Randomnymity

Seven things

2011-06-07T21:58:00.003+10:00

Yes, it has been a ridiculously long hiatus, but it's high time I got back to this. So. I figure easing myself into it is the right thing to do, and thus, seven things:

Seven things that scare me

1. The fact that 6% (or more--PDF) of men will admit to rape, if you don't call it rape

2. Peak oil, in an oil dependent society

3. Living in a country where leader of the opposition is a climate change denier

4. The fact that my alternative is New Zealand, where the economy is pretty much rooted, and the Prime Minister isn't listening to evidence of what might fix it

5. The enormity of the misery caused by unbridled capitalism in the world

6. The changes in the weather

7. Cockroaches

Seven things I like

1. People committed to social justice and equality (not linking, because I would surely miss someone important)

2. Intelligent, serious, thoughtful conversation

3. Cats

4. Music

5. Exercise

6. Autumn

7. Books

Seven random facts about me

1. I'm a vego partnered with an omni

2. Osaan jonkun verran Suomea

3. I sat next to Tim Finn on a plane, once

4. I loathe and despise carrots

5. I was introduced to feminism and 'Phantom of the Opera' by the same person when I was 9

6. I've made 6 baby quilts

7. I like androgyny

Seven things I want to do before I die

1. See a new world order that places the needs of people above the needs of corporations

2. See the human race make significant steps toward addressing climate change

3. Find and do volunteer work that suits me

4. Trek Macchu Picchu

5. Meet Placebo

6. Learn to crochet

7. Learn to tailor my own clothes

Seven things I'm good at

1. Constructing a written argument

2. Cooking

3. Learning languages

4. Public speaking (though it to this day makes me nervous)

5. Designing and making beaded jewellery

6. Analysing data to create theory

7. Being staff to cats

Seven things I can't do but wish I could

1. Save the world

2. Play the guitar

3. Pee standing up

4. Run an 8 minute mile

5. Attend the weddings of my same-sex-partnered friends

6. Visit the US without having naked naked pictures of me taken at the border

7. Ensure no animal had to live in a shelter

Seven phrases I've been known to use

1. What in the everloving fuck?

2. I am not a librarian.

3. I blame the patriarchy

4. Wow, the implications of that are really interesting

5. From a user experience standpoint, I think we need to...

6. You're a rotten kitty!

7. Herra jestäs!

And now, it's about 7 minutes to bedtime.

Reflections: On bisexuality, and passsing

2009-02-04T23:19:00.002+11:00

I am a mostly-out bisexual woman in a married relationship. If sexuality is a continuum, I probably fall more towards women than men (hear that? That was another closet door shattering), but my opportunities to meet women have been somewhat limited by my male-dominated profession and hobbies in my teens and 20s (during which time I met The Partner). Ironically enough, I am now in a women-dominated workplace (I'll post about what a breath of fresh air that is some other time) and have "feminine" hobbies, so had I not already been partnered, who knows what might have happened. I don't actually care--I am very happily monogamous with The Partner, as he is with me (and yes, he knows all of the above, and he doesn't care either). In the end, sexuality is for me about loving an individual, and the bits that individual happens to come with are largely irrelevant.

In a lot of ways, my marriage protects me from the dangers and oppressions that come with my orientation (for which my personal preferred term is "gender-bender"). For a start, I am in a state-sanctioned union, with all the rights and protections that pertain to that. I never have to answer that awkward question about a boyfriend with some variation on "uh, girlfriend, actually". I wear a ring that marks me as part of one of these societally approved partnerships which bizarrely enough means I get to behave (at least in terms of the longing eyes, or comments on attractiveness I need to stop indulging in) much more according to my preferences, because heteronormativity often blinds people to what is actually happening right in front of them. In many ways, I benefit from the appearance of straightness, even though I am not straight. I pass, and it not only makes many things easier, it actually keeps me safer.

Nonetheless, though, I am not straight. I have had the uncomfortable experience of being "outed" under circumstances not of my choosing. Every piece of anti-gay legislation that gets passed could one day apply to me. I have to self-censor when talking about my attractions in public, particularly when I am not with The Partner. I am certainly not claiming to be as affected by any of these things as my gay friends and loved ones, but they nonetheless affect me.

And then there is the third, weird set of...issues, for want of a better word that I deal with because I am bisexual and hetero-partnered (and each of these things has been raised with me several times, so they seem to be common misconceptions):

The assumption that my bisexuality is not actually real for lack of a visible history, or that it was something I have "grown out of"
The heteronormative assumption that I am straight, and therefore will not be offended by gay jokes or slurs (now, I would be offended by these even if I was straight, but that is a whole 'nother issue)
Being questioned as to whether my bisexuality is meaningful now that I am married, since I won't act on it
Or having it assumed that I will be unfaithful, just because I am bisexual.

Here's the thing: Bisexuality is real, and we bisexuals are just as in control of our sexuality as everyone else. Being bisexual is neither a stepping stone on the way to gayness for all who claim it, not a childish dalliance. Monogamous partnering is a reduction of choice under all circumstances: confining your sexuality to a single person doesn't change the gender or type of person you are attracted to, and being attracted to a wider range of people doesn't mean confining yourself to one person is impossible.

The purpose of this post is certainly not to get into any form of "oppression olympics", nor is it to call out (often loved and respected) the people in my life who have asked me these questions--I understand that my position is unusual. Really, this post is just a descirption of my own postiont, and an explanation about me for anyone looking for it (I don't claim to speak for anyone else). My bisexuality is an integral part of my identity. I benefit dramatically from being lucky enough to be partnered with a man, for sure--but the fact that I pass doesn't change who I am--and nor would I want it to.

Rant: 'Milk' and the closet doors

2009-01-23T00:28:00.007+11:00

Last night I went to see the movie 'Milk', about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to major office in the US, and a significant force in the activism for gay rights. I'm depressed. Don't get me wrong, the movie was awesome, and if the Oscars had anything to do with real merit, Penn should win an Oscar for his performance.

The reason why I am depressed is this: Harvey Milk hoped, in a recording he made in anticipation of his assassination that 'if a bullet should enter [his] brain, let the bullet destroy every closet door...' Well, sure enough, Harvey got shot to death (and the guy who did it got away with it, essentially), but the closet door remains firmly closed.

I live on the other side of the world. I know who Gloria Steinem and Alice Walker and Betty Friedan and Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers and Angela Davis are, though some of the oppressions they fought are not oppressions I face. For fuck's sake, I even know who Camille Paglia is, though I could live without her. And to be fair, I knew roughly who Harvey Milk was, though I knew very little about him--even though the oppression he fought is one I face, to a lesser degree than many of my comrades, to be sure--I pass, making me one of the lucky ones--but I face it nonetheless. Let me be clear, I am not trying to diminish the achievements of any of the civil rights activists I listed, nor I claiming any one of them was a paragon of virtue, but...

Why isn't Harvey Milk's name up there in the pantheon of American civil rights heroes? Because that closet door is made of kevlar. Because sexuality isn't visible, and because there seems to be an insidious sense that it is a choice, and because it is about sex, GLBTQI civil rights just aren't an issue that many people are interested in.

Except they are interested. Just not in a good way. It is still bizarrely acceptable to poke fun at gay people in movies. Obama is seen by so many as ushering a new era of human rights, and being fabulous for gay people, but as Ann at Feministing points out "not-Bush" is a pretty low threshold. He didn't come out openly against any of the anti-gay-marriage bills in the US, and all 11 of them passed, including one in California, Milk's adopted home state, and the place where he did such amazing work (and this is similar the world over--there are few places that recognise full marriage equality). I'm aware of the arguments against state-sanctioned marriage--this post isn't about those--but while the state does sanction marriage, to deny it to people because they happen to be the same gender is unacceptable. Saying "that's so gay", and calling someone a faggot are not seen as the slightest bit transgressive. People still ask each other about partners in gendered terms, and it is still up to those in non-heterosexual relationships to explain themselves. For those of us who are in a heterosexual relationship, our orientation is considered confirmed. Gay people are still beaten for who they love (though probably not nearly as statistically frequently as trans people).

30 years after Milk's death, not much has changed. Gay people are still told consistently in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that they are not acceptable. I still cannot imagine an openly gay leader in New Zealand (which is fairly diverse in its political representation--we've had female leaders, openly gay and lesbian MPs, a trans MP, MPs of many ethnicities...), much less the US. The closet door is still firmly closed. And the biggest shame of all? Until the movie, the world didn't even know Milk's name.

Update 28 Jan 09: Iceland has just gotten a female, openly gay prime minister (thanks, Shakesville, for bringing me the news). Yes, she has been appointed, not elected, but--was that the sound of one more closet door shattering?

Rant: Vegan activism as able-bodied privilege

2008-10-18T23:57:00.003+11:00

I'm a vegetarian (as of September this year), because after reading one of Peter Singer's books, I couldn't deal with meat anymore (not even fish). While I am ethically okay with my choice, it is a pain in the ass socially; I do not want to impose my choices on others, and I hate being that person, the one who no-one wants to have over or go out for dinner with because they are annoying about food. I also worry that for some, my choice will imply judgment on their choices, and I don't want that; everyone needs to do what they need to do to stay happy and healthy, and (particularly that latter bit) for people with many medical conditions that implies a diet which includes meat as a source of protein.

Which brings me to vegan activism: It is a form of able-bodied privilege. If you read (for example) this page, it states that 'a properly planned vegan diet is healthier than the average American diet' and that 'it is very difficult [for a sensible vegan] not to get enough protein'. Ironically enough, that page also recommends B12 supplementation, and while B12 can now be artificially synthesized, I would lay money that the synthesized form was tested on animals).

Back to the claims on Vegan.org, though, which as vegan activist sites go is fairly mild: both the claims listed there (and a number of others I have chosen not to address) rely on the assumption of an able body to hold true. We don't normally think of able bodies in terms outside of motor functions, neurology, and the senses working adequately, but none of those systems is the one most affected by veganism. If you have (as I do) a digestive tract that does not work correctly, not only will a vegan diet not nourish you adequately, it may actually kill you. Patients with bowel diseases need more protein than the average bear, particularly when they are ill. This on its own would be no problem, but when you combine it with the type of protein readily available in the vegan diet, it becomes a problem. Those with active bowel disease often need to be on a low-residue diet, that is a diet that won't leave too much stuff in their poo to irritate them, or block up narrowed areas in their intestines. Fibre (as is foind in legumes) and nuts and seeds are all potentially harmful (and in very rare cases, fatal) for many bowel disease patients with active disease. This leaves only highly processed soy protein as a protein option to fulfil those extra protein needs which (in addition to being a very dull diet for patients with high protein needs and risking taste fatigue and thus further weight loss) may be a cancer risk (it is also an allergen, which would leave some people completely unable to use it).

Now, as I have said, I do not judge others for their choices about their diet. Like Jill, I believe that it is best to eat things that are humanely farmed, and I personally will only eat free range eggs, but I also recognise that veganism (and to a certain extent vegetarianism) rely on economic privilege as well. I also recognise that for some, their health is a barrier to a meat-free diet; this is likely to be true for me in my lifetime. Having said all that, I respect the choices and commitments that vegans make, but vegan proselytizing, particularly the kind where everyone should go vegan and consequences be damned, is a form of able privilege, and I am here to call it out.

Rave: 'Ana's song' as a representation of pain

2008-10-16T22:04:00.002+11:00

As I said in my post yesterday, 'Ana's Song' by Silverchair has been in high rotation for me lately, partly because I have noticed (and been saddened by) the food issues in society around me, but probably partly also because I'm in that kind of mood. Whatever the reason though, it is an incredibly clever song.

It's well known, I guess, that the song was written by Daniel Johns in the throes of his own struggle with anorexia and other mental illnesses so the pain is very real. The song is about anorexia nervosa, though, and while I was never anorexic, it certainly resonates with some of the less-sane coping strategies I have witnessed, and used myself.

There is an incredibly clever pairing between the quiet, high, stripped down first verse and the description of the destruction of anorexia that it offers: Even as Johns asks it to 'please die', and talks about it's sharpened nails, he sounds like he is singing about love and lust. The rhythm section of the song kicks in with the chorus, and adds the tension to the music between the open fire that burns, and needing that same fire. The verse is once again soft, talking about the seductions of a coping strategy that fails and hurts every single time, until describing the damage done, where the tension again becomes evident. The third verse is positively ragged, and while it is the most "sane" of the verses in terms social perception, it is the place in the song where the music is roughest, one could almost say angriest. The song closes with two repeats of the chorus with slightly less tension, but tense nonetheless.

The pairing of the "least sane" lyrics with the most seductive parts of the song, and the "most sane" with the angriest, most ragged, least stable parts of the song...it's clever. It reflects obsession from the inside so cleverly that the listener becomes sympathetic with insanity without even noticing.

I am truly in awe of what was done here, and I think the world is a more beautiful (if sadder) place for the existence of this song.

Rant: 'Please die ana' and other food obsessions

2008-10-16T01:47:00.004+11:00

This is going to be a bit of a rant, so if that offends you I suggest you look away now. The topic of today's rant is food, and in particular the way we have managed to generate obsession in a time of plenty.

In the past week I have watched someone suffering so deeply from an eating disorder I can count every bone in her body put out eating disorder awareness fliers out before she went to work out. I've read a posting on an online community from someone who, trying to instill healthy eating habits in her children said there was no dessert, and then ate candy from her desk; this post led to others (all women) saying they can't open Halloween candy because they eat it all. I've seen one of the fittest people I know actively wage war on half a slice of cake. I've read the story of someone trying to balance blood sugar and digestive disorder, saying that the "healthy" pasta was not worth it for her. I've had someone tell me that they need to join weight watchers because of their risk for heart disease (and their hatred of exercise), but they are worried about it because they have no food or body issues. I've seen a man on TV claim that the meal he cooked at 50 (his first) was the high point of his life, and that until that point food had been merely fuel. Is it any wonder 'Ana's Song' is in high rotation for me right now?

The nexus of all this, of course, is food and the ways in which people do not enjoy it, and all of them in one way or another resonate with me. My relationship with food is only now starting to normalise after a time where I could eat nothing due to illness, and then a time where I would eat a table if it wasn't nailed down because I was on prednisone, and frankly that is enough to headfuck anyone. Part of coming back to food, for me, has been coming back to enjoying it without fear, and part of that process has been noticing how completely and utterly fucked up most people's relationship with it (and I am not letting myself off the hook here) is.

In a time of plentiful food, as many of us in the west are privileged enough to enjoy, instead of enjoying it, food has become an instrument of torture for so many of us. Fat hatred has talked huge numbers of women into imposing artificial famine upon themselves, and when we do break that famine we gorge, because we're not being "good" so why the fuck not? The wester beauty ideal has a lot to answer for, let me tell you. When it isn't famine, it is eating the "right" things as defined by some metric of health; there is even a named eating disorder for taking this to extreme: orthorexia. The specter of "long term health" is being used as a stick to beat food choices with now, for many, and as in the case of my friend above some people can't win for losing. And even for those who are fuelling their bodies, for some it has become utilitarian and there is no joy in it. And lack of joy does not even begin to describe the hell and the demons battled by those with EDs; hell and demons that make me unspeakably sad.

What the fuck have we done as a society? How is it that we have managed to take the joy out of food for so many people, when there is plenty of food to go around? How many people are not performing at their best right now, because they are underfuelled, or obsessing about what they want to eat? How many people are eating chocolate and feeling nothing but guilt?

Do me a favour today: Enjoy something you eat, and don't feel guilty about it.

Postscript: Without meaning to, and truly ironically, I posted this just after the end of 'Love your Body Day' where I live. Life is so weird sometimes.

Revelation: Why I like (primarily) male vocal music

2008-06-30T23:56:00.005+10:00

I have long been deeply disturbed by my own personal preference for music performed by male vocalists; I feel like it is something I should hand in my feminist card over--it seems contradictory to believe women should get equal opportunities in the music industry but not really be that into their music myself. And the thing is, it's not that I like what most people would cosnider "nice" male voices; I'm a huge fan of Placebo (no, really, I hear you say); I've done my time with the Smashing Pumpkins, and I was briefly fascinated by Lukas Rossi--none of these men have traditional voices. I've always been obsessed with the lyrics of songs, and I know far more lyrics than it is reasonable for one human being to know, so the words that are being sung are often (though not always) more relevant to my choice of music than the voice that is singing them.

So, recently I was working on a playlist for a mix CD for a friend of mine who likes female vocalists, and to my surprise, I discovered that actually, I like quite a number of female vocalists--Dilana, Brooke Fraser, both the Runga sisters, Alanis, Marie Fredriksson, Beth Ditto and Hanna Pakarinen--to name a few she might not have heard, or who she might not have heard recently (which doesn't even begin to touch on my flirtations with better-knowns like Annie Lennox, Stevie Nicks and P!nk who I know she listens to). I was trying to figure out what the common theme was, and initially I thought it was rage, but that should imply that I would like (for example) Lily Allen, who I cannot abide. Thinking about it more, I realised it was actually just having something interesting to say, and saying it to an appealing melody in a way that meant I could connect with it emotionally. This allows for the spectrum Placebo have presented me with, for Hanna's rage and Bic's homesickness, even for Brooke's devotion that I do not share.

So where, I hear you asking, do I get my feminist card back? The answer is pretty simple: Exposure. The majority of my music exposure is through popular channels, for example the gym, commercial radio, television, and my itunes recommendations. At a guess, exposure is usually going to come via a record company, adn besides suing 12 year olds and screwing artists out of the majority of their royalties, record companies exist to make money. In a culture where women are objectified, dismembered and made two dimensional at every opportunity, it's a big risk for a record company to take on a woman who has strong feelings about anything, because you know, thinking and feeling women who sing about it are more than just tits, ass and male sexual fantasy. Even when such a woman does make it through the record company gauntlet, too often the lyrics are about how men have altered their lives for the worse, and how they are still cut up about it (this is probably how Alanis made it out, but all the subsequent albums were much more interesting). Men, on the other hand, can sing about whatever they want and get away with it; record companies will still sign them if they are angry or even write music that doesn't have women at its centre.

While this discovery has made me realise my discovery channels are failing, and has reinforced to me that the record companies are failing to provide what I want in so many ways, I no longer feel like I should hand in my feminist card over my musical taste...I just need to keep looking in less mainstream channels for women to love.

Update 8 Jul 2008: For a more theoretical and coherent discussion, read this at Smart Like Me.

Rant: Buy your own damn machines

2008-06-04T01:43:00.004+10:00

Where I live, we have a public healthcare system where most things are paid for, and I am fortunate to have much of the care for my chronic illness paid for out of my taxes. Having said that, I do not particularly like the care I get for said illness. Too frequently of late I have waited a long time in waiting rooms; an hour and a half for bloodwork (and this cannot be claimed to be an inefficiency of public care--bloodwork is generally done by private companies who are contracted to the government or individual patients), and regularly at least an hour to see my specialist. The only time I have not waited, they phoned me five minutes before my appointment time to see where I was, because everyone else was gone and they wanted to go home. You can guarantee that they don't phone me before my appointment when they are running an hour plus late. Not only do they not phone me, it seems to be against clinic policy to apologise for the wait. Clearly, given that they always run late, their appointment times are too short, but obviously this is okay because in this circumstance it is only the patients (whose time is infinitely expendable) who have to wait, not the doctors. So yeah, I'm not crazy about my hospital.

Where I live charitable donations are tax deductible, so come tax time every charity is out asking for donations. Now, I am all for giving to charity; I have a couple of donations that go out monthly to organizations I support, and I am tempted to add a couple more to the list. So around tax time, I got a letter from the hospital where I get my care, soliciting donations for some "hi-tech" new ultrasound machines to help "pregnant women and men with prostate cancer". Now, leaving aside for a moment the fact that I don't even like the bloody hospital, this is wrong on so many levels:

They have my address because I am one of their patients. Not only does this show me that they are quite willing to use information I provided for reasons of healthcare to solicit for donations, it also shows that they are willing to ask for donations from those who already have the additional financial burden of a health condition bad enough to be treated at a public hospital (and yes, there are costs associated with illness even in socialised medicine). I've also had solicitations for donations from other public hospitals I have nothing to do with, and I'm somewhat suspicious as to how they got my information.
They were talking about how wonderful these new machines were. There have been no truly significant developments in ultrasound since the 90s, so either they are very slow off the mark, or they're...dissembling.
The government will be making a significant contribution towards the cost of these machines, and if the hospital cannot afford to replace equipment, it should either be asking the government for more money or looking at how it spends its operating budget (especially if these machines are just replacements).
They do the routine about "obese, older mothers" benefitting more from ultrasound. First of all, it is at best debatable how much obesity is really a risk in pregnancy, and secondly, ultrasound is a difficult imaging tool to use on patients with a lot of adipose tissue, so these machines won't help obese mothers that much anyway.
The letter also says how pregnancy and prostate imaging are "non invasive" diagnostic measures. Given that prostate ultrasound is performed transrectally, and pregnancy ultrasounds is often performed transvaginally, these people clearly have no idea what "invasive" means to non-medical professionals.
Despite asking me to send them a cheque or my visa card details, a replay paid envelope was not included. This is not only rude, it means I am altogether too likely to make a mistake and send money to the wrong address.

Given the cost of postage, I truly wonder whether they will make any money on this campaign at all. I'm pretty annoyed about all the trees involved in doing a paper mailout like this, and I'm equally annoyed at being targeted for all the reasons I list above. Honestly, if the donation section had not had my name and address on it, I would have paid for a stamp to send it back with "you've got to be joking" written on it in big red letters. Because really, they've got to be joking.

Rant: Gynecology, choice, "annual exams", and the medical establishment

2008-05-28T20:21:00.007+10:00

For those readers of this blog who are made squeamish by feminism, medicine, or vajayjay talk, I suggest you look away now. Consider yourselves warned.

Recently, I read a post on feministing asking how women felt about getting their "annual exams". I didn't weigh in on the topic, because where I live now, and where I lived before, "annual exams" aren't annual, and include only a pap smear, rather than the breast exam and everything else that seems to happen in the States. Also unlike the U.S., here these exams are usually done by your family doctor, rather than a gynae specialist. what this discussion reminded me of, though, was a pro-feminist framing of gynae care I'm not sure I am comfortable with. I'm not sure I can agree that gynae care is entirely feminist--while being healthy is certainly pro-woman, I'm not sure viewing the female reproductive system as something that needs to be checked once a year to remain healthy, or the pap smear as a pre-requisite to a birth control prescription is feminist. The first reminds me enormously of the medicalization of birth, with all the patriarchal control of female reproductive organs and disconnect between a woman and her own body and health (after all, what other body system needs so much checking out once a year?). Requiring a pap before prescribing birth control smacks of medical paternalism to me--even in the highly legalized medical environment in the U.S., surely a woman ought to be able to sign a waiver and get her birth control anyway (there are some places that offer this option, but from what I have heard they are in the minority). I think it is likely, too, that this insistence on intimate exams may actually prevent some women from getting hormonal birth control--this insistence will not force unwilling women to get gynecological exams, it will cause them to use other (potentially inferior) methods of birth control.

Combine this climate of control and medical paternalism (of which there is a long history with regard to women's bodies) with the fact that often women are not in charge of their gynae exams--take this and this as examples from the medical blogosphere and the feminist blogoshpere respectively that make my toes curl in their shoes--and you have a pretty ugly scenario.

In Australia, around 61% of women go for their pap smears every two years as recommended. That means 39% don't. To try to raise this number the government is paying doctors extra for treating women who have not been tested for a while (but you can guarantee that that extra money is not being passed on to patients). In a country the size of Australia, you can guarantee some of the problem is access and choice--when you're dependent on a rural health service that covers a wide area, well, it might take a bit longer to get to a doctor. Like anywhere, though, some women's reluctance will have to do with what doctors call "anxiety or embarrassment", which I believe is meant to cover everything from anxiety and embarrassment right up to fear and trauma. While the medical approach is that these women should "get over it for their own sake", I am a little disappointed to note the actual level of care being offered--I'm going to talk about the Australian model, because I've done some research about it.

In Australia, around 2% of the ordinary non-liquid paps are inconclusive (usually because they contain blood or mucus), requiring the woman to come back for another test 6-12 weeks later. While there is a more effective test, the cost of this test is not covered by the Australian government (unlike most other medical testing), and even where it is performed an ordinary pap must be performed anyway. In a traumatised woman, the additional testing, expense, and discomfort may be the barrier between getting successful health care, and not getting it, but it is much easier to trot out the line about how "women with cervical cancer should have come in for a smear" than actually address this problem.

HPV testing could be offered as an alternative to traditional pap smears, meaning women did not have to get tested so frequently, but again, this is not covered by the Australian government, and therefore does not actually help many women.

And then there is collection method. Blind sweeps, and self sampling (either with the traditional method, as this midwife offered, or with the newer mechanisms) can offer women an non-traumatic way to collect the necessary samples. The Australian cancer screening program., however sees 'no evidence' to support the use of this approach. I guess the women in this study who would use this approach but did not get regular pap smears are not enough evidence. As this paper says, self sampling could bring the participation rate in cervical screening to near 100%, but cynically I have to wonder if it is easier and cheaper to blame women for getting cervical cancer.

My point is this (and yes, I have one): I do believe that being healthy, and having a healthy reproductive system are feminist objectives. I also believe that choice, knowing one's own body, and questioning the patriarchy are feminist objectives, and given the above it is clear that (at least in Australia) choice is being restricted (and may pose a barrier to the health of up to 39% of women). I am all for taking care of our bodies, and I am grateful that (largely thanks to the feminists who went before us) gynecological care has advanced enough that women are allowed to get pap smears these days. Having said that, the fact that the medical patriarchy is denying birth control without a pap smear, or constricting womens choices about what kind of pap smear they have (financially, practically or informationally) quite frankly makes me think that too much gynecological care isn't feminist. Until women everywhere can get care in the way that works best for them, until the blaming of cancer victims for "not coming in for a pap" stops, until women are seen as intelligent beings and allowed to decide for themselves about the risks associated with birth control, I can't quite see the "annual exam" as feminist.

Rant: Religion and the food industry: There's what in my yoghurt?

2008-05-26T23:32:00.004+10:00

Recently I hit the grocery store needing a mid-afternoon something to fill the hole. I don't know what it is about me, but I eat all the damn time. Honestly, if I am not the original argument for "size is genetic" I don't know who is--like I say I eat all the time, and I (like my parents, who eat differently to me) am short and on the stocky edge of normal. I like to eat protein in the afternoon, because it fills the hole and keeps me out of the candy jar at work (because my already-awful teeth need me eating that stuff like I need another chronic illness). I was also in the mood for something sweet, so I checked out the mousse type selections in the yoghurt fridge. I read the ingredient list, and discovered to my horror, that Nestle mousses include halal gelatine.

Now, giving Nestle the benefit of the doubt, I contacted them to enquire whether the gelatine was from animal sources, and indeed it is--beef gelatine. After this, The Partner conducted a survey of all the products in that fridge--and despite mostly being yoghurt, many of them had gelatine in them. Upon my understanding of all this, I have investigated gelatine as an ingredient, and will not be ingesting anything that contains it in the future.

There are two larger issues at play, here, though. First of all, what the fuck are all these companies doing putting an animal product in yoghurt in the first place? Yoghurt is supposed to be a healthful, vegetarin food, and should be primarily dairy. Bulking these foods out with gelatine is at best making the foods less healthful, and at worst sneaking meat into what should be vegetarian products. I knew the food companies weren't above dirty tricks, but I am significantly unimpressed that yoghurt isn't yoghurt anymore.

The second issue is the use of halal gelatine. I am a firm supporter of religious tolerance. I support everyone's right to live their spiritual life in any way they choose. I do not, however, support any kind of cruelty done in the name of religion or culture, to humans or animals. I do not support customary-rights whaling, I do not support bullfighting as a protected cultural practice, and I do not support halal or kosher slaughter, which I (and the British Veterinary Association) believe to be cruel.

Now, yes, arguably any slaughter is cruel (and it certainly seems especially unnecessary to thicken yoghurt which should be thickened by straining and no other method), but as someone who would truly struggle to meet their nutritional needs without meat, I would at least like my meat products to come to me with as little attached cruelty as possible. I buy free range eggs and chicken, and I try to stick to fish products and (even better) vegetarian options as much as possible (but it won't always be possible). And I believe putting animal-based halal gelatine into anything consumed by a population that would almost certainly deem the method of slaughter cruel is unethical. Certainly, it makes it easier for the food giants--they do not have to deal in multiple suppliers, and their food is suitable for a larger market; but easy and ethical only rarely go hand in hand, and in this case they don't. The food suppliers ought to label more clearly that their food is not suitable for vegetarians, and not suitable for those who support what research shows to be humane slaughter.

As for me? I'm now sticking to Tamar Valley yoghurt. Sure, it costs me $8 for a six pack, but it tastes amazing, doesn't have gelatine of any stripe in it, and leaves me feeling fuller (perhaps because it isn't bulking out the product with gelatine) than any other kind of yoghurt. And as for gelatine? It's off my list.

Rave: The reclamation of my own body

2008-05-19T19:38:00.005+10:00

I've decided I need to write more in this blog, as a space for the things I can't put on any of my professional blogs. I shall try not to ignore it for nearly a year in future.

Being an avowed feminist, and getting more avowed by the day, I've been thinking a lot about the mind-body dichotomy and how it plays out where I can see social ideals exerting controls over women's bodies, through food and fat, through sex (and rape), through fashion, through forced childbearing or denial of the right to bear children, through sports, and ultimately through murder (to name just a few).

For me, personally, my body has been a source of discomfort for as long as I can remember. Because I cannot run fast or catch a ball, and I grew up in a society that values sports above all else, my body and its failings have made me an object of school ridicule since I was small. I do not fit in to an idealized beauty standard, and this has been readily apparent to me for a long time. And in my early adulthood, I suffered the bodily betrayal of chronic illness; pain, dependence, weight loss and gain due to illness and medication, loss of control in general (the illness with which I am diagnosed has particularly socially unacceptable symptoms, being intestinal in nature). And of course the usual stories of sexual harassment and the like that all the women I know could tell, well, I can tell them too.

I'm not saying all or any of this for pity, but because I want to demonstrate how from the time I went to school, my body has been a source of embarrassment, shame, inconvenience, pain, and discomfort. Until I left my teens, I walked with a hunch to make myself smaller and less obvious. I wished I could be like that Roald Dahl story, and just be a brain in a jar, because nothing good came of having a body.

Recently though, I have begun to realise the joy I take in my body. Now, for those of you whose minds have already hit the damn gutter, I'm not even going to talk about sex--partly because it too bloody obvious, partly because it is fraught and I don't want to get into it. Instead, I'm going to talk about other things:

Discovering swimming at 13, and realising I could swim further than pretty much anyone I knew, but that that didn't matter because it was good to just move through the water and be tired afterwards.
Discovering the gym at 14, and learning to enjoy group exercise in a way where I was my own master, and where I did not have to be able to run or catch a ball.
Playing basketball in girls-only physical education in Finland, where all that mattered was that everyone was having a good time.
Learning to climb and be the master of my own destiny, and getting bloody strong along the way (oh, and meeting my husband wasn't bad either).
Lifting weights, and changing the shape of my body, not in a way that pleased society, but in a way that pleased me.
Taking up running on the treadmill with a goal in mind, and being surprised at how fast I could run without even trying
All the other gym classes -- step, where I was particularly talented and could learn anything; boxing aerobics, where I was quick and my aggression didn't matter, pilates and body balance where I learned to concentrate on what my body was doing and how small changes affected it, deep water running, where I could do great cardio without joint pain and most recently and importantly...
...body jam, where I dance. I've always loved to dance, but I've never had any faith that I didn't look stupid or pornographic. It's taken a year of jam, but I simply don't give a flying fuck anymore what I look like. I don't care that some of the moves are sexual. I enjoy moving, and I am moving not for anyone other than me. It's about how I feel, rather than how I look (though I've been told that my dancing is pretty damn pleasing to the eye, these days).

It's taken doing the jam thing (for a year!), and losing my shame about moving my "child bearing hips", "thunder thighs" "boobies" and all the other parts of me that attract less attention for me to look at all of these experiences and stand up and recognise the joy I take in them. The brain in the jar scenario doesn't allow for any of these joys, and finally I am choosing to focus on the joy in all of it, rather than feeling slightly embarrassed and apologetic.

This is not, of course, to say that I love the way my body looks, or that the creepy jerk staring at my chest in the gym/elevator/train doesn't make me want to hide (or smack him), or that pain and illness don't make me curse my body as a bastard traitor that isn't playing the game. It's just that that isn't the dominant narrative anymore; it's no longer about what my body can't do, or what it is, but about what it can and does do. I've reclaimed my body.

I can't help but wonder, though, if I wouldn't have come earlier to this if physical education at school had been better rounded, and exposed me to other things than running and catching balls (and after all, the majority of us are not great at these things or sports heroes wouldn't be worshipped the way they are), and perhaps I might have come to the joy in simple movement earlier. It wouldn't have completely ameliorated all the other baggage, but knowing my body did one good thing just for me might have helped along the way. If I have daughters who are as hopeless at sports as I am, I'm certainly going to do my damndest to expose them to other types of movement...just in case.

Rave: Big ups to the Randomnymity support crew -- we made it!

2007-07-29T23:00:00.001+10:00

WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Thank you to all the people who helped me through this: All the sponsors, all the people who shared animal stories with me, anyone who IMed me, emailed me, commented, phoned, or otherwise held my hand through the night, everyone who suggested a topic even if I didn't use it (Jos, I was an idiot and closed our convo when you left). Thanks to The Partner for giving up Sunday with me, and especially thanks to Satchmo for the motivation (and the mouse wars that kept me awake).And now, since I have to be at work in fewer than 12 hours, I am going follow Satchmo's lead, and be 'in ur dreams, catchin ur zees'.

Rave: This isn't a namby pamby mumbo jumbo blog (7 Periods With Mr. Gormsby)

2007-07-29T22:31:00.000+10:00

One night last year The Partner and I happened to be in on a Friday night, and we happened to have the TV on Channel 1 when one of the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life came on TV, completely unexpectedly. We were hooked from that moment on.

7 Periods With Mr. Gormsby is a saga in 7 episodes about a highly dysfunctional, low-income boys school with weak leadership, a lot of pretend new-ageyness, and (even more frightening) some teachers who believe the new age crap. The relief teacher for the naughty class has just fled back to India after the local troublemaker drew a cartoon of her fellating a cow; enter Mr. Gormsby, an ex-army ex-India-brigade schoolteacher who is famous for using the cane on a student teacher, and whose ideas haven't changed since the 1940s. He has no tolerance for any of this "Maori mumbo jumbo mummy didn't breastfeed me until I was six personal instrospection nonsense".

In a political environment where political correctness has long since trumped real correctness, the screenplay for Gormsby was a breath of fresh air -- nothing is sacred, and yet unlike South Park, everything is nonetheless treated with respect. Gormsby's character is offset by the good-natured but trouble-making Hohepa, and despite their backgrounds the two somehow see eye to eye. Gormsby doesn't go over so well with the rest of the staff, though, but the rest of the staff can't even get their act together with each other.

There are two series of the show, and it is well worth getting both, because this is one storyline that can cope with the extra seven episodes.

My favourite of all the scenes, though, is the human relationships spelling test. Think: "Abortion. Abortion. This classroom is an abortion. Buggery. Buggery. Since Pissant has been principal, this school has gone to buggery".

Rave: Complaints choirs and Dave

2007-07-29T22:02:00.000+10:00

Dave is going to think I am sucking up by writing this, but he'd be wrong, because he should know by now that I don't have the energy or th inclination to suck up to anybody. Dave is one of my supervisors from NZ, and he's a pretty cool guy. He can play the piano, though he would never admit it to you, and he's incredibly smart. He's also a great person to have on your team when you are doing any research, because he is interested in everything, and he will send whatever you're also interested in to you.

But Dave and I have similar tastes in music, books, and humour, so Dave sends me things that will amuse me, too (while I was living in NZ he would lend me stuff). Not too long ago, Dave sent me a link to the Helsinki Complaints Choir, which is one of a series of choirs bitching about what is wrong in their locality. Of them all, I like the Helsinki on best. Listening to 'depressed' Finns whinge about their life might not sound like much fun, but this shows that really they aren't depressed they are just Quiet. These people can really sing, and they have a great time sending themselves up, while also making political commentary. Be aware, though, that you may come out of this with the Nokia tune firmly implanted in your head.

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook (part 4)

2007-07-29T21:30:00.000+10:00

So what do I like? I have Facebook, Bebo, Orkut, MySpace, and Friendster (though I think I only ever logged into Friendster once). I even tried Second Life, but I don't do well in 3D environments, and Second Life is a shitty 3D environment. Orkut was interesting when it first came out, but you couldn't do anything there. I feel much the same way about Bebo. MySpace annoys me something awful; I personally find it garish, hard to use, and not especially interesting, but my only friends on it are bands, so I am likely not a representative user. Facebook is my favourite of all of them; I find it easy to use, I have connected with people I know and care about in a novel way, and the iLike music challenge has filled many an empty minute.

Which is better/safer/more appropriate for That depends on what the blank is, and what you want to use it for. From a usability perspective, Facebook is better. From a customisability perspective, MySpace is better. From a safety perspective, neither is better, because online safety, like offline safety, comes from knowing the risks.

Which one will people be using in ten years time? Almost certainly neither, at least not in their present forms.

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook (part 3)

2007-07-29T21:01:00.000+10:00

The other reasons I can see for using Facebook are almost opposite, and many of them have swayed me to be more interested in Facebook than MySpace. I like not being able to decorate my profile, because I am lazy and would prefer not to have to, for example, and I am from mainstream western culture, so I find the colours appealing. There are a couple of other reasons why people might (in my view) use Facebook over MySpace that boyd didn't cover:

Applications: the Music quiz, smileys, movie tracker, book thing and food fight are fun, and not available on MySpace. This could also be a draw to technically savvy users who want to create their own applications, though in my experience the control exerted by Facebook central is likely to be a discouragement to an extreme technically minded audience (because programmers have a tendency to be somewhat anarchic)
Privacy control is much simpler to use, and more finely grained in Facebook than in MySpace, which has a certain appeal to those who rather than using their SN for fame are using it for communication and entertainment. This group of people don't want the world to see their profile; it is for them and for their friends (though to be fair, the TOS are equally disturbing for MySpace and Facebook; neither afford much privacy at all from the companies that own them).

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook (part 2)

2007-07-29T20:28:00.000+10:00

Reasons I can see for choosing MySpace over Facebook (or indeed having both) include:

The bandwagon -- many bands are on MySpace (indeed, many do not bother to have webpages anymore) and it provides a forum for fans to interact with bands
The ability to personalise the look of your MySpace page using HTML is a draw, I would guess, for those with artistic flair, and those with technical skills (and to a certain extent these groups will be boyd's 'subaltern' teens)
Cultural usability: There are studies, such as Elke Duncker's work on cultural aspects of usability, that show that different cultures find different colours and layouts appealing. Given what I know of Duncker's work, the appeal of MySpace to certain cultural groups is that they will be able to make it fit their cultural preferences for colour (whereas Facebook uses colours that are accepted by mainstream western culture).
Reputation: MySpace has a reputation for being badass, not helped by the furore over 'predators' and the like*. If you wanna be a badass, you use MySpace. This point is sublty different to boyd's; she makes the point that there are teens who use MySpace because they are already somehow different; my point is now that MySpace has this reputation, and will attract some kids because of it.

* boyd comments on this, too. I know what she is saying, that it is extremely unlikely that your kid will be one of the rare ones who is a target as a result of his or her MySpace use, and that there are other more realistic situations to watch out for. Fair enough. However, I can also understand the panic, because if it is your kid who gets attacked by a MySpace predator, well, all the reassurances in the world that it was unlikely aren't going to make you feel better.

Reflections: MySpace vs. Facebook

2007-07-29T19:57:00.000+10:00

I read with interest danah boyd's essay about MySpace and Facebook, and how different groups use them differently in the states, and I figure she has it pretty right, at least in terms of generalisations that can be made about US teenagers (and hey, after all, the report was not supposed to be cut and dried; it was ideas, not facts and the fact that the media has gone so nuts over it suggests that they need to educate themselves to recognise a journal article when they see one -- and not see them where they don't exist). She has done the research on this, and far be it from me to speak to the contrary.

What I would like to talk about is the other reasons I can see for things being the way they are, than purely as a result of class which is not, of course, to say that danah didn't also recognise these), and reflect on my own personal experiences with both services.

Rave: 'The Italian Place'

2007-07-29T19:25:00.000+10:00

It's always a good idea to have a cafe or food place where you are known and looked after; in my old city that was Scott's. Here it is 'The Italian Place', which is really called SupaBar, but serves Italian food and is run by Italians. The food is excellent, and they have tailored their awesome chilli hot chocolate to the taste of my co-workers and I. When we don't go in for a while, they notice we are not there, when we are there, our food is discounted. And it isn't just us, they look after all their regulars without making the place unwelcoming to newcomers. In summer they give us icy drinks, and in the winter we get double serves of hot chocolate.

This week, they had a little birthday party, and we went along to show our support by buying a drink from them. They filled our glasses to the brim and would not let us pay for them, after earlier in the week not allowing us to pay properly for our meals because my wonderful soup was 'experimental'. I dunno how they are making any money, but I hope they are because it is a novelty to have any good food on campus, much less food this good.

Rant: Cats are not owned, and they do not need collars

2007-07-29T18:58:00.000+10:00

You may have noticed from his pictures, that Satchmo has acquired a collar since arriving in Australia. This is because if he goes outside (and we are not 100% sure we can prevent him), the council insist that they be able to tell immediately that he is owned by someone, and that we have paid them the necessary dues to have an indoor-only cat that makes not one iota of difference to their operations.

Satchmo is neutered; he is also microchipped--I am a very responsible pet owner (anyone who says they cannot afford to neuter cannot afford to own the animal in question--neutering is cheap compared to most other veterinary care). If he were outside, and if he were misbehaving, it would be very straightforward to tell he belonged to someone, and who that someone was.

Nonetheless, Satchmo has a red collar that will identify him to council staff as 'owned' (I can tell you how he would feel about the idea that we own him, and it isn't complimentary, I can assure you). Realistically, though, to be sure Satchmo is 'owned', in the event he was seen without a collar, the council would have to trap him and scan him -- because like all responsible pet owners, his collar will break away if he gets it caught on anything, which given he loves to climb is fairly likely.

No matter how you look at it the collar is dangerous, unlikely to be useful, and potentially cruel.

Rave: Ten songs about love (part 3)

2007-07-29T18:32:00.000+10:00

Dilana, Wonderfool--Partly just because I like the neologism, partly because it's Dilana, partly because I know what that feels like. (Sorry, no ling for this one, BMG are aggressive)
Captain Tractor, Frozen Puck to the Head--Love at first sight, adversity, and a happy ending, in other words a proper love song -- except it's about ordinary people, told Canadian style.
The Killers, When You Were Young--Another song about love in a twisted landscape, but this one incorporates religion and made it into the top 100.
Placebo, Drag--Because it has the best line of any of them--'I've just gotta get off my chest that I think you're divine'. Because it's Placebo. Because I never thought they would live long enough to write a song like this.

These songs are the ones I am thinking of now, and I am a bit addled. I am tempted to go to 13 just so I can include Commercial for Levi, Hard to Concentrate, and Hungry, but it would end up being 20 songs, and I don't want you to get all soppied out in here.

Rave: Ten songs about love (part 2)

2007-07-29T18:06:00.000+10:00

Eppu Normaali, Joka Päivä ja Joka Ikinen Yö--Because my hat is off to anyone who will drink poison for an unrequited love, and sound cheerful about it. I'm not sure it's healthy, but at least the guy recognises his shyness is his own fault.
INXS, Afterglow--Because this song manages to be sad and triumphant all at the same time, and thinking the love was worth the loss is pretty damn special.
Foo Fighters, Everlong--Dark, adolescent, and creepy, and the way everyone should feel this way at least once.

Rave: Ten best songs about love

2007-07-29T17:33:00.000+10:00

I'm not one to believe that love is uncomplicated or bubblegummy; and so lovesongs about uncomplicated affairs of boy meets girl and lives happily ever after either bore me to tears, or make me want to pour acid in my ears. The best love songs are not love songs per se, but songs about love. In no particular order, and without being definitive, here are ten of my favourites:

Zen Cafe, Todella Kaunis-- This song is the only Finnish song I know that even might be happy (it is ambiguous at best). This song celebrates uniqueness as beautiful and spontaneity as wise, and everytime I hear it I want to dance or sing or do something, all the while wondering whether the narrator is really getting what he wants.
Cat Stevens, Father and Son--Fraught relationships between parents and children who love each other are all too common, and this song captures it better than any other song I know. he contrast between the quiet melody and the tense, unhappy words only make this song all the more poignant.
Eve 6, Friend of Mine-- (not the original video). Friends like this are rare and precious, and I have been blessed with many of them. This is a song to live up to.

Rant: Body image, society, and disease (part 3)

2007-07-29T16:58:00.000+10:00

Not only do I not know what to believe, but my food choices are limited due to ongoing illness, and it is hard to eat the "right" things. On top of that, my relationship with food is completely warped by not being able to eat for months, and then having compulsive eating as a med side effect for a year.

So what do I do? I have made the decision to work hard, and try to get back to my pre-illness size and shape. I regularly lift weights, I work out, and insofar as is possible, I try to eat sanely (though not during the blogathon, because some things are just too hard -- I can't think clearly enough to change my clothes, let alone my food choices, at this point). And I am finally at a point where I am doing it for me, not for society, for a doctor, for a partner or friend. And society, frankly, can go and get fucked.

This approach will get me so far, you know, and it is something I can live with. But, dammit, I am scared. One day I want to have kids, and how in the hell I am going to give them sane body image messages, I don't know. I hope by then society is ready to help me out, some organisations at least seem to be starting now.

Rant: Body image, society, and disease (part 2)

2007-07-29T16:28:00.000+10:00

In this twisted situation where it seems every woman on the planet is either too fat or too thin, women are rebelling in different ways. The pro-ana movement is girls trying to take control of their body image by taking control of their weight, the fat rant tells society where to get off (and yet is done by a woman who, to me at least, looks healthy rather than fat).

The body image issue is of great personal significance, because with the illness I have, I have been both very thin, and very fat. While I was thin, I was very ill, and while I was fat, I was very affected by side effects, but much healthier. I was told by society that I looked much better ill than healthy. To this day, five years after the fact, I still do not like the way I look, and I am still aggressively working to change it -- and I don't even know what I am "supposed" to look like.

Recently this topic came up among people with the same illness I suffer from, and responses ranged from "you look great, what are you worrying about" to "be grateful you can eat". At my present weight I have been told by a medical professional that I would ideally be 10-20lbs lighter than I am. My perception of my own body has been so warped by rapid changes and society's images that I now no longer know who to believe.

continued in next post

Rant: Body image, society, and disease

2007-07-29T15:46:00.000+10:00

We live in strange times. There is an obesity epidemic, and eating disorders are more prevalent than ever before. Women, in particular, bear the brunt of increasingly unrealistic social expectations about their bodies, where they must be thin and strong, and the average model is increasingly small compared to the average woman.

Models are suppsoed to be thin because "clothes hang better" on very thin women, but their thinness has a negative impact on the health and well being of women who see them, and average sized models don't, and yet average sized (or heaven forfend even plus sized) models are treated as a curiosity, and it is considered news when runway shows ban models that are too thin.

continued in next post

Reflections: Why I love animals but am not a vegan.

2007-07-29T15:33:00.000+10:00

I am an animal lover. As you know if you are following this blog, I have one cat. I also hope to get another cat soon, in part for the wellbeing of my existing cat; when I get my second cat it will be a shelter kitty. I don't eat pork since I found out that pigs, a favourite animal of mine, are often factory farmed in small crates, despite their intelligence and social nature. A couple of years ago I gave up eating any red meat for health reasons, and I will never go back to it, even if I can. I buy free range eggs, and (where available) poultry, and I eat at least three vegetarian main meals a week.

Nonetheless, there are people who would tell you that because I eat eggs, honey, dairy, poultry and fish I am inhumane. Maybe they are right, maybe I can't justify my position, but here is the argument I will use to try:

I need more protein and less fibre than the average bear because of my health situation. I try to eat beans and nuts as much as possible, but they are risky kinds of fibre for me; dairy, eggs, lean poultry and fish are much safer in terms of retaining my health. If my health goes downhill, I am almost certain to require medical treatment that has been tested on animals, and in some cases made out of animals. Peta would probably argue that I should be a vegan and refuse this treatment, but if I were to do so I would die of malnutrition and bowel perforation almost for sure. Is it unethical to eat humanely treated animals and their products to I continue to live?

Reflections: Walking the social tightrope in another country (part 2)

2007-07-29T14:59:00.000+10:00

So clearly, neither country is perfect, but The Partner and I have chosen Australia for now -- it will be a few years, I'm thinking. We like it here, a lot, but it is interesting living in a country that is historically such a sibling rival. We get teased about our accents, and we get called sheepshaggers (though that really is the Aussies, not us), and we are expected to give a shit about the rugby (apart from seeing embarrassing drunken fans here, I don't).

On the flipside, it is pretty damn hard to have an opinion about anything in either country (and particularly about any differences between them) without being offensive, when you are a guest and there is a well established rivalry. I don't mind this, I am well aware that I am a guest here, and that I owe loyalty to New Zealand, and courtesy to Australia, but I am an opinionated person, and when questioned I will respond. Take it as read, though, that I consider the higher quality of living, the better pay, the better healthcare, the wider range of cultural events and the better weather enough--I am still here, after all. Where I criticise when provoked, the criticism is well thought out, and not a kneejerk reaction to things not being like at home. It is only a criticism of that one issue, though, I love your country and am grateful for the opportunities it has provided me.

Reflections: Walking the social tightrope in another country

2007-07-29T14:34:00.000+10:00

I am one of the net migration of 650 Kiwis a week to the 'lucky country', a move that was once famously described by David Lange as "improving the average IQ of both countries". This is the fifth country I have lived in, so I have a little experience living in other cultures, but this is the first place I have deliberately and explicitly chosen.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love New Zealand, it is where I grew up, and it will always be 'home', but when there are few opportunities in specialised IT roles, large student loan debts, high taxes on upper middle income earners, and the feeling that because you are not a sportsperson, you are unappreciated, well, I think you will find a lot of people like me will leave. And that is before we even start talking about the fundamentally broken healthcare system, the bad weather, and the fact that often the only place you can see a good show/concert/play is Auckland, a monstrosity of a city with no public transport.

Having said, that, though, Australia is not perfect either. Their elected leader has somehow got them involved in a war no-one agrees with, and he has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol because of the breaks given to third world countries. There are major issues with water here, and pretty soon many industries (like rice and dairy) are going to come to a crunch point. And frankly, the sports thing is even worse here than at home.

continued in next post

Rave: I like doing this charity thing, because I got pancakes

2007-07-29T13:59:00.000+10:00

If that was breakfast, I've had it. Staying up all night seemed like a perfectly good reason to break out our pancake mix, which makes beautiful pancakes, and is made in Australia, but which can only be bought in New Zealand. My partner had no problems breaking out the gold dust for me thismorning, and he even made the pancakes. He's given up a day of doing stuff with me for the weekend for this blogathon, so this is my note of appreciation to him.

My waistline is not going to thank me for this, I can just tell.

Rave: I love Hanna Pakarinen, a.k.a YouTube rocks (part 2)

2007-07-29T13:30:00.000+10:00

Now, I don't get exposed to a lot of new music here in Aussie, partly because I don't have a car and don't have any other radio either. It doesn't actually matter, because by the time I left New Zealand, I was thoroughly sick of the samey shit the radio was playing anyway; it seems you get a choice of hip-hop or emo whining and that's it.

This has changed my approach to checking out new music, though, and so with Hanna I did what I always do: I went straight to YouTube. There I found a number of covers from the idol show, and her original audition tape (for what it is worth, the Finnish Idol stuff seems less hip-hop heavy and crap than the American stuff, the Kiwi stuff, and the Aussie stuff). That stuff wasn't the real gold, though. The real gold was finding her original work, like Fearless, Stronger Without You, Go Go, and Kiss of Life. There was a lot of other stuff too, most of it softer and slower -- also good, but those are my favourites. From checking all this out, I know I like her, I know she has great stage presence, and I know she writes her own music.

Youtube let me get a glimpse to see that I definitely wanted to invest cash in this artist -- all for nothing but time and keystrokes. Because of that, I am going to follow up with a local music store, who can stock her work because there is demand from people like me who have gone on the internet and found they like Hanna -- often in ways the music companies would idiotically and quite cheerfully shut down.

Hanna is cool. And so is Youtube, for letting me learn enough about her that my next stop is the music store (right after I swing by Dilana's website to tell her to check Hanna out).

Rave: I love Hanna Pakarinen, a.k.a YouTube rocks

2007-07-29T12:58:00.000+10:00

Forgive me if this post sounds a little odd. Hanna Pakarinen is Finnish, and that means some my thoughts about her are in Finnish, which sounds a little strange translated.

Hanna Pakarinen, on paper, should be bloody awful. She is the winner of a Finnish Idol contest, and she was an entrant in the Eurovision song contest; these two things do not usually imply talent or credibility on their own, much less together!

Eurovision was shown on TV here, and we watched most of the acts (after Lordi winning last year, I was really curious to see what would be on offer this year). I can only remember four or five acts, and a number of those I remember because they were terrible (notably the English entry). I remember the Bulgarian entry because performance was cool, and the woman in it was hot, but Hanna grabbed me right away.

Her song Leave Me Alone is well in the vein of Finnish not-really-happy pop (I do not know of a single Finnish pop song that is entirely happy -- and when I discussed it with some Finnish workmates, and Finnish family a few years ago). Even better, she sounds uncannily like rockchick and superstar Dilana.

continued in next post

Rant: Does Australia really say no to violence against women? (part 2)

2007-07-29T12:32:00.000+10:00

A second example of how Australia does not say no to violence against women is this study. Basically, it says that in a survey of Australians, many of them including women (let it not be said that this post is a rant against men) believe a guy should get off lighter for raping a woman if she is drunk or provocatively dressed. Some of this attitude is what the ads are trying to address, but nonetheless, the Australian public is not yet saying "no".

A third example is this bloke, who normally inspires me to faith in the Australian male, but who had sex with a prostitute who wasn't really up for it because it is better than being celibate. Now, I am not a prude, and I don't believe that all sex needs to be within the confines of a relationship, but I do believe paying someone who clearly isn't interested for sex muddies the waters of consent considerably. To believe that sex is something you should be able to pay for to me equates rather uncomfortably with disrespect for women as whole beings, and is a form of violence against women -- and here we see it being portrayed as normal bloke stuff.

My final example of how Australia fails to say no to violence against women is the Werribee DVD case. Seven young men sexually assaulted a developmentally delayed young woman, set her hair on fire, and made a DVD of it, which they sold at school. Sounds pretty horrific, and like a court case should be cut and dried, right? Well, they pleaded guilty for sure, but it looks as though they will avoid jail. In a country that says no to violence against women, the perpetrators of this kind of violence are locked up, and the key is thrown away.

While I commend ... whoever it is who wants to change things here (and indeed anywhere in the world), running ads that say "Australia says no" doesn't change things, and in fact can make it harder for women who are victims of violence, because after all "Australia says no". The ads are a good start, but they need to be backed up by AFL player bans, real rape sentences, and a massive attitude shift. Having said that, Australia is doing something, which is more than can be said for many countries.

Rant: Does Australia really say no to violence against women? (part 2)

2007-07-29T12:01:00.000+10:00

My first argument against whether Australia says no to violence against women focuses on a national sport, that is particularly popular in Melbourne. So far as I can tell, it is a weird form of rugby played on a round field, but I refuse to have anything further to do with it, because I refuse to support a sport where the players are downright badly behaved. Now I know this isn't a phenomenon restricted to Aussie rules, American footballers in particular are known for their callous attitudes towards women, and NZ rugby has its own scandal. Nonetheless, in the time that I have been here, there have been numerous incidences of AFL players committing violent acts against women and other members of society, and most of them are till on the field. If Australia (or NZ, or the US) really said no to violence against women, these guys would never play again.

continued in next post

Rant: Does Australia really say no to violence against women?

2007-07-29T11:32:00.000+10:00

Recently a series of pretty unrealistic television ads began showing here in Australia. They are shown from the perspectives of both women victims of violence, and 'everyday bloke' perpetrators, who "don't hit [their] girlfriend[s], they just shove them around a bit". The campaign was based on the tagline that "Australia says no to violence against women". Now, to be fair, I don't really think anywhere in the world truly says no to violence against women, except maybe some of the Nordic countries, and even they have issues like wide pay disparities.

Nonetheless, Australia is the country for which I have data, and Australia is the one running the tawdry ads, so Australia is the place I am going to comment on.

continued in next post

Rave: That's what I like in a student (part 2)

2007-07-29T10:58:00.000+10:00

I respect these guys not because they were the best at computing (some of them really weren't), not because they had a passion for my subject (they didn't), and not because they were the best and brightest (though this may well have been true). I respect them because even though my subject pissed them off, they didn't try to cheat, lie or weasel their way out of it; instead they did the work. It's like that line from The Life of David Gale

"Berlin, I will give you an A for the course if you will only...just...study"

These guys did study, and they respected me, and used me well as a teaching resource. If the egos majoring in computing were half as dedicated, respectful, and downright decent as these guys, the IT world would be a better place. I shook one of their hands at the end of the semester; I never got the chance with the others. Guys, you know who you are, and my hat is off to you.

Rave: That's what I like in a student

2007-07-29T10:30:00.000+10:00

As some of you may (hah! like anyone is reading this) know, I taught computer science for a long time, as a university tutor. I had a lot of terrible students; students that were rude, foulmouthed, whiny, even one that grabbed my ass. I had a student who complained when they scraped through an assignment to code a compression algorithm with a passing grade; never mind that their program made everything bigger. I had one student discuss her private life with me at length while we were walking past open office doors (and there was nothing she told me that I wanted or needed to know). I was heartbroken by students who were really good, but couldn't be bothered doing the work.

I'm not talking about those students today, though. There were quite a few students I loved, who made me laugh, and who kept my tutorials lively, but I don't want to talk about them either. Today I want to talk about the students I respected, in particular one group of young men I had in my classes in the last semester I taught. They were a group of engineering students, and while there were some slackers, a few of them were wonderful.

These guys were completing a requirement for their degree, and had no real interest in computing at all. In fact, in some cases, programming downright pissed them off. They had the heaviest workloads of any of my first year students, but they showed up to class, treated me with respect, and did the work. One time, when I caught one of them doing something he shouldn't be, I reamed him out for it and expected belligerence in return. Instead, he thanked me for drawing attention to his behaviour. When it came to the final assignment of the course, they were busier than anyone else taking the course, at least as far as their university work. Nonetheless, they worked right up to the last minute, and they did the work themselves, and none of them blew the assignment off.

continued in next post

Rave: BodyJam makes most women hot (part 2)

2007-07-29T10:00:00.001+10:00

I guess the phenomenon is best summed up by a conversation Belinda had with a guy using the sports hall before her class one day, which she later related to me:

" Hey, oh, um, do you have a class starting in here?"
" Hey, yeah, it starts in about ten minutes"
"Oh, okay, cool. What class is it?"
"Body Jam, you can stay for the class if you like"
"Oh man...this room is going to be full of hot girls, right?"
"Yup."

The best thing about it? No-one in that class is being hot for society, her partner, god, or anyone but herself. Thanks, Belinda, for giving me 1:45/week, where I too, am hot.

Rave: BodyJam makes most women hot

2007-07-29T09:32:00.000+10:00

The gym I go to runs a Les Mills program, including Body Jam, a dance aerobics class taught by the talented, enthusiastic Belinda. Jam is choreographed by a guy from NZ who I have seen on TV and don't much like, but nonetheless it is a fun routine.

There's something pretty weird about Jam, though, especially at my gym. The Jam class in the area I live in caters predominantly to white middle class women from (at a guess) age 18 up. Most of us (again, at a guess) are youngish professionals, in the 20-30 bracket. Not that any of that is weird, though; what is weird is that twice a week these women come out and hip-hop, latin dance, bollywood it out, house dance, dance like dirty early 90s rock music video girls, and generally shake their booties -- not what you would expect of this group, right?

What's really weird is that, at the beginning of the class, 10-20 normal looking women walk into the room (and so does Belinda, who is way too cool to be merely normal). Once the music turns on, though, you have 10-20 women getting loose, having fun, and enjoying their bodies (there are often also 10-20 gawkers looking in the windows, but as a participant you learn to ignore that fairly quickly). This is not to say that every woman there is completely comfortable with every move, but when a woman is having fun at that class (and yes, where I go the participants are almost invariably women), she looks great even if she isn't doing the right moves. It's because she feels great, and is enjoying her body. At the end of the class 10-20 normal, if slightly sweaty women walk back out of the class again.

continued in next post

Rant: Courtesy in an apartment building

2007-07-29T09:00:00.001+10:00

I live in a block of townhouses, which are called row houses in other places. Before I moved here, I also lived in a block of townhouses. Townhouses are wonderful, because you do not have neighbours above you, only to either side. This means there are fewer directions from which noise can come, and therefore one could reasonably expect the environment to be relatively peaceful.

If you expected peace here, however, you would be dead wrong. I am sitting here, at 846 on a Sunday morning, listening to my neighbour's son bounce a soccer ball off their wall. He started at precisely 830 AM, which is presumably when his mother said it was alright to wake us up (doesn't worry me, I've been up all night, but the noise is repetitive and annoying, it's like bloody Chinese water torture). His mother is well aware that we can hear the noise quite clearly, because we have asked for the kid to stop before. She has told us that she will not stop him, that it is only for an hour a day (lies), and that it cannot possibly disturb us (also wrong). There is a yard out the back of the child's house, but that is not acceptable because apparently he cannot keep his soccer ball inside the fence (we have a basketball in our yard which I suspect is his; it has been there for months and nobody has asked for it back). Using the other outside wall of her house is also unacceptable, apparently, because it would mean she could not see her son. She has signed a contract stating that she will not disturb her neighbours, but she seems wildly disinclined to honour that contract.

In a previous townhouse block, there were consistent dramas because people felt the need to park wherever they wanted, instead of in the marked parking spaces, often meaning others could not get their cars in our out. Given that this was in NZ where you are totally dependent on your car to get anywhere, this was not a happy scene. In this same block there were issues with people interfering with the private courtyard garden spaces of others.

Frankly, unless you consider your neighbours, living in a townhouse just doesn't work. That means no loud music late at night, no really noisy sex, no 6am home maintenance with a hammer, and certainly ball sports must be confined to outdoors. You must accept the limit on your parking space, and accept the fact you can see the plant in your neighbour's garden that bothers you. If tolerance and respect of others isn't in your vocabulary, I suggest you get a standalone house, or, better yet, a farm.

Reflections: Is Harry Potter really getting kids to read?

2007-07-29T08:29:00.000+10:00

Harry Potter has been touted again and again as the next big thing in getting kids to read, and JK Rowling is certainly not arguing with this. The cracks are beginning to show in the evidence though, as the early readers of Harry Potter get older and haven't the time nor the inclination to read the books. People are even beginning to admit, sacrilege of sacrileges, that they are no longer enjoying the books.

Despite the intense and wide-ranging following the books have, it simply is not reasonable to expect one series of books, often released more than a year apart to really make a difference to children's reading habits, just as it is not really reasonable to expect one bad computer game or TV show to put children off. The biggest reason why Harry Potter isn't going to make a difference to children reading, though, is that each of the books is being made into a movie, and each movie is more feature packed than the last. For most kids, the movie will be enough, I would think, and the book will be irrelevant.

Rant: Just 'cause I am a chick doesn't mean I am not serious about being here and other gym rants

2007-07-29T08:00:00.000+10:00

Thanks Brett, for the topic.

I like to go to the gym. Many days I do group fitness, but at least a couple of times a week, I like to go and do weights with my partner. Yes, you heard me, I lift weights. No, I am not trying to tone so much as I am trying to gain muscle mass, if not muscle size.

I go with my partner so we can spot each other, encourage each other, and do technique checks. I also go with my partner, because if I am there with a guy, I get noticeably less aggravation from other gym goers -- fewer 'friendly tips', fewer stares, and definitely fewer people who refuse to treat my workout as though it is a real workout.

My gym is a small gym, and there is not a lot of room to move around. The space to monitor your technique in the mirror is limited (not that technique seems to matter for the vast majority of people using the gym). Recently I was doing front shoulder raises with a 4kg dumbell in each hand, and standing a few feet from my partner; it wasn't clear that I was 'claimed'. One of the guys who uses the gym decided it best to walk in front of me instead ot taking the four extra steps to go around, interrupting my flow. I suppose he thought that since I was a girl, and using a light weight, and he did me the huge honour of saying "excuse me" as he interrupted me.

Well, now I am pissed off and intolerant, so here are the new rules:

Do not talk to me unless you have something relevant to say to me, like 'are you finished with those weights'. If you do talk to me, listen to the answer.
Do not fuck with my workout. Wait, or go around. If you go through, I will hit you with my weight, even if you say excuse me.
Do not sit on the machines and talk to your friends; if you want to talk there are couches in the lobby, or there is the sauna. There is only one of each machine, so chances are, people are waiting to use it.
Do not touch my bag, I left it where I wanted to find it. I am sure you have some compelling reason why you need my hook more than I do, but I am afraid telling me that reason would mean telling me something irrelevant.
If you sweat on something, wipe it up -- yes, even if it means wasting 30 seconds of precious personal trainer time in an hour's workout.

Speaking of trainers, here are some rules for you, because frankly, members take their courtesy cues from you, and the cues are clearly not good enough.

Do not monopolise any machine with your client -- I know you have your favourite exercises, but I would like to use the puley machine before the gym closes.
I do not need to hear what exercise your client is going to do next from the other end of the gym. That is their business, and yours, so keep it down.
Watch and correct the technique of anyone doing something dangerous, not just ypur client. Safe moves take up less room, and I will be pissed off if I can't use the weights because someone else hurt themselves.
Oustide the stretch space is not an appropriate venue for boxing-based cardio training. Go down to the sports hall or out to the poolside.
Greetings are not irrelevant.

It sounds as though I hate my gym, or at least the people in it. This simply is not true; despite the fact the gym is small, it has state of the art equipment, and generally speaking is more woman friendly than my old gym. When all you have to bitch about is peple getting in your way in a small gym, you're doing pretty well, really.

Rant: New Zealand gave women the vote, and then did nothing else (part 3)

2007-07-29T07:32:00.000+10:00

Not only is birth control expensive in NZ, you have to see a doctor twice a year to get it (for anything other than condoms), and they are expensive too. Tubal ligations are fully funded, but there is a waiting list and they are more dangerous, more invasive, and more permanent than vasectomies (which are not funded, unless there are exceptional circumstances).

On the flip side of the coin, fertility treatment is easier to get if you smoke, if you or your partner has been voluntarily sterilised and changed your mind, or if you prefer not to have sex with a man. A couple that has no specific, diagnosed infertility has to wait five years before they can get help, making pregnancy and birth riskier, and the parents five years older.

So, in New Zealand, abortion is actually cheaper to acquire than any other form of birth control. There is no safe, reliable birth control for any woman who eventually wants children, but has anything wrong with her intestines at all (or indeed for teenagers who routinely drink too much, shag someone random, and throw up their pill). On the other hand if you want to get pregnant, you should make some poor choices there, too.

Frankly, I agree with the handwringing politicians, that New Zealand does need a unified approach to reproduction, including a review of the old laws, but since these things cost money (and NZ doesn't like to spend money on women's health), and they might get the government voted out, I'm not holding my breath.

Rant: New Zealand gave women the vote, and then did nothing else (part 2)

2007-07-29T07:00:00.000+10:00

My rant on reproductive choice in New Zealand was spawned by an article I read on the state of NZ's abortion laws. Under the law, New Zealand women are not supposed to have abortion-on-demand, even in the very early stages of pregnancy, and so most women who get an abortion in New Zealand most women who have an abortion do so because to have the baby would 'severely adversely affect their mental health', which is patently bollocks. This law also means women have to jump through a number of hoops to get an abortion. The article quotes male experts acknowledging that the law doesn't work, but notes that the government doesn't want to touch abortion law because it pisses people off. This is a law that has not been reviewed since 1977.

New Zealand has a high abortion rate, and a high teen pregnancy rate, and the lawmakers in that article are wringing their hands and claiming that to really solve the abortion problem, we need a unified reproductive strategy. Having been a victim of NZ's present reproductive strategy (I was offered an IUD as my "best option" despite never having had children, wanting them, having a bleeding tendency and having an autoimmune disorder), this made me fume: In New Zealand, birth control options are the pill, the mini-pill, depo-provera (which is seen as being unsafe in many countries) condoms, copper IUD, hormonal IUD (if you pay yourself), and sterilisation. Even if you pay yourself, you cannot get the patch, the implant, the nuvaring, or any of the lower-estrogen pills, and if the pill that works best for you is not one of the ones the government thinks is okay you are going to pay a fortune for it.

continued in the next post

Rant: New Zealand gave women the vote, and then did nothing else

2007-07-29T06:35:00.000+10:00

New Zealand, despite being the first country in the world to give women the vote, has a really crap record when it comes to womens issues. Some of the lowlights include:

Well after the Helsinki convention was signed, doctors were performing cervical cancer experiments on women and girls without their knowledge or consent.
In a completely separate incident, readings of screenings were botched for years in one region of NZ -- as a result of this NZ women now do not have adequate privacy protection for their smears or their medical records, as they are all part of a research programme to improve cervical screening.
Despite NZ's purported interest in preventing cervical cancer, anyone who wants the vaccine there has to pay for it themselves.
Herceptin, a breast cancer drug, inadequately funded in NZ
Haemophilia patients (mostly male) have access to a wide range of treatments and uncapped funding, while rheumatoid arthritis (mostly female) patients have only recently gained access to world class care under strict funding guidelines.

This list has focused on health issues because this discussion is going to be about one of the biggest health issues for women: reproductive choice.

continued in next post

Rave: The miralce of the internet, a.k.a. my friends in the black box (part 2)

2007-07-29T05:55:00.000+10:00

Like offline friendships, my online friends and I support each other in bad times, and celebrate in the good times (because of time zones, one of my online friends was the first to know I was engaged). We also support each others' endeavours in whatever we do; much of the sponsorship and some of the topics for my blogathon have come from people I have never met in person (and, because someone is awake somewhere at all times, this is one of the many times my online friends will help me get through the night-- it's just the reason is much better this time).

Friendships where the parties have never met is not new, or restricted to the internet. When I was a kid it was the done thing to have a pen-pal in some far flung country that you hoped to travel and meet one day. What is new about the internet is the ability to seek out a community of like-minded people and meet a lot of them at once, incurring few or no expenses; this lower barrier to entry means that more people are able to try it.

That's all very dry and clinical, though. My online friendships have meant more to me than the sum of their parts, though; and because I know some of those people are reading tonight, I will try and explain why. I'm a ~~bit~~ lot of a hardass in person; I come across brash and brusque, and I try never, ever to talk about my feelings. I don't expect people to like me, and that's fine by me. If they do like me, then they know what to expect. Except, that's all bullshit. it's convincing bullshit, but it is bullshit nonetheless. Forgive me for the navel-gazing here, but having friends online, where it is easier to think before you speak, and where it is possible to take time out before you make a response has meant I have been able to try out the part of my personality that is not bullshit. And by seeing people like and respect that personality, for the most part, it comes out in everyday life more often. Do you know how much easier life is when you aren't constantly bullshitting?

Because my friends are kind and respectful, because they have hearts of gold and have accepted me, because I feel supported by them, my life has gotten easier. And that sort of story is the real miracle of friends on the internet.

Rave: The miralce of the internet, a.k.a. my friends in the black box

2007-07-29T05:30:00.000+10:00

Thanks, Carole, for the topic and the title

A long time ago I wrote a post about how the internet is cool, because it is the mother of random creativity.

There is another reason why the internet is cool: because it can facilitate friendships. There are two ways that this plays out -- existing friendships, and new friendships.

The internet facilitiates existing friendships by allowing lighter and lighter weight communication. The teens of today are using email very little, and instead prefer their social networks. Email is lighter weight paper letters (or telephone), and IM is lighter weight than email. All of this means it is easier to keep in touch with people you have met off-line.

Using the internet that way isn't what this post is about, though. This post is about meeting wonderful people online, and becoming friends with them there. There has been a lot written about the negative aspects of meeting people online -- the marriage break-ups, the stalkers, that sort of thing -- but hardly anything about good experiences of meeting people online.

I personally have made a number of friends online, on a shared-interest community. I was lucky to find a place where genuine people congregate, and I have made a lot of friends there. These people are kind and caring; I rely on them for support and I enjoy interacting with them on an almost daily basis. Most of them I have never met in person, though when I have had the opportunity I have gone out of my way to do so.

continues in the next post

Reflections: Male birth control (part 3)

2007-07-29T05:00:00.001+10:00

So why hasn't there been a push for male birth control sooner? I am going to be cynical and say I think it is because unintended pregnancy hasn't hurt men enough to be bothered until now, and that society doesn't care about the side effects birth control have in women, because they should count themselves lucky to have a choice. This has changed, though, and the push is on.

Currently, men have two birth control options: Vasectomy, and condoms. One of these is a little too reliable, and one of them isn't reliable enough. There are no really good options for men who do want children, but not right now (and men who want vasectomies so they never have children are struggling to get them). Drug companies claim they are close to having a birth control pill for men, but realistically this is probably still a good five years off by the time FDA testing and all that crap has been done. Even then, I think men are probably less likely to remember to take a pill, and men are already bitching about side effects they might get having seen what happens to women. What I can't understand is why hormones are the option being most closely investigated. It seems to me that the best option would be a reversible method of blocking the vas deferens, but then I guess no-one can make enough money off that.

Whatever the end result is, now that men actually want reversible, reliable birth control, I think we can expect to see it, and has got to be a good thing for everyone.

Reflections: Male birth control (part 2)

2007-07-29T04:29:00.000+10:00

Increasingly, men are complaining that they are made to pay child support for their offspring when they did not choose the pregnancy, and suggesting alternatives ways of making the situation right. Many of these ways involve men opting out of parenthood in some legal manner, but like the Violent Acres' post, many are also talking about birth control.

Finally, after years of women having not just the control but also the responsibility for reproductive choices the financial impact of unplanned children is starting to make men (and mens' advocates) push for male birth control. In my opinion, a legal opt-out is a cop-out to maintain mens' privileged position of being able to have sex without consequences. Male birth control, though, is a step forward; it means men finally sharing the responsibility for family planning, including the cost, the side effects, the stress, and the bullshit with doctors and pharmacists.

to be continued in the next post

Reflections: Male birth control

2007-07-29T04:02:00.000+10:00

Not too long ago I read an interesting blog post about male birth control, saying that since they were financially responsible for any issue of theirs, they needed their own methods of birth control so that if the woman had an 'oops', either deliberately or accidentally, they were still covered. The tone of the post makes it read like it is written by a bitter man who got stung, but if the writer is not a dog, then in fact she is a she, and a stepparent to two children.

Her post really made me think. I don't think it is just that women get all the choices about the outcome of an accidental pregnancy, but (before I get jumped on) I do think it is fair, because the woman's body and the woman's life are much more affected by their choices than men's are. There can be no just solution to this while women do the childbearing, or while men can force women to have sex with them, both of which will be the case for the forseeable future. Having said that, it is entirely appropriate that men bear half the financial responsibility for a pregnancy, because by choosing to have sex, you accept the risk that pregnancy may result, whether you are male or female (and hell, if you really object, just be a deadbeat dad--it's very popular, though to be fair some weird shit happens with child support in the US).

to be continued in the next post

Rant: Just because they are quirky doesn't make them good

2007-07-29T03:30:00.001+10:00

You know, I am really sick of all the poxy little gits who launch themselves on the internet, sing in funny accents, and then are lapped up by the public because they are 'quirky'.

Sandi Thom (debatably) launched herself on the internet, and went international with an interesting, fresh song that got a lot of airplay, and which I like very much. However, her next song was pretty boring, and she hasn't crossed my event horizon since. Having said that, I am glad she made it, because that one song was worth it; so the criticisms made here are not levelled at her.

Sandi Thom isn't really crap, though. Really crap are the Arctic Monkeys, who (so far as I can tell) are only famous for launching themselves on the internet. Their music is samey, and was never that interesting in the first place.

Even more crap are The Kooks, who, while they didn't launch themselves on the internet seem to have won international fame for singing boring songs in a cockney accent. As far as I am concerned singing in an accent hasn't made anyone cool since the Proclaimers, and they only pulled it off because they could actually perform a couple of decent songs reasonably well.

My pet peeve, among this group of accent-laden internet superstars, though, is Lily Allen. She can't sing, people! Her voice is even worse than Bob Dylan, Billy Corgan, and nails down a chalkboard put together. Her songs are repetitive and boring, and to me her accent sounds decidedly fake. And yet somehow she made it into the Triple J top 100 five friggin' times, despite being the worst kind of trashy pop.

These people might be marginally quirky if they weren't all the same, but they aren't interesting enough to be worthwhile.

Reflections: You see all kinds on the transport

2007-07-29T03:04:00.000+10:00

Where I live and work in Melbourne, I am fortunate to have excellent access to public transport. Not only is it close, and relatively convenient, but it is also cheap in comparison to owning a car in Australia.

Having said that, I have continued my weirdo magnet tendencies here in Australia, except instead of attracting the oddest of students (I am going to touch on that) in a later post, I attract the oddest of transport users. Some have been relatively harmless, like the guy who cleaned his toes with rubbing alcohol (they stunk to high heaven, you will note I said relatively harmless) and the girl who smiled at me and then insisted on doing things with her hair with stuff from an enormous bag for the rest of the trip -- all over me. There was one guy who may have been harmful had I stuck around to find out; he was chewing his tongue and staring at me, and he broke the cardinal rule of transport as we were getting off at the same stop (not coincidentally, I don't think) -- unless forced by space, thou shalt not touch thy fellow travellers. I hightailed it out of there, and washed my hands vigorously before touching anything.

Then there are the amusing types, like the cheerful drunk who ran a poll on what 'direct' meant in relation to train lines and couldn't believe I hand found the big word in his word puzzle within seconds of looking at it (I am well trained, I have been doing those things since I was a kid, and the word was 'occurrence').

The most interesting case, though, must have had his poles slightly mixed, because he missed me and accosted my friend. He said he had "Just had a revelation, and it felt amazing, and could he tell [my friend] about it" (I have to confess that I was tempted to tell the guy to sleep it off and he would feel better in the morning, but I didn't have the heart to break him). Despite my friend suggesting politely that he find someone else to tell, this gentleman told my friend that:

"He had finally fucking found Jesus as his fucking lord and saviour, and that he now knew he needed to be a fucking good bloke, and not be a prick to everyone or treat them like shit, and not be a mean c**t [yes, there are words even I won't use], and just fucking love his fellow man".

Yup. That was an interesting night. Fortunately this one happened as we got off the train, and the guy turned the other way to what we did, or I might have burst from trying not to laugh.

So, sometimes you get freaks, sometimes you get rude people, and sometimes you get the religious. While I am glad to have the use of a friend's car for the next few weeks (though it will only be used when the transport it not super convenient), riding the transport is always more interesting than sitting in a traffic jam!

Rant/Rave: Michael Vick is an asshole, but he is (almost) getting what he deserves (part 2)

2007-07-29T02:33:00.000+10:00

Now, admittedly Vick hasn't been proven guilty of the charges, and that is probably why he has not been dropped from the NFL altogether, but my understanding of the case is that it is fairly clear cut; it is not that he might have been involved, it is that he was involved. All arguments about slipperly slopes and innocent until proven guilty aside, this guy deserves the treatment he is getting.

I am sure his Nike sponsorship deal says something about being a role model and not bringing the brand into disrepute, and Nike have printed t-shirts with Vick's face and the word 'Hero' on them (prior to this incident) implying they expect Vick to be a hero. Nike themselves have said they do not condone animal cruelty (whether that is actually true is a whole other issue), meaning they do not consider dogfighting heroic, or a good role model. By involving himself in dogfighting, I would contend that Vick must have known he was taking risks with his career by engaging in this behaviour, and he did it anyway.

Now, I hope that Vick is going to be locked up for a long damn time for what he has done (and I hope that other asshole doesn't get to plea his way out of jail time), but I also think that what is happening to Vick now is something important. It seems to me anyone who would do something like this to an animal must have some status issues, and by stripping Vick of status, the punishment is fitting the crime.

As to the nutters who want to make this a race issue, or to dither about whether dogfighting is worse than rape (frankly, given that animal abusers are often people abusers, we shouldn't be splitting hairs, and I personally believe that animal cruelty is just as bad as rape), they need to stop framing this in terms of their favourite political issues, and think about what happened here: This guy did awful things to any number of animals, for which he should rot in jail at a minimum, and hell at best.

Rant/Rave: Michael Vick is an asshole, but he is (almost) getting what he deserves

2007-07-29T02:00:00.001+10:00

Since this blogathon is for the SPCA, I thought I should comment on the Michael Vick case. Michael Vick is involved in dogfighting, which is a horribly cruel 'sport', and apparently he was a particularly cruel specimen. Michael Vick also used to be a footballer with an NFL contract, and Nike and Reebok sponsorship. All three have dropped or sidelined him as a result of his accusations, and public pressure (I was part of a letter writing campaign to get him dropped from both Nike and the NFL).

crap, link surfing takes a while...this will continue in the next post.

Rant: Hone Harawira is a racist bastard (part 3)

2007-07-29T01:30:00.001+10:00

In the end, though, the thing that is really wrong with this is that Harawira has not suggested an alternative. The children that are being abused are not being removed from their homes, as they would in other Australian families, because of the 'stolen generation' policy. The situation for aboriginal women and children is bad, and getting worse. While Howard's plan has some major flaws (in my ill-educated view abolishing the permit system and making this a land issue is one of them), it is also clearly and firmly saying that the abuse has got to stop. It is putting sensible steps in place to make sure aboriginal children are at a minimum fed, clothed, and not exposed to alcohol and pornography (personally, I think that a portion of the money that all welfare recipients receive should have to be spent on food, clothing and/or healthcare, so just call me a bitch), and it is doing it in a way that does not involve creating another stolen generation.

My embarrassment and irritation does not end with Harawira, however, in the end he is a publicity-grabbing fool and nothing more. The New Zealand press, however, had some coverage that was as cheap as an underarm bowl, for example pairing these two images (NZ Herald):
Nice to see they could find good press shots of each of them. And then there was this crap, which by dragging everything else into the picture, and glossing over the fact that Harawira is an MP completely misses the point: It is not okay make personal attacks in politics, and something has to give for aboriginal women and children (To be fair, there was also some very good opinion coverage; see for example: here, here, and here).

In the end, though, let's face it: Hone Harawira was elected in an electorate whose only constituents are those of a certain race. Now just who is a racist?

Rant: Hone Harawira is a racist bastard (part 2)

2007-07-29T01:00:00.001+10:00

Not only was Harawira's attack ad hominem, it was also factually wrong (contrary to Harawira's claim it hat not been ten years since the report was released, the inquiry was only started last year).

Howard gave Harawira's comments all the attention they deserved (precisely none) at least in the press, and members of Harawira's party (and indeed his family) called for him to resign. Not only has Harawira not resigned, he has refused to apologise to anyone but his political party for his comments.

sorry this one is short, was doing some fact checking and couldn't write much; continues in next post

Rant: Hone Harawira is a racist bastard (part.1)

2007-07-29T00:30:00.000+10:00

Recently, the prime minister of Australia announced some pretty drastic measures to try and reduce violence against women and children in aboriginal communities in Australia. I have opinions about these measures, not all of them favourable (but not all unfavourable either), but this post isn't about my opinion, it's about the opinion of an MP in NZ.

Hone Harawira came out and called John Howard a "racist bastard" the day after the policy was released, claiming:

"If I was an Aboriginal man in the Northern Territory I would feel like absolute shit right now, I would have the leader of my country saying I am an alcoholic, I am into pornography, I am into sexual abuse. All I would want to do is go out and smash someone"

Now, this may provide us some insight into the domestic violence statistics among Maori, but for a New Zealander living here in Australia this kind of commentary coming from a NZ politician and being reported as far away as India is fucking embarrassing. Political commentary is one thing, and Harawira would have been well within his rights to malign the policy as racist, but an ad hominem attack that is not even provably true just isn't okay in any civilised discourse, much less international politics

continues in next post

Retrospective rave: And the winner is... me: A note to INXS

2007-07-29T00:00:00.002+10:00

People get engaged in all kinds of situations; many of them go away somewhere, some have a nice dinner, some get their engagement ring with another gift (famously, my uncle was too shy to actually ask my aunt, so he gave her a tiger soft toy with a ring on his tail).

Not me. I got engaged at a rock concert, which though it might sound a little unusual, was absolutely perfect. INXS were the background music to my proposal (with Afterglow), and they will be the background music to the signing of the register (which is of course, the legal part of getting married).

My fiance is my partner in crime, the person who makes me laugh the most, my best friend, the stability in my life and (as you can see below) my cat's favourite person in the world. He knows me so well he chose the time I had mentally picked out to propose to me, and we have been together through illness, surgery, financial difficulty, buying a house and an international move, and nonetheless we want each other more than anything else in the world (except maybe the cat). I am truly a winner, and without the history of INXS in our relationship, that winning would not be quite so sweet.

Rave: Why my Blogathon is all about Satchmo

2007-07-28T23:30:00.001+10:00

Satchmo is my domestic employer, because as anyone who has a cat will know, cats have staff, not owners. Satchmo came to me after two previous owners in a house I lived in back in NZ, and I didn't know him as a kitten. I do know, though, from his previous owner (who ironically also now lives in Australia, though there was no way she could have taken Satchmo with her to the states) that he did a brief stint in the SPCA when he was a baby, and then was adopted into a good home, neutered and health checked.

Without the SPCA, my former flatmates would have had nowhere to take Satchmo that he even had a chance at life, and many other animals would have worse lives and deaths; they are a good organisation.

I'm blogging for the SPCA for selfish reasons, though -- without them I probably would not have Satchmo in my life, and he is a blessing. I'm not really his favourite, even though I do none of the fleaing and worming; and give most of the cuddles, Satchmo is all about my partner:

Nonetheless, he is very much a part of my life. He talks to me, and walks on my chest in the morning to wake me up, he sits with me when I am sad, he entertains my guests (which is a damn good thing, because he is a better host than I am). Hell, he entertains me a lot of the time, which is also a good thing because otherwise I might have gone mad living in the city where I lived in NZ for the past 10 years. And I wouldn't have him if it weren't for the SPCA, most likely. For all the good things Satchmo has brought to my life, the next 24 hours are the least I can give up to help other animals like him, so (despite the fact he would prefer to be thanked with tuna, and lots of it) I am dedicating my blogathon to Satchmo.

Heads up: I'm doing the blogathon

2007-07-28T23:00:00.001+10:00

In the next 24 hours I am going to make 48 posts to this blog, because I am doing the blogathon to raise money for the Australian SPCA. I am going to try to keep to the usual topical, mostly grammatical though typo-laden writing I normally provide you (my non-existent reader) with, but some rants/raves/reflections will be spread over multiple posts (because most of the posts on here take about 90 minutes to write, and I have to post every 30), and some of it is likely to be gibberish, because I am going to be up for 36-odd hours straight, with no exercise and too much caffeine.

Oh, just thought I better say hi to my monitor, too. She's going to be hanging out here intermittently for the next 24 hours. Hi CJ! Thanks for helping me raise this money!

Bear with me. This is for a good cause, and I will tidy up the blog afterwards (merging posts on a single topic, getting rid of gibberish, that sort of thing).

Rant: Sony are sickos who have lost my custom

2007-06-21T22:49:00.000+10:00

In an earlier post I commended Sony (against my better judgement) for creating video games that girls might like to play. I take it all back. Sony have done a bunch of things that have really pissed me off, including rootkits, non-redbook CDs that actually broke some Apple computers, and supporting the notoriously misogynist Grand Theft Auto by releasing it on the Playstation platform. I am also of the firm opinion (and experience) that most of their hardware, far from being the reliable gear it used to be, is crap, these days.

None of that, though, was enough to make me boycott their stuff. You would think it would be, but no, my love of their Singstar and Buzz series has outweighed my disgust with their general business practices, until now. After using a dead goat as a prop at a party (and making it look like the goat had been recently slaughtered), and then, for fuck's sake, publishing the pictures in their magazine, Sony has lost my business.

Now, Sony are claiming that the goat was already slaughtered by a butcher, and that the "still warm intestines" they invited guests to eat were actually offal. I, frankly, don't think either thing makes their behaviour okay; they glorified the torture of an animal (even though it may not really have been tortured) not just at the party, but to their magazine subscribers worldwide, and for what? To sell a few computer games? Some commenters suggest that if one eats meat, one has no right to complain about this use of the goat; I disagree. Consumption, as a use of a dead animal is wildly different from a Japanese corporation (though run by a Welsh man) using a dead goat as a sales prop -- meat does not glorify cruelty, and is, for some, a necessity of life.

The goat is the really horrific point in this story, but I also feel the need to point out that Sony also had topless women at this party, serving drinks, presumably to increase the "orgiastic" atmosphere. While I am no prude, this seems a particularly exploitative use of women's bodies; selling computer games. I also find it bizarre that the newspaper that broke the story pixelled out the head of the goat, but left a young lady's bare breasts and face on display; the goat was dead and could suffer no further indignity (and the full horror of what Sony did should really be made clear), but the young lady is alive and still subject to exploitation.

While no doubt this revolting stunt by Sony has created a wave of publicity that may even sell more games, they have also overstepped this time. I will be boycotting them, I will be encouraging my friends and workmates to boycott them, and comment on the web suggests many others will boycott them too. If I were in Sony's shoes, I would be making a very hefty donation to humane societies and women's shelters about now, and I would watch my commercial step for many years to come.

Rave: I love Melbourne

2007-06-15T22:51:00.000+10:00

As some of you might know (hah, like anyone is reading this anyway) I recently moved to Melbourne. Now, I was kind of worried, because everyone I talked to (apart from Martin, who is living here and can't have the kind of life he can have at home) told me I was going to love Melbourne, and always exactly like that, with the emphasis on the word love. Normally when something is talked up up to me like that, I find whatever it is a disappointment.

Well, today I realised how much I really, truly love this adopted city of mine. I walked out the door, and it was foggy, and I thought "oh hey, it's foggy. Cool!". Those of you who lived with me before, or indeed know anything about my previous home city will know that it is notorious for fog. Anyone who lived there with me will know that my reaction to the fog was anything but "Cool!". It's true. I love Melbourne so much, I even love the fog.

Loving Melbourne as much as I do has made me realise that I never really settled in to my previous home. I loved the people there, and I was in many ways loath to leave, but I was always disenchanted with the city itself. It was muddy in the winter, and humid in the summer. The winter fog often did not lift. The terminal rain in winter really slayed me. I lived in that town for ten years, and it was never really home -- there was no loyalty, and no love lost.

I've been in Melbourne six months. It really shouldn't be that different to where I was before. In some ways, relying on public transport, and living in rented accommodation, and having fewer friends, I should find it more difficult here. There are no mountains here. And yet... I love Melbourne, even on foggy days. Here there are concerts, and art galleries showing things that interest me, and local artist markets and loads of good cafes within walking distance of where I work and live and there is public transport, and it doesn't rain for days on end. Here I saw a band that I thought were cool back when I first heard their song while I was living at home, and who I never thought I would see (Eskimo Joe), and they were awesome. Here I saw a band I fell in love with on TV (INXS), again, and they were awesome, again, and I will never forget the concert (but that is a whole other story). Here I saw the guy from Black Books -- and if it weren't for my workmate I wouldn't even have known he was coming. Here, if I had a radio, I would hear Placebo played (and with a station like Triple J, we must do something about a radio). I will always associate Livin' by the Day by Dilana with getting used to here, and it is one of my favourite songs.

None of that would make a difference, though when my many of my friends and none of my family are here, if it weren't for one thing: Melbourne was a choice -- and a good one at that.

Rant: David Bain: A life (needlessly) lost

2007-06-06T23:09:00.001+10:00

Unlike the rest of New Zealand, and maybe because I am not there, I don't believe I know for sure that David Bain did or did not murder some or all of his family on June 22 1994. I have heard all sorts of theories, from "he did the lot, and might just off Joe Karam while he's at it" through "his Dad shot the family, but he shot his Dad" right up to "he is inncoent and his Dad did it" and the conspiracy theory "they burned the house down, and someone important did it and wants this to go away". I'm pretty certain the guy is innocent (in no small part because you would have to be one scary, talented individual to protest your innocence for 13 years if you did it), but only he (and depending on what you believe, his dead family and God, oh, and maybe the conspiracy theorist's murderer and police) really know.

The justice of the matter is, though (since the truth, for once, is irrelevant) it that it really, truly does not matter whether he did it or not. There is no way that based on the evidence he should have been convicted of all five murders (or even one of them), and thus he has spent nearly thirteen years in jail unjustifiably (well, maybe fewer than thirteen, but at least since the first appellate court rejected his appeal). I, like the privy council, do not blame the judge or the jury at the trial, they had a shit of a job, and I am sure under the circumstances they did the best they could. The same cannot be said for the police, I don't think, and it certainly cannot be said for the court of appeals, who appear to have taken the path of least resistance at every possible opportunity. Woe for NZ that we no longer have any international courts above our own internecine, incestuous little judicial affairs.

Now there is all the scrap about whether he should be re-tried (the privy council said yes, but that it was up to the local courts to decide what would be in the best interests of the public), or indeed whether he can have a fair trial (a decision on this is expected to be made later this month). There is also the question of compensation, for which apparently present laws state he would have to prove his innocence.

In all the hue and cry, however, we seem to have forgotten that it is not just David's family who wrongfully had their lives cut short, it is David as well. This is a man who spent 13 years, from his early 20s to his mid 30s, in jail (not known for it's pleasant environment) in jail for a crime he should never have been convicted of. He's never held a job, owned a cellphone, had a long term relationship, had the chance to have a family, surfed the web because he felt like it, had the chance to vote on a reality TV show--the list goes on. He has been locked up not just through his own early adulthood, but also through a time of great change in the world. While he was in jail, he went from an adolescent looking young man, to a man who is suddenly middle aged.

To be fair to David, he learned a marketable trade in jail, and seems to remarkably well adjusted. He has job offers (which is a good thing, given he hasn't a cent to his name, being wrongfully convicted of this has even taken his inheritance), and he is learning to cook. He has a supporter in Joe Karam, and many others as well.

Just because he is taking it well, though, does not excuse us from knowing our criminal justice system has made him into a not-guilty 34 year old man who feels "It is nice to have different drinks and hamburgers and things to choose from". Our justice system, with no right, not only took this man's life, but kept it long after the court of appeals had seen evidence that should have released him.

Should he be retried? Probably not. Should he be compensated? Absolutely. Even if he did do it, he should not have been in jail for a good chunk of the time he has. The government, the justice system, and we as electors and jurors owe him more than we can ever repay for those years. What is the most scary thing about this case? That it is likely not the only one, and jail does Bad Things to people, often. Something is very wrong, here, and I don;t know how to fix it.

David, you have my apologies for not finding out how to support you. You have my apologies that our justice system was prepared to leave you in jail to cover it's own ass. Most of all, though, you have my apologies that you needlessly lost not just your family, but your own life.

Update, 21 June 2007: Apparently the NZ judicial system has not had a big enough piece of David Bain yet. The decision to retry him was reached today, and so we are going to waste yet more of his life (though how they are going to get a jury that will even consider convicting, I would love to know).

Reflections: Social misfits and the golden rule

2007-04-23T19:06:00.000+10:00

You know the golden rule -- treat others as you would have them treat you. Well, you know, I abide by it, but it doesn't work, because I am a social misfit. So the rule should really be "treat others as you would have them treat you, until they ask you otherwise".

I learned recently that because of my social misfitship, I have been pissing a friend of mine off unwittingly. Said friend sent me an email saying that my behaviour was insensitive to them, inconsiderate to their significant other, and left a sour taste. Moreover he pointed out (which of course, being a social misfit, I didn't recognise) that my behaviour was also unusual. Of course, being a social misfit, but not unkind, I was upset and horrified to have been upsetting said friend. I was glad the issue was addressed in email, because it gave me time to react without the reaction being witnessed; I don't deal well when my emotions are on display. I wrote back saying I had not realised my behaviour was upsetting, and I would, of course, cease and desist. There was another brief email exchange where the friend said thanks, and I explained that my intent had not been malicious, and that had things been the other way around the behaviour would not have bothered me, because my view of things was different (and that I hadn't realised how unusual it was until it was pointed out to me). At that point said friend responded that I was not a social misfit, just different.

See, the thing is, it's too late. I have been reminded once again that I am a social misfit, in an angry tone, and in words that made me out to be the whole problem (as opposed to perhaps "I am uncomfortable when" instead of "you are insensitive and inconsiderate"). I'm feeling bad about all the incidences of the behaviour that have gone before. I don't want to see the friend anymore because I am scared I will slip. And I am hurt, because it was made all about how bad my behaviour was. And I am upset, because often, when I ask to be treated differently, my requests are regarded as unreasonable.

The upshot of all this? I'm hurting, the friend has everything they could hope for out of the situation, and I am probably an idiot for rolling again. And the golden rule, it only works when your friends are very like you. If you have friends who are social misfits, be kind to them when you ask that they change their behaviour. After all, they are your friends, and they are, like me, probably not being deliberately malicious.

Rave: Because I Want You (iTunes exclusive)

2007-03-06T19:32:00.000+11:00

Somehow this blog has become a music review with interspersed fits of pique about other things; but that's okay, I've always said I could live without my vision, but not without my hearing because I can't bear the thought of a life with no more music.

And you know, sometimes a piece of music comes along that makes you want to gasp, and cry and hug the person you love, and laugh for the sheer beauty of it all at the same time. It's not very often that this happens, and I am sure that with the abundance of music these days I miss some of the best moments. Just about every artist I have loved has had flashes of this, but right now I am captivated by an example I can't let go of.

That example comes on a particularly tasty iTunes exclusive session that I am particularly glad Placebo took the time to record. It is four songs, and the low point is a cover of Sinead O'Connor's Jackie, which is one of the few songs I do like by Sinead, and one of the few songs I don't like by Placebo. There's an excellent piano version of Meds, that is even darker and sweeter and sadder than the album version, and there is a light guitar version of Song to Say Goodbye that makes the insults sound lighthearted.

The true high point, though, the song that has it's teeth in me and won't let go, is Because I Want You. This song sounds less like rage and more like ironic self-blame than either the album version or the Live at la Cigale version. For all the irony, though, there is real sadness and honesty here, real reflection on the things done wrong in the name of love. This song changes the ambiguous to(o) in the line "Because I want you too" from "to" to "too". All of a sudden the message has gone from being about the first person to being about the second person; from an accusation to an apology the singer believes might be too late, but hopes will give him the one last chance that he needs to make it work (and this time, he will).

This is an emotional maturity that can only come from someone who has "stared into the void, and found it tempting", though it is surprising maturity from someone who once claimed to have left "a trail of blood and spunk across Europe" (hell, with that lifestyle, it's amazing Brian lived this long. Thanks, Levi).

Placebo have been with me through my masters (a.k.a. the masters fiasco), illness, depression, rage, surgery, getting well, and falling in love, and they always had a song for me. This song, though, is a song for all of that and more. It's the sadness of realising you've screwed up and might not be able to fix it, but the happiness of knowing you love someone more than your addictions. It's the depression of having done it all again, but without the rage you would expect, and while it is honest, it is not raw... Brian is far from angelic, and his voice is challenging most of the time, yet this piece is carried on his vocal, and he sounds like a crying angel.

An open letter to Dilana

2007-02-22T19:45:00.000+11:00

Dear Dilana,

You'll likely never find this or read it, but it all still needs to be said. I want to thank you for auditioning for cockrock supernova, because had you not done so, likely I would never had heard your work. You, Toby, and Magni must be the reason the second series of Rockstar existed, nothing else makes sense.

I loved you right from the first moment you stepped on the stage scary, hard as nails, and exciting, not to mention a little bit hot. And your voice... like the diamond part of gravel. Week after week, your bubbly, geniune, raw personality, your wicked sense of humour, and above all, your excellent performances were the best thing about the show. In the end, it is all about the music, and while Toby and Magni rocked it, you were the standout act. You made me love songs I hadn't previously liked, and songs I had previously liked went to a whole new level in your hands and your voice... especially Mother Mother. Yeah, I saw how you got dragged through the mud so Tommy Lee had a reason not to pick you when you were the standout, but instead of being angry at you the way so many were, my heart ached for you; my honesty has gotten me in trouble more than once, and in a situation like that, I would have been dead in the water. All the talk of moving on, and then the persistent refusal to do so in my mind just added insult to the injury that was singling you out for punishment so Tommy Lee would have an excuse to go with his choice from the start, "his boy" Lukas.

I was relieved to read that you were happy to come second, and selfishly I was glad of it too; I so look forward to hearing an album from you along the lines of 'Supersoul', with all you learned on the show. I know it has to be good, because I bought a copy of Wonderfool for the man in my life for Christmas. Sadly it arrived two days after Christmas, but that was well and truly in time for me to fall in love with it while I was living in a new country, temporarily without my partner in crime.

I adore the track 'PMS' where you sound androgynously like Brian Molko (a personal muse) not just for that, but for the clever lyrics (always a way to my heart). 'Solo' is clever, environmental, and makes me want to sing along. 'Do You Now' reminds me so much of myself... I wish I had had the sense to tell him to follow his dick, and I wish I had been able to be as funny about my hurt. 'Elvis Motor Inn' and 'Kissed a Butterfly' are breathtaking for their emotional honesty in times of happiness and sadness, and for being able to say things that women aren't "supposed" to say. The songs that really get me every last time, though, are 'Livin' by the Day', and 'Wonderfool'. Both of them appeal to my love of bittersweet stories, and cleverly written songs. Individually 'Livin' by the Day' could have been written about me, about past lovers, about so many people in my life. It feels like my own personal Postsecret. And 'Wonderfool' is what all people in love should be to each other, more honest than any just about any other love song I have ever heard.

Thank you for being who you are, and please, please write more music and release them where I can get them. Come to Australia, I would see you in a heartbeat. And in the words of Placebo (with whom I nearly filed you in iTunes, but somehow "Punk Pop" isn't really what you do) "don't foget to be the way you are", because it's real, it's awesome, and it rocks.

From a new fan who wishes she was an old fan.

Rave: And the winner is...JD Fotune

2006-10-03T21:45:00.002+10:00

INXS rocked. JD was awesome. You know, when they said he won I was sure they had made a mistake. Not anymore. The guy is a consummate showman who can hold a crowd of 3000 people in small town New Zealand rapt for hours on end. And let's face it, with the older generation coming out in droves, and being very skeptical of this person who won a reality TV show, New Plymouth was a tough crowd.

JD, I apologise, I was wrong about you.

Rave: Meds

2006-10-03T21:45:00.000+10:00

Meds is the album Placebo have been trying to write forever. Finally, all the creative juices are flowing in the same direction... and what an album it is. The worst song on the album is still far better than many of the things Placebo have written, and the best stuff is positively transcendental.

This is an album that has drumming on a bike, two guest appearances, and the full spectrum of emotion, from giddy love to spiteful hate. Meds itself, is lost, scary, scared, and in love... who else would remind you when you're losing it to take your pills? (it is also my personal anthem at the moment, but that is a whole other story). Song to Say Goodbye has some scathing words that can only be born out of hurt and abandonment set to music that that sounds like it was written for something else. Post Blue is strange, pretty, and exciting; Brian spits out the word "fuck" like it's a word he doesn't use, and somehow manages to make it sound like he's making love anyway. Follow the Cops Back Home is a bit of a political protest, a bit of a love song, and a bit of a lament. If it had been on an earlier album, I would have hated it, but somehow Placebo have managed to avoid whatever went wrong with My Sweet Prince and Narcoleptic. The two standout songs, though, are Infra-red, and Drag. Infra-red has a great hook, and bounces along apace, and yet it is an anthem to just how badly things can go wrong between two people. Drag, on the other hand is a more real love song than I do, I think. It's the kind of love that can't quite believe its own luck, and is self effacing because of it. It's the kind of love I would expect, somehow, of Placebo... These two songs, for me, really say it all about Placebo:

Contradictory, caught between love and hate, of others and of themselves; beautiful, even when enraged, and surprising, even though they are jaded.

Well done, team. Because, you know, despite the fact that without you I am not nothing, without you, my life would be less.

Rave: Brian Molko still has it (as do Steve and Stefan)

2006-10-03T21:30:00.000+10:00

Recently, even though I am dirt-ass poor, I travelled 2000km, and $1000 NZD, and went to see Placebo live again. Yes, I am insane, and yes, I am that dedicated. It was kind of a special trip, some of my very close friends, and of course Mike (my best friend, my lover, the other half of my life) came along to see Placebo for the first time (there were some other good friends there too -- we had seen Placebo together before).

The music, was as always, blisteringly good, and I came out of the concert still with that wow feeling that Placebo are just an incredible live act, and much better in real life than they are on disc -- which is an impressive feat, for someone who has just put out my favourite album of all time. I was surprised however, that Brian was not as chatty as he usually is, and some discussion ensued after the gig. I felt Brian's closed mouth was so strange that I said it felt like he was protecting his voice; well, it turns out I was right -- less than a week later he spent two days in hospital with tonsilitis. Call Brian what you will, he is a consummate professional to sing for two hours with brewing tonsilitis.

Tonsilitis notwithstanding, and despite the fact that we were up for over 24 hours, when I asked Mike if he would do it all again, he replied "yes, just not tomorrow". Mike really must be my other half -- he's as mad as me.

The thing that makes me think Placebo still has it even more than that, though, is the vid for Meds, the new single. It's disturbing, interesting, occasionally beautiful, and still shocking without showing anything too graphic. And Brian, at 33, still looks good enough to run around in his undies.

In all seriousness, though, Meds is by far the best album Placebo have ever written, and I feel like there is more to come. I hope the passion never dies, for Placebo, and that literally in twenty years my kids are complaining about "that crap that mum listens to".

Rave: Books can be artworks and cultural icons, too

2006-08-23T00:40:00.001+10:00

aka Review: The Cult of iPod by Leander Kahney -- Adapted from another piece of my writing

This book covers everything iPod, from how it nearly became a Sony product (thank god their execs are too silly to see the potential, or it would be a fall-apart piece of crap that is hard to use and ugly) through the design to the ways the public are all over it and influencing the next generations though.

This book is loaded with pictures, diagrams and is written in an inherently readable almost magazine-like format (books for the iPod generation, perhaps, where one doesn't have the concentration to hear a whole album nor read a whole book, but rather the units are songs and articles).

This book is beautiful. It has rounded corners like that of the iPod, and a screen on the front cover and iPod-like copyright markings on the back cover. Underneath each page number is a battery marker, indicating how much of the book remains to be read. The font is deisgned to be similar to the proprietary Apple font. All of this would not make this a good book, though. It would make it a beautiful book, but not a good one.

What makes this book good, and the closest possible approximation of an iPod in book form, is the content. It is eclectic, from a wide variety of sources (academic, commercial, fashion, anecdotal and possibly even apocryphal), and it is entertaining and informative all at once. And like an iPod on shuffle, the information seems somehow disjointed, and yet has an odd kind of flow. Sadly, though the sources are not well referenced, so finding out more is more of a journey.

Interesting ideas and people emerging from this book are:

iPod Jacking, which is a new way to share music
Markus Gielser, who was going to publish a book called iPod Therefore I am, telling people's own iPod Stories, but the title got stolen by that twat Dylan Thomas -- Markus Giesler is still around, though, and working on iPod Stories.
Playlistism, the discrimination against (or for) someone in a college dorm because of what is in their playlist. I wonder how much study has been done on this?

Anyways, if you care about iPods, digital music, or anything to do with Apple's newfound success, The Cult of iPod is a great, beautiful, and easy to read way to begin your journey into the literature.

Rant: And we wonder why we have trouble getting chicks to do computer science?

2006-08-20T22:50:00.000+10:00

I was talking to one of my supervisors a couple of days ago, and she was telling me how something as simple as a programming competition had turned a kid's life around. This kid is a teenager, very, very bright, and interested in computers. Here in good old kiwiland, tall poppies tend to get their heads cut off unless they are sportspeople or religious weirdos (or both), so this kid was having a pretty rugged time of it at school, especially because computers are his thing, because you know, computers are geeky. This kid was suicidal, until he did a programming competition and met other kids like himself -- coming out of the closet now means admitting you like computers, apparently. Nonetheless, this child is, in fact, a boy. Because more than 90% of the people who are interested in doing a degree in computing in New Zealand are boys, if our first year is anything to go by.

There are lots of reasons as to why this might be, including, but not limited to:

The lack of games on the computer that appeal to girls (with 'The Sims' and some of the new PlayStation titles this are changing, slowly)
Maths and computing teachers generally being male
A lack of visible female role models -- we hear about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but only rarely about Helen Greiner and Grace Hopper
The bad attitude of some male computing instructors and students toward their female students/colleagues.

I firmly believe, though, that advertising plays a role in all this. There are four companies in New Zealand who advertise internet provision on the television. One is run by a woman, but has lame ads with her looking dowdy and using a loaf of bread as an analogy (this service also has the least uptake, I might add). One uses no people at all, graphics only. These two advertise less than the other two, though, and are not as high profile.

The third company plays on a local cultural legend, where the North Island of New Zealand was fished up by a young man sitting in the canoe that is the South Island. In this advertisement, a young caucasian lad hauls New York, Paris and London from the sea on a length of rope, "harnessing technology". Would it have been so harmful to use an image of a young girl drawing her friends closer and tying the lines of communication? I guess so.

This ad is far from the most offensive to my geeky sensibilities, however. The local telecommunication giant advertises their ISP arm, "Xtra" with a team of stereotypical geeks called the xtra-ordinaries. These guys are a team of socially inept geeks that not only contribute to the suicidal tendencies of the young man mentioned above, but leave or role model or room for a young woman to see herself as part of the technology industry.

These guys are being promoted as the image of ocmputing by the major national carrier in the telecommunications industry. They magically appear in bedrooms at night, they drive around in a clapped out van, and they have nerdy names for each other. I'm fairly confident in my own person and in my choice of a career in computing, and these guys make me a little embarrassed to be associated with the profession. What hope do I have of doing the part of my job that is encouraging young women to take up a career in computing when this is the image they, their peers, and their parents see on TV every night?

As a partially publicly funded national carrier, I would hope that this doesn't last too long, and that Telecom is asked to at least make a hot-but-nerdy-girl xtra-ordinary too. We're short if IT professionals in thsi country, and having one girl xtra-ordinary could make life easier for everyone who might want to pursue a career in computing. No doubt, however, Telecom thinks that poking fun at geeks is inordinately clever, and the series of ads will continue for years.

Rant: This is a self-indulgent way to ruin a perfectly good book title

2006-08-19T00:43:00.000+10:00

a.k.a. Review: 'iPod Therefore I Am', by Dylan Jones. Adapted from another piece of my writing.

Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ, a gentlemen's magazine in the UK. Apparently he was also a lonely teenager who went on to art school and found his way in life. He is also a dyed-in-the-wool musophile, though his tastes (apart from the odd surprisingly juvenile liking for Justin Timberlake or Kelis) are fairly mainstream and pedestrian for a man his age.

Dylan Jones has also fairly recently published a book called 'iPod Therefore I Am: A Personal Journey Through Music'. It's a shame that he got to the title first because there's a guy called Markus Giesler who wanted to use it for some real research -- and now can't because this British plonker got to it first and used it for a book that isn't even really about the iPod.

You know, I might not have had such a problem with this bok if it hadn't claimed to be about the iPod. I might even have found it mildly entertaining, except that Jones has extremely average taste in music which he thinks is progressive. I might even have been able to cope with it if it were a true personal journey through music. Sadly, it can't even be said that it is really about music.

What this book is really about, is Dylan Jones. How he had a stutter and was a bit of a sad case at school, and how he has spent every waking moment since then trying to prove to himself and the world that is it okay, he really is cool. Because, you know, he was one of the first 5% to equate fashion with music. And he nearly got beaten up by Sid Vicious once. And he saw some dodgy things in dodgy bars, and Bryan Ferry remembers him. And he is a big, successful man, and the editor of GQ, and he's met loads of famous people and he goes loads of exotic places for holidays.

Dylan Jones is in fact a self-absorbed bore. This book, though it is supposed to be personal, contains more detail about who was doing what to whom in various nightclubs than it does about his wife. His children appear slightly more often, but only as a showcase for what good musical talent he has instilled in them (and, I suspect, they in him). His parents feature slightly more as the evildoers who in fact drove him to music. And the rest of the book, though it may contain brief allusions to the iPod, is a litany of Jones great war stories and favourite music (with war stories as to why it is his favourite). His favourites include Roxy Music, David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Coldplay, Blur, Norah Jones, and Justin Timberlake. All except for the Justin Timberlake, probably introduced to him by his small daughters, are fairly predictable for a bloke his age. In fact, not once while reading this book did I see any mention of any group that had done anything truly unusual in the past ten or even twenty years.

References to the iPod include:

Hearing about Jones' own anal-retentiveness in filling the thing, including some quibbling over a miniscule amount of sound quality and file formats;
Jones' arrogance in filling the iPods of others with his average, boring music;
Jones subjecting friends of his to his playlists on vacation;
Jones spending hours locked away from his family filling his iPod;
Jones being too silly to use the internet to get his track names for him;
Jones deciding his iPod was male;
Jones berating people for buying smaller iPods than his;
and war stories about when he saw the iPod and how he went to visit Apple and what wonderful people he knows who are hooked in to Apple.

In short, this book is Jones being an iPod bore the way he is a music bore. In fact, the only relevant points Jones makes about the iPod (and these points have already been made by real researchers) are:

that you can get rid of songs you don't like off an album,
you can make playlists,
and the shuffle juxtaposes really music in an unusual way.

This book held so much potential and ended up being disappointing in much the same way as a Pink Floyd song usually is -- lots of sound effects, boring, emotionless droning in the background, and no real innovation or substance, despite the promise of it being there by reputation.

In summary:

Jones is a pratt with boring taste in music
Jones thinks he's great because he saw a lot of things and got stabbed once
This is a waste of a good title
This book is not about the iPod -- don't be fooled.

Rant-Rave-Whatever: Rockstar is back.

2006-08-18T22:28:00.000+10:00

Oh, to quote Tommy Lee, "Hell Yeah". It's back. And I kind of wonder about it, you know. Here is an earlier commentary (not long after the show started) from a secret place online where I sometimes share things like this:

Other things: some of you may remember my obsession with Rockstar:INXS last year. Because I loved that show so much I have been following Rockstar:Supernova, and while I can't stop watching it, I am cming to a few conclusions:

Tommy Lee is a dick

The talent is not as good generally, but then it doesn't have to be: Supernova aren't going to be as musical as INXS are

Supernova as a band are EXTREMELY likely to fail. Tommy Lee generally gives the women competitors comments on their attire rather than their ability ("baby, can I marry you?"); Gilby Clarke (of GnR fame) gave one of the women a hard time for "girnding" him when he was onstage, saying that "women in music use their sexuality too much and it was tired". This is just ONE example of the band not being "pointed in the same direction".

Dave Navarro has toned it down a whole shitload to hang with those idiots.

Many of the contestants are there to advertise their own music careers, rather than join Supernova

I really, really, really want one of the ones who does appear to be there to win (Dilana) not to win. She's got talen oozing out of her, she gives me goosebumps everytime I see her perform, and she's too fucking good to waste her life on a career with Tommy Lee (though she wouldn't take any shit from him).

Anyways, suffice it to say I am not loving Supernova the way I loved INXS, but I can't tear my eyes away.

So, yeah, that was my view about three weeks ago. And then there was this view of the whole thing:

Yes, you have it right, that is Tommy Lee and Dave Navarro engaged in a little very, very public tongue-wrestling. And yes, Dave does look rather as though he is enjoying it. Tommy Lee just looks like he is doing exactly what I would expect -- posing for the camera to improve his own reputation, and garner some "rockstar" style publicity.

Anyways, we are now down to the last seven "rockers", and it would appear that Zayra, who was sent home this week has successfully (and fairly cynically, I would say) managed to sign a record deal already -- I would say to sing in Spanish. Because you see, that is one of the things I see as being a problem this time around -- as mentioned above, many of the people who are in this series are there purely to launch their own careers.

The other thing that happened this week is that we heard the first ever Supernova (well okay, they may still have to buy the name off a punk band) song. Cunning move, on their part, because for the world to buy in to Supernova, the world is going to want to know what Supernova sound like (particularly since Tommy Lee said in the first episode "we are not a metal band"). So, of course, there was the controversy of who would sing for them -- in their gregaroiusness, and to prove that a woman really can front Supernova, they (and the crowd) asked Dilana to sing during their inaugural performance -- foretelling things to come? Highly likely, I think. So yes, provided a woman is prepared to tolerate the presence of half naked dancing girls, she can front Supernova. And to be fair, the music was much better -- and more musical -- than I expected it would be.

So here is what really irks me about this season of Rockstar -- it isn't the mediocre level of talent accepted in some of the rockers, and it isn't even that stupid sexbot-barbie Storm Large -- it's the chauvinism.

Gilby had a go at Jill Gioia for grinding him, but when Supernova first performed, they had half-naked dancing girls on stage. There are two messages here -- one is that if a woman wants to front Supernova, she better be prepared to deal with this crap (okay, we knew that anyway, but nothing like making it perfectly clear, eh?). Dilana did deal with it well, actually -- she is such a commanding presence the girls were a mere distraction. The second, and more disturbing message, however, is that it is not okay for a woman rocker to use her own sexuality to sell the message, but that it is quite okay for Tommy Lee to pay for the sexuality of women to sell his message.
Dave Navarro, as much as I loved him in the first series, is spending too much time with Tommy Lee. That and his split from Carmen Electra seemto be spurring on some less than pleasant tendencies, including asking the crowd to "give it up for the string section, particularly the blonde, she's doing very well". Ummm, yeah. This is the same man who told MiG Ayesa that his beautiful rendition of 'Baby I Love Your Way' made him think "only about his wife".
Gilby Clarke and Jason Newstead, who seem to be voices of reason, actually seemed appreciative of the dancing girls (particularly Jason).
Storm Large is playing on her sexuality -- as of the first episode, when she said she will use it for all it is worth, and despite the fact she can't sing for ass; in fact she has done a version of 'Survive' by Gloria Gaynor that Tommy Lee referred to as "sauteed in wrong sauce"; she has not yet seen the bottom three (though Magni, who is excellent, and a real contender for the top spot, has). It would seem the fans are following Tommy's lead -- but god forbid she should use her own sexuality too much, hm? Gilby might have a go at her.
Let us not forget that the whole outfit is being run by a man who pleaded no contest to beating his wife, and is a serial adulterer. Do we think he may have just a little problem with respect for women (though animals are another issue)?

It seems to me like they are trying to alienate any thinking female (and no small chunk of the thinking male) fans right from the outset. Unless something gives in a pretty huge way, Supernova are never going to be anything more than a guilty pleasure for me -- I sure won't buy anything related to them, because I can't support that. I know some of you will disagree with me and say that politics shouldn't have anything to do with art, but I am a hopeless idealist, and if I don't buy Eminem because he is a chauvinist little shit, I sure as hell am not going to buy anything that will make this lot any more money than they already have -- unless I think there is something to be gained for the lead singer, and even then I will feel squeamish. Probably I shouldn't even watch the TV show, but I actually cannot tear my eyes away.

So I guess the point is I'm sad. Something that was sweet and good an populated by pleasant, talented, genuine people the first time around has been populated in no small part by sleazeballs and cynical self-promoters the second. And it has rubbed off on Dave, who, while I know he is a bit of a loose unit, I could respect the first time around. But hey, I'm just a fan, and it isn't up to me. I hope Dilana does win, though, because she might just kick Tommy Lee in the balls and thereby mean that Supernova was actually about the music.

Rant: Religious intolerance.

2006-04-12T20:41:00.000+10:00

You know, I think we might be headed back to the times of the crusades and the Spanish inquisition (to pick a couple of examples). Only these days, instead of torturing individuals to death, we now have vastly impersonal weapons of mass destruction. How stupid can we be, as a species, really? And, more importantly, is the stupidity of regimes of all kinds going to be the end of us?

A couple of months ago, there was an international furore over the publication of some cartoons that originated in Denmark, with entire countries boycotting other entire countries because private companies within those countries had made the decision to publish. One of the cartoons in particular was at issue, which showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Let's deal with both sides of this issue, starting with the publication of the cartoons. Yes, the publisher is a private company. Yes, the issue is topical, and therefore ripe for cartoon. Yes, they have every right to publish nearly anything they want (there are some issues with specific ideas here, holocaust denial and hate speech come to mind as things that one can't publish without fear of censure). But why on earth would any newspaper publish cartoons that weren't even very good when the obvious ptoential to offend Islam extremists and therefore cause death? By all means, be topical, witty and acerbic, but at least produce high-quality cartoons that aren't a license to kill anyone (and yes, I agree, there should be no-one killed over a cartoon, but more on that later)

It is my opinion that after the furore started then it was a fair call for other agencies to reprint the cartoons as an element of news. It is also my opnion that this reprinting does not reflect badly on the reprinting paper, nor does it show a lack of respect fort the Islamic community. In my opinion the only institution on whom any reprtinting of this material reflects badly is the Jyllands-Posten for publishing such low-quality, poor-taste cartoons to begin with (right up there in league with the Waikato Times, on that front). Not, however, in the opinion of the New Zealand government. Hiding behind their tragic bleeding heart liberalism, but in fact covering the financial ass of the agricultural sector (one of the largest in New Zealand), the New Zealand government criticised the one New Zealand newspaper that ran the cartoons, saying it could incite tensions, and that the newspapers needed to consider the impact of publishing such a thing before publishing. Sure, but the more important considerations are 1. Is it newsworthy, and 2. is it necessary to make a complete story? I can see the answer justifiably being yes in both cases.

The kiss-ass reaction of New Zealand brings me onto the Islamic response. Yes, the cartoons were offensive, but they should be no more offensive than other representations of Muhammad that already exist, if what is being claimed is true. Moreover if it is offensive to show Muhammad with a bomb because he was a peace loving man, then protest yourselves, and urge your religious fellows to respect his ways and protest peacefully. Much of the Islam response to these cartoons validated the content of the cartoons.

As to the governmental response to the cartoons, notably Iran implementing a nationwide boycott of Danish goods (and threatening to do the same to other countries), sure, that is the right of the Iranian government. However, I ask is it fair to punish an entire country for the actions of a private institution using its (misguided) right to freedom of speech? I don't think so. And to be honest, if I had the opportunity, I would like to ask the shah or whoever is in charge there now, could you really live without the goods of all the countries you threatened to boycott? I mean, I would be glad to see the end of halal butchering, which is provably cruel, in New Zealand. But more than that, I am not impressed at the bullyboy tactics of a theocracy trying to impose its will on a democracy (and I'm even less impressed that it worked).

The whole issue could have been avoided with a little concern for what the guy next to us thinks, but since it wasn't avoided, violence and governmental bullying are disgraceful responses. Clearly, the Catholic Church have grown some since the days of the crusades, because compared to the Islamic response to the cartoons, their response to the infamous 'Bloody Mary' episode of South Park was comparatively restrained. So, now let's talk about that.

South Park is generally offensive and disgusting, and this episode, I understand, is no exception. In my opinion, anything that shows anyone's menstrual blood for kicks is taking things a little too far. And unlike the Jyllands-Posten, South Park set out to offend the Catholic Church in particular, and women in general. This is nothing new, and a lot of people claim that no-one should be offended because the show goes after everyone. I can't possily comment on that, I find the show offensive, and so I don't watch it. I certainly have never heard of an episode where they went after white men, however. In the long run, this was a deliberately offensive, planned, and pretty revolting attempt to shock on the part of the South Park creators, and I consider it a low blow, and I think it is excellent that they have been challenged on something, because it forces them to evaluate their (in my opinion) sick and twisted motives.

Even given that the episode in particular and the show in general is disgusting, though, do the Catholic people have a right to have the episode destroyed? As much as we would like it, no, they do not, just as they do not have the right to prevent non-Catholic women from taking birth control, or non-Catholic children from blaspheming in the street. Do they have the right to use legal force to ban it from being aired? Maybe, in a theocracy, but here in New Zealand we are far from a theocracy, and they tried to have it censored.

Having said that, though, those are the only aspects of the Catholic response I can fault. The rest of the protest was at a level of conscience (personal boycotts) and peaceful prayer. I know that to many of you the Catholic church may seem antiquated, and goodness knows that I don't believe they are perfect, but here, when a private institution set out to deliberately offend them, they responded in peaceful ways. Kudos for that.

We could all learn a little from the peaceful response of the Catholic Church. Is it really any concern of ours what religion our neighbour practises, so long as he harms no human or animal? If our neighbour does something we disagree with because of mour moral convictions, are we better to beat the shit out of him, to call the entire neighbourhood to stop speaking to him, or are we better to leave others to their own conscience and make our concerns known peacefully, if at all?

If we cannot answer this question peacefully, I think we're in deep trouble as a species. Thousands of years of evolution, and we can't do better than thinking with the alligator brain when it comes to religion? I hope that's not the case, for all our sakes.

Rant: Responsible research

2005-11-14T16:13:00.000+11:00

I was home, visiting my folks recently, and as well as a much needed holiday, it meant I got to do a lot of the things I really like doing -- including watching the news, which I am always far too busy to do at home. Anyways, while I was there I heard about some very promising research into how to expand the human lifespan...something to do with worms, I believe.

Now, I'm sure to many of you this sounds like a grand idea, but to me even doing this research sounds plain irresponsible. Why, you might ask would I think a strange thing like that? Well, there are two reasons. The first reason is the gross overpopulation of the world already, and the second is the waste of resources that have gone into this work. Yes, it is highly commercialisable work, yes, the people who figure it out are going to make a fortune, but is it really responsible?

There are a few reasons, to my mind, why this work is irresponsible. There is the problem of the aging population. There is the disparity in life expectancies around the world. And then there is the quality of life issue. In the end, of course, these things all come down to the same thing -- the almighty dollar.

So, in more detail, the developed wold already has an aging population. This causes all sorts of social problems (and no, not just with the grannies on the mobility scooters who all seem to have a deathwish). In a nutshell, aging is an expensive business; when the elderly retire at 60 or 65, in many countries they may expect to receive a state funded pension. On top of that elderly people require and consume more medical care than other sectors of the population (no surprises there, right?) and potentially also consume more social services such as meals on wheels. In an aging population, ever more people are drawing on these services, and ever fewer are working to pay for them. Unless we accept a later retirement age and are healthier when we retire (unlikely, in an age where obesity is causing more problems at a younger age than ever before), having people live even longer than they already do can only exacerbate these problems.

Not only does the deleoped world world have an aging population, but there is a massive disparity between the life expectancies of people here, and people in third wolrd countries. In fact, as life expectancies in the west increase, they are falling in Africa. A child born this year in Norway may expect to to live to nearly 80, and a child born in Japan to over eighty. On the other hand a child born in India this year will live to approximately 64, a Vietnamese child will live to nearly 70, and a child from Bostwana will live only 40 years, a number which has fallen from nealy 65 fifteen years ago, and is set to fall further in the next ten years. There are any number of causes for this, AIDS being one of the more touted ones, but thereare other problems in the third world two (war, poverty and hunger, according to the ads I keep seeing on TV) which seem to me as though they must play a part. For the purposes of this rant, though, the causes do not matter, what does matter is the ethical side of the question, specifically is it ethical to be doing research to keep wealthy westerners alive longer when third world populations are dying in droves?

And now to the quality of life question, the one closest ot my own heart. If someone offered me a drug that would keep me alive twenty years longer in similar health to my present state, I would decline it -- even if it had no side effects and it was free. You might think I am too youg to know that I would do this for certain, and you might think I am just plain mad. I would say no, to both -- I have a chronic illness that for a long time I believed would kill me, and this gives me a different perspective on life. I do not want to live longer unless my (currently incurable) disease is cured -- not put into long-term remission by a drug with side effects, as it is now, but once-and-for-all cured. Now, as mentioned already, many elderly people become sick as they age -- and none of the sicknesses sound very pleasant. I would rather have a shorter, pleasanter life, than a longer, less pleasant one (and if the money ~~wasted~~ spent on this research is not to be spent or sorting out the third world's problems, it would be nice if was spent on debilitating lifelong illnesses, or things that affect kids, or whatever, rather than reversing a natural process).

The only responsible purpose I can see for this research is to help those with premature aging (not just a few lines earlier than they would like, but kids who get old and die by the time they're 18 like in that movie...you know, the one with Robin Williams). Otherwise it is just pandering to the western obsession with Peter Pan; we never want to grow old, and we sure don't want to die (for heavens sake, people are willing to undergo life-threatening surgery to look artifical -- and suppsoedly younger). I would ask that we all learn to age with dignity. And if you are a fellow researcher, I implore you to think about the wider implications of your research, and what costs it may have to society as a whole weighed against the benfits.

Rave: Pretty Vegas

2005-10-18T19:09:00.000+10:00

As much as I would have liked to see Mig win Rockstar:INXS, and as much as I thought Marty would have been a better choice in some ways, I can see why INXS chose JD. I don't think he should have been able to claim it as an original song during the competition, but whatever, I wasn't the boss, and he was able to present to INXS the one, compelling, inalienable reason why they should choose him.

That reason is Pretty Vegas. It is half written by INXS, so it sounds like their music, but it is a thousand times more exciting than that revolting bit of drivel called Easy they had JD sing as their first song as a whole band (a whole new band? perhaps). I also like it more than Us, which JD butchered during the series because he couldn't be bothered learning it before he went into the studio -- like the Pretty Vegas gamble, that paid off for him.

Being as Pretty Vegas is a joint effort, written for the magic of television (yeah, I know, I am piushing it to call realtiy TV magic), it would have become legally problematic had INXS not chosen JD as their new lead singer. There is a certain element of voicework, too -- I think his voice is better suited than Marty's to INXS's work (though I am not sure I could say the same thing with regarrd to Mig's voice); and JD is more likely than either of them to draw one of the bigger groups of music consumers -- teenage girls. JD also seemed more likely to be willing to bend to the will of INXS than the other two. In the end, though, Pretty Vegas was a deal clinhcer.

And why not? Pretty Vegas is a cool song. It bounces along apace, but has enough of a darker side to it to differentiate it from the "happy rock" that mainstream radio stations here seem so enamoured of. The well rehearsed INXS riff contrasts quite appealingly with JD's fresh vcoice and lyrics. And the megaphone and the attitude just add that little extra something to thwe whole thing. If I was already a millionaire, I'd sell my future for a song like Pretty Vegas too.

Letter to Antonio

2005-10-03T19:27:00.000+10:00

Antonio probably never knew how much of a difference he made -- hell, I never knew until he died -- but he made a huge difference to my life. He died suddenly and I never got the chance to say goodbye, and even though I only got to Scotts once a week at most, I still miss him.

Here is what I would say if he were here to hear it (and being Italian and therefore maybe Catholic, I can but hope he is reading this from somewhere):

Dear Antonio,

You probably didn't even know my name, you always addressed me as Bella (which, by the way, was very flattering), but I wanted to thank you for the difference you made in my life. By being unfailingly cheerful and polite, and most of all warm, you always cheered me up. You remembered Mike and I, and you always knew what we would order. You always made sure we were looked after. "Ciao Bella, what you want?" is not a call that will easily echo its last in my mind. It's going to take some time to feel completely at home at Scotts again, and not feel sad. We won't stop going though -- that would be a dishonour to your memory.

And it was not just our lives you touched -- I wish you could see Scotts since your death -- it is full of flowers, and your picture is on the door -- three times. Your special blend of professionalism and informality will not be easily forgotten (did you know Italian greetings are de rigueur at Scotts for all staff? I'm sure you did but I didn't until I read your obituary in the Waikato Times). People loved you, Antonio, and though we did not know you outside Scotts, we loved you. We cannot imagine how hard it must be for your nearest and dearest.

I wish I had known your funeral was to be a public affair -- I would have liked a chance to pay my last respects to you, to the Scotts team, and to your family. I would have liked the chance to cry for you -- I have come very close many times. Most of all I would have liked the chance to say goodbye. Unfortunately, I did not know I would have been welcome (knowing your nature I should have known), so I did not go along. So instead, I send this letter out into cyberspace, hoping you can read it whereever you are, and know that you made my life better, and that if I could I would give you another hug (like at Christmas time). You were an amazing, special man, Antonio, and I, a mere customer, feel your loss keenly.

With love, and rest in peace
Dana

Rant: Micromanagement and whining

2005-09-12T18:55:00.000+10:00

Today I (and my fellow tutors) got an email from our boss, whining about the way we write our weekly reports. We write these weekly reports to keep him up-to-date with where we are on our hours; we each work 256 hours per year. He certainly has a point about keeping the reports up-to-date, but I am afraid the rest of it is not gaining much sympathy. I am even less sympathetic because this man can be a bit of a despot, someone actually said today "Oh, normally Joe* would be much less restrained" -- despite the fact that Joe's famous blowups are completely unacceptable behaviour. The other thing that was said (and bear with me, because I will post the email he sent below) was that Joe would only be happy with his workload if it was zero. So, below is the email that was sent out to us, and the reply I would have sent had it not been so likely that Joe would physically implode, thereby leaving me to teach his classes.

Hi Folks,
now as you are all aware, I have a relaxed attitude to my management role - so long as the job gets done, I prefer to let things roll along. But when I get dicked around, I'm inclined to get a little upset.

I'm a little upset. I'm tired, I'm grumpy, and I'm a little upset. No lets be honest - I'm a lot upset!

Weekly reports are just that - weekly reports. Please complete them
once a week.

I have extra work to hand out. I try to give this to those have done the least. If the numbers show that's you, even though your reports are a month behind, then from now on you're going to get the job.

Now why else am I annoyed? Because at the start of the year I gave a suggested format for these reports. It would help if more of you used it. I don't mind a little variation so long as everything I require is there - but some of you are forcing me to work harder than I think I should have to. I want this info so I know what you've done, and when you did it. Therefore dates help. I don't want to know the week number - people count those in many different ways - so please give a date.
More importantly, give a total - by WEEK! I'm really annoyed that I'm wasting my time having to total up your figures.

Thankyou - rant mode off.

Joe.

PS Thank you to those of you who have got there reports up to date (and in the requested manner).

Now, here is what I would have loved to have sent in return:

Hi Joe,

now, as you are aware, I work hard and respond well to requests and direction, but when I am micromanaged and interfered with in the course of my work, I tend to get a little upset.

I'm a little upset...I'm tired, grumpy, being pulled four ways to Sunday by the complexities of my various responsibilities at university. No, let's be honest, I am a lot upset.

From now on, I will consider micromangement undue stress, and as you know, I have a chronic illness. I will take stress leave to protect my health when I am future stressed by micromanagement.

I see your point about keeping our weekly reports up to date; hell, I even see your point about wanting easily legible reports. However, the suggested format at the beginning of the year was just that -- suggested. If you wanted people to follow a strict guideline, you needed to make it a strict guideline. In particular, my problem is with your requirement for dates on the reports. I keep my logbook up-to-date, and there is a "date posted" automatically added to each post. I post by weeks, because that is what I can remember -- I work it out from the tutorial I am teaching. Most of us do not actually have access to the calendar functions on our computers; these require admin access. So I actually feel now like I am being asked to work harder than I should have to work; after all my time is limited to 256 hours in the year, and it would be a shame if I wasted time filling out the reports.

The last point I would like to make is that this is information you have never had before -- this level of information and the online format give you more information than has ever been possible in the past -- it also takes us more time. Consider yourself lucky that you have this opportunity to analyse what we're doing, rather than abuse it by micromanaging us.

Thank you. Rant mode off,

Dana

PS I am one of the people, by and large, that is following the rules. I suggest you do not alienate those of us who do as we are asked.

Like I said in my sidebar, I'm a smartass, and my opinion tends to get me in trouble sometimes, I thought this was a better outlet for it than putting Joe right into tin god mode.

*name changed to protect my ass

Rave: Rockstar:INXS

2005-09-11T20:42:00.000+10:00

I feel the need to write something (anything) in support of Rockstar:INXS. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the very hot Dave Navarro (and my other little obsession, Brian Molko, thinks he's hot too), but I am totally, utterly hooked on the show.

Now, I will admit to being a bit of a reality TV junkie; I am a fan of The Apprentice and The Amazing Race, but normally anything to do with music makes me want to deafen myself with the nearest skewer. NZ Idol, in particular, is the lowest kind of dross that approves of barely disguised hiphop and painful sounding vocal gymnastics while reviling a good rock performance whereever it may be found.

I hadn't planned on watching Rockstar. I had actively planned on not watching it, in fact. But, some friend of mine had their second baby the day it started showing here. I was babysitting their first, and waiting for the Dad to get home from the hospital. There was a TV guide on the table, and I foolishly read the article about the show, decided Dave Navarro was compelling (but not hot at that stage), and foolishly didn't change channel when the show came on. Now I am completely and irrevocably hooked. Even though the show is three nights a week, even though NZ for some reason is getting the show two weeks behind the civilised world and therefore can't vote, even though some of the so-called rockers irritate the snot out of me. I live for the nights it is on, and spend the other four nights a week wishing it was on. I've never felt this way about a TV show before.

Why do I like it? I love the music, and I love the fact that it is not butchered (generally speaking) by the rockers -- they are true professionals, not Joe-Schmo off the street. Dave Navarro is hot. The little guy from INXS who plays the bass is too cute for words. The show does not focus on the backbiting jealousies of the individual rockers (in fact, as far as I can tell apart from JD pissing nearly everyone off, there aren't any), but rather on their development as stars. And there are some genuinely likeable people on it (Mig Ayesa, if you're reading this, I am talking about you).

None of that, however, makes my absolute love of the show defensible from any sane person's standpoint. I've thought a lot about the show and why I don't feel like it is a sellout for INXS, and why I find it in any way bearable. I think it is a great thing for INXS to do. It has been eight years since Michael Hutchence died, and in that time INXS has sung with a number of people and not found a new lead singer.

This is not a show they have done right off the bat -- it has been in consideration for three years leading up to production. INXS wanted to find the very best person for the job, and they wanted to hear who the public thought was that person too. I don't see how they can do that without a TV show. And yet, INXS have maintained the ultimate creative control -- they make the decisions, not the public. The rockers are also very much in training to be rock stars, each week they do something that will be useful for them in any future rock career, and for the person who is the most right for INXS mean that INXS doesn't have to teach them all that stuff. They are not looking for an idol-type singer, they're looking for someone who can play an instrument and write songs, who can really contribute. And I think they are looking for someone to help move them forward; they responded well to a rocker who decided to take things in their own direction, and then explained that they could not and would not subvert their own personality to INXS.

INXS is not going to be the same animal it was when Michael Hutchence was the lead singer, that much is certain. But what is also rapidly becoming clear, is that INXS accept that, and just want the best new person for the job -- and it is also certain that they will be getting someone very talented indeed. In fact, unless there are weird contractual obligations, I have no doubt we will be hearing from most of the final six or seven regardless of who wins.

In the end, this is the only way INXS could attract talented people and get public input. They are genuinely seeking a new lead singer with a personality. They have maintained creative control over the final choice -- and have exercised it in getting rid of two people in a single show when they felt neither was good enough. And let's face it -- this isn't reality TV; there will be no sequel, and the prize is not a million dollars and go back to your normal life -- the prize is a job, and respect that the person who gets the job will have to earn. Reality TV always makes things way too easy. This is real TV. And I love it.

A much belated tribute to the first true leader of NZ

2005-08-21T20:02:00.000+10:00

It is a week now since David Lange died in hospital, leaving behind five children, and a couple of wives (well a wife and an ex-wife). The whole thing made me inexplicably and immediately very sad; I have been busy and only just really had time to think on why I have been so sad about it.

I think there are two reasons, the first of them personal, the second...patriotic, I guess. And this coming from a person who has never had a patriotic sentiment in their stunted life.

The personal reason why I'm feeling deeply sad about the death of a man who I never personally had anything to do with (and who appears to have run off with his speech writer later in life) is that he was, for me, a childhood prime minister. He came to power in 1984, the first year I can remember as having had a number, and stayed in power until I was near the end of primary school, in 1989. So, like all things from one's childhood for me he feels like the "real" prime minister, despite the fact I am about to vote in my third general election (and I don't think I have voted for the person who got in even once).

The patriotic reason is much more simple, though. There is no doubt that Lange was an impressive orator, and an extremely intelligent man. He was also a man of much personal inspiration and responsibility; he put himself through law school by working at the freezing works because his dad was a GP in a poor area and didn't charge people enough to pay for his son's education (funny how you learn a lot about the people who have made history around the time of their death).

None of this, however, would have made him a great or important prime minister, or someone to inspire patriotism. What does make him important and patriotism inspiring, however, is the fact that he dragged NZ kicking and screaming into a sense if independent nationhood. There are elements in today's society who will disagree with me and say that (for whatever reason) Lange did not do anything like enough... I don't want to touch this issue with a barge pole.

NZ, from colonization until the end of WWII was largely a colony of the British Empire, going where Britain went and referring to England as "home" -- even those who had never been there. After WWII, we developed a not dissimilar relationship with the US, as evidenced by our involvement in the SE Asian wars. Lange was the person to break this tie, and he did it in a way I feel we can all be proud of as NZers -- he said no to nuclear weaponry, and he put this naysay into legislation. This set NZ apart from the US, and has resulted in a certain amount of punitive ostracism from trade agreements and such. It also resulted in an act of war by the French government, which was dealt with diplomatically. In this single act, Lange enabled us as a nation to have something important to stand for, and gave us a choice in things like whether to get involved in the most recent Iraq conflict (and, quietly, thank goodness we didn't; the idea of terrorists blowing up Auckland just sends my fear about the cost of infrastructure in a small country like this reeling).

Interestingly enough, two days after Lange died we went on our first training exercise with the US military since the nuclear ban came in. Interestingly enough, the National party is promising to "review" our nuclear free status should they be elected this year.

Farewell, David Lange, and thankyou, whereever you are, for giving me something to be proud of as a NZer. Thankyou for giving NZ a choice. And thankyou, perhaps, for deciding who I will not vote for in this election (a question that has been vexing me greatly for some time).

Rant: Why 'House' is a bad show, and doctors have bad attitudes (even if they save your life)

2005-08-12T21:26:00.000+10:00

I have a chronic illness. What's more, it's not a trendy chronic illness like cystic fibrosis or MS, it's not pretty... in fact, it is largely an unspeakable disease. People don't like talking about the symptoms, or the diagnostic procedures (one of my friends, a so-called medical professional, has said "eeeeeeuuuuuwwwww" about one of the procedures I have had to have, despite the fact he invades women's private parts everyday, because "you get a better picture that way". Um... Yeah). And this disease occurs in an area of the body that is hard to see or indeed visualize in any way. Because the disease is not trendy(and that is another rant all in and of itself), there is not a whole lot of research funding in it, so the unpleasant diagnostic procedures are still used.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with 'House'? Well, the lead character, the eponymous House, epitomizes all that is wrong with the medical profession. He is willing to treat without adequately diagnosing, and he is willing to subject patients to unpleasant tests on a hunch or a whim. However, the thing that is the most wrong about House is that he gives nary a damn for the patient; all he is concerned with is the diseases the patients carry. It is under the illusion that you can treat the disease without taking the patient's humanity into the equation that can allow him to make the callous and often ego-driven decisions portrayed on the show. The real danger of this is not that the show will inspire medical professionals to behave like House (many of them already do), but that the show will lead patients to believe that this is an acceptable way for doctors to treat them.

It is this disconnection of the patient from decision-making capabilities, feelings, or dignity that allows medical professionals to do things like order an enterolcysis (an xray where a tube is passed via the patient's nose into their duodenum while thy are still awake, and their already-damaged bowel is filled to maximum with contrast -- all this without sedation or pain relief) or do a transvaginal scan (saying objection to this is "sentimental") in the name of getting "better pictures". Is it worth entirely sacrificing a patient's comfort, dignity, modesty and privacy so a miniscule amount of further understanding may be gained about their condition? Is it ethical to refuse to do things any other way? Is pain (and it's deliberate infliction by medical professionals) a legitimate diagnostic tool?

As a professional patient I say no to all the questions I have just asked. For non-surgical procedures, I believe no doctor or medical professional should be allowed to perform a diagnostic procedure without first undergoing it. If they do not have the requisite anatomy, they should not perform it at all (what is with all these weirdo male gynecologists? I mean, how does that ever seem like a good idea?). I believe that for many patients, particularly the ones who are long term patients and need to make decisions about their health every day, informed consent includes offering a selection of different tests and explaining the risks and benefits of each (we, in particular, struggle to maintain dignity and identity as patients). I believe that uncomfortable tests are not legitimated by their lesser cost (than tests equally as accurate, but more expensive).

I understand where the doctors and medical professionals are coming from. To think of every patient as an individual suffering from something unpleasant would be mind-bogglingly difficult, and would result in burnt out professionals very, very quickly. However, treating each patient as a being with dignity, pain and feelings should be considered part of the job. It can be hard when dealing with uneducated patients to explain their options, and it may even be more humane not to explain all the options in every case as decision making can be agonizing for those who are not well informed prior to the appointment (and to educate everyone prior to an appointment would be prohibitively costly). However, medical professionals should be charged with the responsibility of making humane decisions, and in a case where a patient clearly knows what they are dealing with, including them in the decision making process.

Most of all, I believe everyone, doctors, nurses, diagnostic professionals, other healthcare professionals, and patients alike have a responsibility to ensure that 'House' is not what we expect of a medical professional, nor even acceptable.

Rave: "Jamie's School Dinners" music programmer

2005-07-18T21:44:00.000+10:00

For the first time tonight I watched a show called Jamie's School Dinners. It's about Jamie Oliver moving into schools in the UK and trying to serve children one nutritious meal per day through school cafeterias. Disturbingly, many of the "dinner ladies" he works with have no training, cannot even cook pasta, and appear not to like to eat vegies themselves. Under the circumstances is it any wonder that an increasing number school-age children are seeing dietitians? Scary stuff.

Anyways, good on Jamie for trying to change things, though had he asked me I could have given him a few pointers on how to make his changes more palatable (in more ways than one) to his wee charges -- for example, the healthy burger -- vegie pattie with wholemeal bun and lots of salad. I know this must have lots of fibre in it (one of the major problems the dietitian interviewed was seeing was kids with malfunctioning colons due to lack of fibre) because it would absolutely slay me. The kids, however, would still see it as a burger. New foods could be introduced slowly.

The real purpose of this post though, is to praise to the sky the music programmers for the show, who have bypassed dross like Britney, Eminem, and Coldplay and picked up in this episode alone Mr. Brightside by The Killers and Twenty Years by Placebo (though it would take a diehard fan like myself to notice that last one -- it was instrumental snippets only. But then I guess the show was for a general audience, and Placebo, generally speaking, are not).

Rave: The web as the mother of random creativity

2005-07-13T22:32:00.000+10:00

The web really is the source and birthplace of some weird acts of creation. And the more bizarre the acts, the funnier I usually find them. Without the web aid its easy-publish technologies, it is likely these things that have become popular culture may never have happened; for me at least, that would have meant a little less laughter.

The first example of funny meets bizarre that was born on the web that I would like to share is All Your Base Are Belong To Us. Someone created this little video out of some weird text and speech in a Japanese video game, and a whole lot of hard work in Phtotoshop, and it spread around the web like wildfire. Why did they create it? Who knows. I guess the obvious answer is too much time on their hands. But even for something where a person has too much time on their hands that is a lot of work. Whatever the reason behind it, it captured the imagination of a whole lot of people. And as far as I can tell, apart from the t-shirt sales, which may or may not be making enough money to cover web-serving costs, the people who created this have not made any money from it. Nonetheless, this is a little piece of flash that had the whole world going, even if just for a few days. And it is tremendously funny.

The next thing that is funny, creative, and more than just a little random is the specifically web-designed flash technology End of the World. I don't know who sees the world this way (and in the current political climate, it would most likely be somewhere in the Middle East that the US started a war with), but it is damn funny. Somehow, having a web to put it on inspired this random act of creativity that has gone on to make any number of people smile. Not only that, it shows an inherent understanding of something researchers took a long time to come to terms with -- users hate to wait. Even the load screen is designed to both warn and entertain "Sorry, long load time.... STFU already!". Whoever created this deserves a medal.

The most recent (and perhaps the most attention grabbing) act of random creativity, though is the Crazy Frog. Love the crazy frog or hate him (and we definitely know it is a him just by seeing the video, unlike real frogs) on first viewing, it is hilarious. The frog and his moped noises were created by a pair of crazy Swedes and put on the net for fun. Jamster picked up on it, and created the ringtone that is the first ever ringtone to go to number one. And if you don't think the Crazy Frog is funny, think about how funny it is that someone is making a fortune out of it -- people will pay for this stuff. It's just a shame that the Crazy Frog's parents are not the ones making the money.

So, here are just three examples of web-based culture that have swept the world as crazes (All Your Base made it into the Google Zeitgeist for February 2001, the Crazy Frog for May 2005), made people laugh, made people angry, made money for people, and sent a ringtone to number one on the UK charts (even beating out Coldplay, much to my surprise and pleasure). The web is offering the creative among us (well, and even the plain broring like me) the opportunity for instant, near-free publication. Is it a good thing? Who knows. But these things are funny, and my life is better for them. It should be the slogan for the web "try and find something funny that makes your life better today"., or better yet "create something for someone to enjoy today". Now if only Google can solve the indexing problem...

Rant: New Zealanders really are disappointing sometimes

2005-07-11T21:02:00.000+10:00

In the past five days there have been numerous war-related historic occasions:

The 60th anniversary of the end of WWII
The 20th anniversary of the bombing of the rainbow warrior (arguably the only act of war -- or terrorism -- perpetrated on New Zealand since colonisation)
The 10th anniversary of a massacre of Bosnian Muslims in former Yugoslavia
The London terror attacks

I mention all these to give context to the rant to come. My rant is to express disappointment in some of my fellow New Zealanders. I am disappointed in those New Zealanders who. at an individual and institutional level, have made the decision to show little respect in light of these historic occasions.

At an individual level, some new Zealanders have chosen to attack mosques in Auckland, our largest city. Six mosques were desecrated, one of them ending up with the text "RIP London" spraypainted on the wall.

This pointless act of destruction and disrespect, particularly so near the anniversary of a time where the world's Muslim community was itself the internationally recognised victim of terrorism, makes me very sad. I hope these people are not people who are old enough to reme4mber when we New Zealanders experienced terrorism on our shores; I hope that experience would dissuade anyone fr0mrandom political violence. Still, I had hoped that we, in New Zealand, might be more tolerant and avoid a backlash reaction. Sadly, that has not been the case.

What is worse, however, is the opinion cartoon in today's Waikato Times, a provincial newspaper that nevertheless reaches a significant chunk of the nation's population. I have never found this newspaper to be a particularly intellectually inspired publication, and I never buy it myself. However, today it arrived in the letterbox as part of a promotion, where we are to receive it free for a week. I am sad to say that my opinion of it has not been even slightly improved; in fact I think less of it today than I ever have before in my life.

The cartoon in question shows two views of a generic entrance to the London Underground, one labelled 1941, and the other labelled 2005. In the 1941 picture, a man looking at the sky is running into the underground. In the 2005 view this same 'everyman' is running back out.

My partner and I both have friends and loved ones in London, or who happened to be in London at the time of the attacks. We were travelling at the time of the attacks, and we each spent several tense hours waiting to hear whether those we cared about were safe. One New Zealand family is still waiting to hear about their daughter. So many New Zealanders have been through the same thing this week (New Zealand has much closer ties to the UK than the US, and so this tragedy has seemed much closer to home than 9/11). Nevertheless, our experience, shock, and sadness must be tiny compared to that of Britain, and London in particular. It is disgusting for a cartoonist to make light of this, and even worse for a newspaper to print such a thing.

However, the cartoon does not stop there. It also denigrates the fear felt by Londoners, and the sacrifices made by servicepeople, families, and civilians during WWII on 60th anniversary of the end of the war. I don't doubt that the newspaper has some readers who are among those, who made these sacrifices, either.

Needless to say I have sent a letter to the editor of the paper telling them that free week or no free week I will not be subscribing to their paper now or in the future.

So, so far we have had people attacking the places of worship, a religious leader using the attacks for political capital for his party, and a newspaper making light of the whole thing. I really hope that we will see a vast improvement in the attitude of certain New Zealanders at all levels in the next few days.

P.S. I didn't start this as a political blog. If you're reading I apologise. I will try to write about something less inflammatory next time.

Rant: Fundamentalism at it's most offensive

2005-07-10T22:28:00.000+10:00

So, one of my intellectual pursuits is following the antics of the so-named Destiny Church and associated political party in New Zealand. Yes, you heard me right, this is an outfit that has completely missed that whole separation of Church and state that was decided hundreds of years ago with the blood of political and religious martyrs. I have to bless the folks at google news for setting up the news alert thing; it makes my life so much easier to just get the stuff in my email.

Anyways, after watching the horror unfold in London, wondering if my chief PhD supervisor and close friend was okay, wondering if Mike's sister was okay, and generally feeling alternately weepy and ill, I got this link in my inbox.

The background to the story is that the Destiny political party has just announced its candidates for the upcoming general election in New Zealand, and are touring the country having "rallies" where they spew doctrine. The star attraction at these rallies is Brian Tamaki, the charismatic-but-creepy leader of the church side of things, who is not standing as a political candidate at all because he is "called by god to do higher things".

While Tamaki described the London attacks as "despicable" and "tragic" (yeah, he's a real genius, that man) he also had this to say:

"What people in New Zealand don't realise is we have been enduring a type of terrorism of another kind - acts of terrorism against the family."

He claimed that the civil unions bill, teen pregnancies, legalisation of prostitution, and abortions and the lowering of the drinking age to be terrorist acts by the state against the "family".

Now, while I am far from being a young drinker, teen mother, prostitute or veteran of the abortion clinic (and most of that I cannot claim credit for, I had a good upbringing and great opportunities), I nonetheless see a lot of problems with many of those laws. The prostitution law in particular seems to me to have been counterproductive, though I don't have a better solution to the situation. Having said that, though, Tamaki calling this terrorism makes me very angry. These laws were deigned to allow people civil liberties in most cases, and can hardly be said to have killed or maimed innocent people. To compare this kind of lawmaking to the tragedy suffered in London is an insult to the families of the victims, the emergency services, and to any thinking person who was saddened by what they saw on the news. And Tamaki is the leader of a church, with his followers blindly accepting and agreeing with what he says (I say this from experience -- I have friends who were normal, reasonable people until they got involved).

Preaching of this kind is not only rude and disrespectful, it is dangerous. If a person feels persecuted by their government, particularly in a religious way, what is the accepted response these days? Al Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, SPUC, and the IRA are all example of just how dangerous a group of people can get when they believe (rightly or wrongly, and I am not going to get into what I think of each of those individual cases) that they are religiously wronged. I wonder, if someone who agrees with Tamaki plants a bomb in some public building and kills a number of people in protest against "terrorism against the family", whether Tamaki will consider that "tragic and despicable", or whether he will declare it a victory of God, and I wonder whether he will feel any responsibility for the lives lost. I hope I never have to find out.

Why I'm here

2005-07-10T21:51:00.000+10:00

I always wanted somewhere to put my random rants and raves, and this is a mcuh better place to leave them than the ears of my friends. I mean, I can only tell them how awesome the new Placebo CD is so many times, and my political views tend to be too random for anyone else to follow.... (an example of an earlier rant copied from another blog can be found here).

The real reason I have this blog, though, is so that I could have a private account on the blog I created for the colleagues of mine to communicate with our former supervisor (who has just left for Wales). To have a private account I needed a blogger account, and to have a blogger account I needed my own blog. The rest, as they say, is history. I have joined the noisy masses who have reserved themselves space to publish every random thought that crosses their mind.

Rant: Who can be married by the law, and who should be

2004-11-19T00:47:00.000+11:00

Copied from another blog I write.

As part of the university community I have recently been to a debate about the upcoming civil unions legislation, and the related legislation which proposes to treat marriage, civil union, and de-facto relationships (where de-facto is defined as who-knows-what) all the same.

This is all well and good, but I actually choose to be in a de-facto relationship without all the strings and hassles of marriage; if I wanted to be married I would get married (or civil-unioned/unified/whatever). I don't want the state to say I can't get married, and I certainly don't want the state to marry me without my consent.

And, of course, at any such discussion, there are religious militants. Who believe that extending the right of a formally registered legal union to gay couples is to fly in the face of god. To devalue marriage. To support the minority to the detriment of the majority. To teach our children that being gay is okay, when in fact it is an insidious and evil lifestyle choice.... And other such arguments.

Now, far be it from me to say all religious or Christian people believe these things; I believe (and fervently hope) that this kind of attitude is a minority of Christians. Certainly in my experience, it is a minority viewpoint.

There are numerous arguments that I have seen against viewpoint, including that the statues against homosexuality are also in a book of the bible that says a person who steals cread should be stoned to death, and that the Christians are trying to enforce their (minority) viewpoint down the throat of an apathetic majority.

I don't believe any of these arguments will be heard, any more than I believe what I am about to say will be heard. But I have an argument that centers on a fundamental of Christianity. That fundamental is free will, God gave us free will to do naughty things. If we do those "naughty" things (leaving aside for the moment whether homosexuality is a sin), and don't repent, and it will make God sad, but that is our choice. Now, I know we have laws against murder, and I know we have laws against other crimes too, but the vast majority of the ones that relate to the bible are crimes that have victims; that in some way take away the right of other people to use their free will. Homosexuality, if it is a sin, hurts only the sinner, and takes away no-one's right to make their own choices.

So, given that the government is bound by a human rights act, and is bound to treat all people equally, and that homosexuality is morality, and that God himself did not legislate our morality, but rather gave us a choice, isn't it only responsible and fair governance to allow people to have a union that does not involve church or tradition, and that allows them to marry the person they love, regardless of that person's gender?