloss vendors but I was drawn to the freak shows, because even as I child I loved to point and laugh at those different to myself. Today they're considered tasteless, but more pertinent, the freaks I saw are now the norm. Arguably this would then mean that they were no longer freaks, but I do love a good put down, and I refuse to move with the times for I am old and rich and therefore, like all other things, the times should move for me.
The two absolute "musts" in those yesteryear freak shows were the fat lady and the tattooed man. I paid my sixpences and gazed awe-struck at a negligee-clad woman who today would be considered almost anorexic, and then at the tattooed man, marvelling at such inane self-abuse. A fat woman and a man with tattoos, how shocking gentle reader. The best sixpences I ever spent, aside from later that day when I paid a homeless man to eat excrement. How my school chums and I did laugh heartily as he retched between his pathetic sobs.
Most fat people are young women. Statistics New Zealand refutes this, but since the other groups are not one in which my eyes wish to survey, this is the group that I will muse on. Truly, is there nothing more abhorrent, revolting, than a filly that has let herself go whereby stallions like myself no longer wish to mount them. A women’s place is to be objectified, and if she is no longer an object, then her purpose no longer exists. Furthermore, these fat women, these mountainous super tankers, might fall on me, on you, on our children, and kill us all. Some might suggest that my mocking is indicative of sociopathic tendencies, but they are mistaken, it is as a public service before someone is killed.
Being rich, and often bored, I hired out a store where I advertised a freak show which had within it a slim woman and an untattooed man. Wasn’t that clever of me, highlighting that I feel not enough women are the weight that I find desirable, and that I don’t like tattoos. Also the girl was both slim and pretty and as a Bulgarian this was amazing since Bulgarian women are ugly (we haven’t been included in international media since the Finland incident, just doing my bit for New Zealand tourism).
Then shrieking feminists came to complain, as they do, which surely is as disgusting as fat, ugly woman, with their short hair and unflattering outfits. I like Chinese women; they’re slim, though those ladies do love their shopping. I can hear those carnival sounds in the background of my mind, taunting me, twisting my heart as my compassion leaks from it, puddling around my ankles, like the tears of that homeless man. Fat women. I wake in a cold sweat. Where was I?
In my day there weren’t very many fatties. Now lots of people are fat, and by people I mean women, though they barely can be considered as such.
But can you imagine a dumber government action than that now proposed in England, namely to criminalise mocking the obese, in line with racial and sexual discrimination laws? Treating fat people with respect and dignity? What’s next, racial minorities? Not on my watch.
These human hippos are self made and ridicule may inspire them to unmake their degrading situation. This is why I hired another empty store (I was again bored, still rich) and am opening the Sir Bob Jones Slimming Academy for Women (No Feminists, Thanks) where I shall judge and mock these blubberous monsters until they get their act together and are once again pleasing to my eyes.
This is why you need us higher classes, to sort you lower class lot out. And do we get any thanks, no, just knighthoods and more money than we could ever spend. You make me as sick as a fat woman should be.
Actual Article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815435
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Ranty Hate Post and Kitten Punching
Because I am a small and petty person, these are the things that annoy me:
People who walk: for the love of all that's holy, if you're sharing a footpath with other people walk to the same side that the cars drive on. If you live in NZ, walk on the left hand side. If you move to America, walk on the right hand side. This cunning scheme has been designed so that you're less likely to walk into me because you're too busy texting to see what's in front of you. Same goes for the stairs. You suck, stop it.
People who are polite: look, it's great that you want to be polite, but not when that politeness is tied in an idea that my gender means that I need to get on the bus first in case I spontaneously burst into my menstrual cycle and faint from prolonged standing on my lady legs, because then are you really being polite?
The rule is that I just made up now: unless someone has a physical condition which means it would be courteous to let them grab a seat before the bus lurches off flinging them around the seats like a pinball, the first person at the bus stop is the first person to get on the bus. You angrily insisting that I get on the bus before you is creepy (and I've had this happen on more than one occasion by men who will only wave on women before them and then shoulder block other men) - I am more than willing to give up going through doors first or getting on a bus first if it means that I get to also be treated equally in other spheres of social life. It's not the act itself, it's the (sometimes unthinking) thought process behind it that's the problem. I have seen men argue that women want it both ways - eh, I can pull out my own seat thanks if it means that I get treated like an adult. (If a boat sinks I'm going to be on the first lifeboat tripping children out of my way - that isn't double standards, that's Darwinian survival.)
People who spoil: we all know what the most important thing in life is, it's television. If someone is a spoiler phobe, and you're aware they don't want to know what's going to happen, for the love of all that's good and beautiful, stop talking! Hint: saying the next episode made you cry, had an unexpected twist, was disappointing...are all spoilers! What, you think the person is so dumb that can't work out what's going to happen from what you've just said? Some people take television seriously, and while obviously I'm not that kind of loony, the next person who spoils me will be killed along with everyone they have ever loved or known. You are the worst person to have walked the earth. How dare you.
People who review 'Girls': so there's a new programme that's come out where the four main characters are all females and it's written from a female viewpoi...and yeah, I'll stop there because the only talking point about this programme has been about what the actresses look like. The treatment of this programme by the media at large has been gross and disturbing. A programme that was supposedly about what women have to say got turned by reviewers into a programme about what women look like, because that's all that matters.
People who think women can't be funny: your mother! What? I don't know. I couldn't come up with a come back. While I'm at it, can we give the rape jokes a rest? It's mostly male comedians, who belong to the group most likely to commit rape and not be directly affected by it, making fun out of rape victims, who are most likely women. That's not edgy, that's just reaffirming the status quo.
People who use the term 'politically correct': it's a classic douchebag move to try and shut down an arguement. Who needs to think when you have a meaningless phrase, amiright? People asking for respect, dignity and self-determination?! Politically correct assholes.
People who think their religion should be legislated for: do you think being gay is an abomination against god and abortion kills babies because cells have souls? Don't have sex with someone of the same gender and don't nip off to an abortion clinic (one may not lead to the other). But when you try to legislate your religious beliefs for wider society, that's a step too far, ie. I don't hate your stupidity, whether you were born stupid or you choose to be stupid, but I hate it when you try to force your stupidity on to others. Keep your stupidity in the bedroom where we don't have to see it.
Kittens: I wanna punch their screwed up tiny purry big-eyed cutesy faces. Pow, right in the whiskers.
People who walk: for the love of all that's holy, if you're sharing a footpath with other people walk to the same side that the cars drive on. If you live in NZ, walk on the left hand side. If you move to America, walk on the right hand side. This cunning scheme has been designed so that you're less likely to walk into me because you're too busy texting to see what's in front of you. Same goes for the stairs. You suck, stop it.
People who are polite: look, it's great that you want to be polite, but not when that politeness is tied in an idea that my gender means that I need to get on the bus first in case I spontaneously burst into my menstrual cycle and faint from prolonged standing on my lady legs, because then are you really being polite?
The rule is that I just made up now: unless someone has a physical condition which means it would be courteous to let them grab a seat before the bus lurches off flinging them around the seats like a pinball, the first person at the bus stop is the first person to get on the bus. You angrily insisting that I get on the bus before you is creepy (and I've had this happen on more than one occasion by men who will only wave on women before them and then shoulder block other men) - I am more than willing to give up going through doors first or getting on a bus first if it means that I get to also be treated equally in other spheres of social life. It's not the act itself, it's the (sometimes unthinking) thought process behind it that's the problem. I have seen men argue that women want it both ways - eh, I can pull out my own seat thanks if it means that I get treated like an adult. (If a boat sinks I'm going to be on the first lifeboat tripping children out of my way - that isn't double standards, that's Darwinian survival.)
People who spoil: we all know what the most important thing in life is, it's television. If someone is a spoiler phobe, and you're aware they don't want to know what's going to happen, for the love of all that's good and beautiful, stop talking! Hint: saying the next episode made you cry, had an unexpected twist, was disappointing...are all spoilers! What, you think the person is so dumb that can't work out what's going to happen from what you've just said? Some people take television seriously, and while obviously I'm not that kind of loony, the next person who spoils me will be killed along with everyone they have ever loved or known. You are the worst person to have walked the earth. How dare you.
People who review 'Girls': so there's a new programme that's come out where the four main characters are all females and it's written from a female viewpoi...and yeah, I'll stop there because the only talking point about this programme has been about what the actresses look like. The treatment of this programme by the media at large has been gross and disturbing. A programme that was supposedly about what women have to say got turned by reviewers into a programme about what women look like, because that's all that matters.
People who think women can't be funny: your mother! What? I don't know. I couldn't come up with a come back. While I'm at it, can we give the rape jokes a rest? It's mostly male comedians, who belong to the group most likely to commit rape and not be directly affected by it, making fun out of rape victims, who are most likely women. That's not edgy, that's just reaffirming the status quo.
People who use the term 'politically correct': it's a classic douchebag move to try and shut down an arguement. Who needs to think when you have a meaningless phrase, amiright? People asking for respect, dignity and self-determination?! Politically correct assholes.
People who think their religion should be legislated for: do you think being gay is an abomination against god and abortion kills babies because cells have souls? Don't have sex with someone of the same gender and don't nip off to an abortion clinic (one may not lead to the other). But when you try to legislate your religious beliefs for wider society, that's a step too far, ie. I don't hate your stupidity, whether you were born stupid or you choose to be stupid, but I hate it when you try to force your stupidity on to others. Keep your stupidity in the bedroom where we don't have to see it.
Kittens: I wanna punch their screwed up tiny purry big-eyed cutesy faces. Pow, right in the whiskers.
Highway Police 10 Road Cops
I have to stop watching local crime reality programmes. If you ever want to make someone into a conservative, feed them a steady diet of these shows. Snarling, belligerent angry people spitting and waving their (middle *gasp*) fingers at police. It's a snapshot of a person at a particular time and moment and it never tells the full story about who they are or might become, but watching their behaviour there and then, a part of me thinks society as a whole would be better off if they were winked out of existence.
Why is this a bad way to think? Because it sees behaviour without context. Dysfunctional behaviour is created through dysfunctional environments. It's easy to wash your hands of someone, harder to deal with the issues that created it in the first place. It's also taking what might be aberrant actions from a small minority and making it seem more prevalent than it is - it's not like routine police work is covered, and watch enough of these shows during the week and you can end up feeling like you live in a very scary place. When you're scared and angry you want to lash out - 'take away their benefits', 'lock 'em away', 'where's my gun', 'I could use a muesli bar right about now' (last one may have been me).
And I sympathise. I want the little grotty bastards to go away as well. But more importantly I want that behaviour not to be exhibited in the first place, which means instead of instinctively lashing out you have to look at the root causes and address them. If you want to train a dog you don't beat them and expect good results. People are the same. What I'm really saying is that we should take these snotty brats down to the local park and throw tennis balls for them to chase until they're too tuckered out to cause any more mischief, the little fluffy scamps. And then we desex them.
/ and lets face it, as soon as there is a camera and an editor on board reality television mostly stops being about reality and becomes instead all about framing and people acting up for a camera because they want their five minutes of fame or because they don't want to be seen popping some foulmouthed urchin in the mouth because they'll lose their job.
Why is this a bad way to think? Because it sees behaviour without context. Dysfunctional behaviour is created through dysfunctional environments. It's easy to wash your hands of someone, harder to deal with the issues that created it in the first place. It's also taking what might be aberrant actions from a small minority and making it seem more prevalent than it is - it's not like routine police work is covered, and watch enough of these shows during the week and you can end up feeling like you live in a very scary place. When you're scared and angry you want to lash out - 'take away their benefits', 'lock 'em away', 'where's my gun', 'I could use a muesli bar right about now' (last one may have been me).
And I sympathise. I want the little grotty bastards to go away as well. But more importantly I want that behaviour not to be exhibited in the first place, which means instead of instinctively lashing out you have to look at the root causes and address them. If you want to train a dog you don't beat them and expect good results. People are the same. What I'm really saying is that we should take these snotty brats down to the local park and throw tennis balls for them to chase until they're too tuckered out to cause any more mischief, the little fluffy scamps. And then we desex them.
/ and lets face it, as soon as there is a camera and an editor on board reality television mostly stops being about reality and becomes instead all about framing and people acting up for a camera because they want their five minutes of fame or because they don't want to be seen popping some foulmouthed urchin in the mouth because they'll lose their job.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
New Zealand: It's not you, it's me. (It's you.)
I love New Zealand. I love that our national colour is black, both slimming and practical. I love that within an hours drive you can get to the beach, a forest, paddocks of masticating cows, a township consisting of a garage and a pub. I love our coffee and our cafes. I love watching tourists trying to find the tree on One Tree Hill. I don't care about rugby but I can name members of the All Blacks and get swept up when we win. I can eat roast lamb with the best of them.
But...I will never have the life that I aspire to if I remain here. The prospect of home ownership is out of my grasp, not if I want something that isn't a leaky damp box next to a railway line. I will never have a dishwasher. Sad violin music started up when I started typing that sentence and rain lashed the window. If that isn't tragic what is gentle reader, what is?
As much as I love this country if I stay I will end up remaining in dead end low paying jobs living in a rented mouldy cold home. However, if I move overseas I could end up in a dead end medium paying job in a mouldy cold home that I can call my own.
I'm a coward at heart and the idea of stepping out of my comfort zone and doing this is not something that I take lightly, or with clean pants. But New Zealand has rapidly become such a country of have and have nots, where opportunities are few, where housing is crippling expensive, that there doesn't seem to be much of a choice in the matter.
I aspire to a dishwasher, I want that dishwasher, and to get that dishwasher I am going to have to leave this country behind and seek dishwasher opportunities elsewhere. I will cover it in fridge magnets of home and I will think of this place fondly.
But...I will never have the life that I aspire to if I remain here. The prospect of home ownership is out of my grasp, not if I want something that isn't a leaky damp box next to a railway line. I will never have a dishwasher. Sad violin music started up when I started typing that sentence and rain lashed the window. If that isn't tragic what is gentle reader, what is?
As much as I love this country if I stay I will end up remaining in dead end low paying jobs living in a rented mouldy cold home. However, if I move overseas I could end up in a dead end medium paying job in a mouldy cold home that I can call my own.
I'm a coward at heart and the idea of stepping out of my comfort zone and doing this is not something that I take lightly, or with clean pants. But New Zealand has rapidly become such a country of have and have nots, where opportunities are few, where housing is crippling expensive, that there doesn't seem to be much of a choice in the matter.
I aspire to a dishwasher, I want that dishwasher, and to get that dishwasher I am going to have to leave this country behind and seek dishwasher opportunities elsewhere. I will cover it in fridge magnets of home and I will think of this place fondly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)