}

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Finding and fixing a Disqus problem

This blog uses Disqus commenting system, a free service that replaces the built-in commenting system for Google’s Blogspot/Blogger blogs. For the most part it’s worked well, though there have been sometimes been glitches that needed to be fixed. Today I discovered a new one I had to fix.

My installed Firefox recently automatically upgraded to the latest version, 57, which they’ve named Firefox Quantum, reputedly now the fastest browser available. When I accessed my blog, commenting wasn’t available, not even on posts that I knew had comments. I tried accessing a post with comments by itself, which always used to make comments appear, but that didn’t work. However, the comments were there on Chrome, so I knew the problem was with Firefox.

Without getting overly detailed (I’m happy to provide more details in the comments—just ask), I restarted Firefox in “Safe Mode”, which strips it back to basics and disables all add-ons (aka extensions). Comments reappeared. So, I then restarted Firefox normally, disabled all add-ons, restarted, and then re-enabled add-ons one at a time at repeated until I found the culprit.

It turned out it was “HTTPS Everywhere”, an add-on from EFF (the Electronic Frontier Foundation) that “encrypts your communications with many major websites, making your browsing more secure.” That add-on apparently blocks Disqus. Of course, this isn’t the first time this has caused me problems: In 2013 it was much worse.

With “HTTPS Everywhere” disabled, comments loaded normally. So next I went to Chrome, where comments had always worked, and discovered I didn’t have the add-on installed. So, I installed it—and the same thing happened.

It turns out that the add-on can be disabled just for Blogger.com, which is what I did on Chrome, and it worked. That leaves the add-on functioning to preserve my privacy elsewhere, while allowing me to see comments on my blog (and any others using both Blogger and Disqus).

I never would have known any of this if Firefox hadn’t updated to their new, flashier version. I want to try it as my default browser, but the commenting glitch would have made that impossible. There is, however, one remaining glitch I need to solve.

When I go to my blog on Firefox, I’m not logged in, and I always used to be in older versions of Firefox (and I still am on Chrome). Firefox made a change several updates ago that changed something (no idea what), and now if I access my blog—even if I’m logged into the dashboard on another tab—I’m not logged into my blog. This only matters because after I publish a post I always read the final version, right away or later, and I often notice mistakes I didn’t see before. On Chrome, I just click the “edit post” icon, but on Firefox I have to log in. I could have to repeat that process several times before I’m happy with the post, and on Firefox, re-logging in is annoying.

Still, the thing that I thought would make Firefox unusable for me—a problem with a particular add-on—is now sorted.

Related:
Improved commenting – I talk about the switch when I first made it
How to comment – I provided complete instructions on how to use the Disqus system
Solving commenting problems – the post in which I talked about how to fix a Blogger glitch that prevented the Disqus option from showing up for some people
Unexpected and expected – Not about Disqus as such, but it’s why I permit anonymous comments
The last commenting glitch – this post is about how to work around comments not showing for the most recent post. This is still a problem, and this is the method I tried first when I noticed that comments weren’t appearing on any post with Firefox Quantum.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Is this it?


Our cat Bella has not been herself the past day and a bit. Very quiet, sleeping virtually all the time, and now eating and drinking very little. The journey that began 16 months ago may be coming to an end. Or, she could rally once again. There’s always hope.

When Bella’s kidney problems were diagnosed in July, 2016, we were told she had a few days, a couple weeks at most. And yet she rallied and improved, and kept improving. Up until yesterday she was doing quite well, if slower and thinner than she was before this journey began.

But now she just seems detached, as if she’s disconnecting. On the other hand, she could just be feeling unwell at the moment, and she’ll come round, she’ll rally again. But even if she does, this won’t go on forever. We know that. We’re grateful for the 16 unexpected months we’ve had with her and we’d like her to stick around—but only as long as she’s happy and content. At the moment, she seems comfortable, not in any pain or distress, so we’re watching her for any change—or improvement. She’ll lead us in the direction she needs to go.

At the moment, this is taking up most of my thoughts when I’m not busy with other things. I guess that figures. I guess I should try and keep busy.

Previously
Bella’s journey
Bella’s condition
Bella’s new normal
Better Bella

Update November 18: Bella is doing very well today—eating well, drinking, and she seems much brighter. Yesterday she seemed a bit "warm" to me, as if she had a fever, and today she doesn't. She's even gone back to sleeping on one her favourite chairs to sleep on, something she hasn't done the couple days before then. While it's too early to tell if she's going to "surprise us again", she clearly is better today, and that's a good thing, whatever that leads to.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Australia’s important step

Today the results of the Australian Government’s voluntary postal survey on marriage equality were released, and they were a stunner: 61.6% voted YES, 38.4% voted no. As impressive as that win is, it becomes even more important when you consider the turnout was a massive 79.5%, which makes it a landslide result for marriage equality. Now, the real work begins.

The campaign against marriage equality was divisive, often vicious and bigoted, and ultimately losing. Ex-Prime Minister, and perpetual annoying twit, Tony Abbott campaigned hard against marriage equality (despite his sister being lesbian—their family get-togethers must be interesting…). He said that a 40% “no” vote would be a “moral victory”, but his anti-gay side couldn’t even manage that. In fact, his own electorate voted 75% in favour of marriage equality, suggesting his views aren’t very popular among the people who sent him to parliament.

The massive turnout, and the overwhelming YES vote will make it hard for some MPs to oppose marriage equality when the bill comes before Parliament soon. To be sure, there are some bigoted MPS in the Liberal Party-National Party (LNP) Coalition who have promised to stop marriage equality, or, if they can’t, to effectively do the same thing by loading on anti-LGBT+ killer amendments.

The rightwing can’t stop marriage equality if it was offered as an up or down vote in Parliament: The Australian Labor Party (ALP) supports it, and enough Liberal Party MPs will support it to pass it in an up or down vote. However, the rightwing is declaring it will offer amendments to guarantee “freedom of speech” (even though that’s already protected), “freedom of conscience” (ditto). They also plan on trying to use the bill as a vehicle to attach the same sort of license to discriminate measures US Republicans favour, amendments that would legalise discrimination against LGBT+ people even outside the question of marriage equality.

Australia is a much more conservative country than New Zealand is, so it’s difficult to gauge how successful the rightwing will be. However, it’s pretty much impossible for the rightwing to stop marriage equality completely. Can they pass enough amendments to make the final bill unacceptable? Maybe, but I have a hunch that even Liberal Party MPs will see the writing on the wall and will stop any poison chalice amendments, even if for only practical reasons: If the anti-LGBT+ far right succeeds, this issue will continue to boil away, made worse by the LNP effectively thumbing its nose at the majority of the Australian public. That alone could very well hand the next election to the ALP, who announced last election that would legislate for marriage equality, and they still hold that position.

So, one way or another, marriage equality IS coming to Australia, the question is, simply, when? I think that Malcolm Turnbull, the current prime minister and a marriage equality supporter, wants this issue settled. I’ve seen many pundits who said the whole plebiscite thing was his ploy to break the blockade against marriage equality from within his own LNP Coalition so the issue can be settled once and for all. While he personally wants marriage equality, he wants the issue off the political agenda even more. That’s okay: The only thing Australians care about is getting marriage equality.

The viciousness of the anti-equality campaign didn’t surprise anyone—we all predicted how awful it would get. And, right on cue, the rightwing is attacking Yes supporters for being “intolerant”. As if! The Yes Campaign was relentlessly positive and never descended to the level of the viscous bigots who did their damnedest to provoke them. Obviously, a popular vote should never should have happened at all, because the very idea of ever putting minority rights up for popular vote is vomit-inducingly sick and disgusting—extremely fucked-up. Always.

However, the vote has happened, it has produced a landslide victory for marriage equality, and that fact should force any previous opponent who has an ounce of sense—or sense of self-preservation—to vote in favour of marriage equality. Marriage equality WILL come to Australia: What MPs want to be remembered as being one of the losers who stood in the way of love?

Finally, here’s the celebratory video from Australian Marriage Equality. To them, heartfelt congratulations and huge thanks for a job well done. Besides, who doesn’t like seeing happy people being joyfully happy?!!



The image up top was posted to Facebook by Australian Marriage Equality.

First attempt at resolution

When I last posted a Health Journey update a week and a half ago, I’d pretty much decided to ride things out a little while longer in the hope that things would stabilise. I changed my mind, and went back to the doctor yesterday to complain about how truly awful I felt most of the time. As a result, we’re trying an adjustment to see if that helps.

As I said last time, the most complained about side effect of beta blockers is terrible, even debilitating, fatigue. The drug I’m on, Atenolol, is slightly better than the one I had been taking, Metoprolol, which I simply couldn’t tolerate at all. The old drug was so bad for me, in fact, that some days I just sat in my chair unable to work up the energy to even walk the few steps to the kitchen to make a cup of coffee or whatever. I tried a low-dose vitamin thinking maybe it would help my energy levels, but instead I felt worse and stopped the vitamins.

When I first switched to Atenolol, I did feel better—but maybe that was just because Metoprolol had made me feel so bad. After nearly a couple months taking it, I’d settled into the “normal” with the drug, and it still left me profoundly tired most of the time. In talking over things with Nigel, I decided to go back to the doctor.

Because of work commitments, I wasn’t able to go until this week, and that was yesterday. I left the house in a good mood, because it was such a beautiful Spring day—bright, sunny, and nearly even warm. But about five minutes into the drive, I noticed storm clouds in the direction I would be heading, and I could clearly see it was raining to the South. When I reached the outskirts of Karaka, I rounded a bend and saw white stuff all around the sides of the road, and I thought maybe a truck had lost part of its load. Then I saw the slush on the road ahead of me. Hail, I realised, had pelted the area just a few minutes before I got there.

It was raining heavily when I got on the motorway. The first part that I use is under construction as the road is widened to add another lane. Because of that, the lane markers are just very basic paint, since they ned to move lanes from time to time, and that meant that in all the water and glare, I couldn’t see where the lanes were. There was a big truck up ahead of me, and I figured since he was up much higher, he could probably see the lane lines better than me, so I pointed my car so it followed in the “treads marks” left in the water on the road. It was exhausting.

Nevertheless, I got to the doctor’s office some 15 minutes early. About 10 minutes after my appointment was supposed to start, the folks at reception began ringing patients to tell them the doctor was running 15-30 minutes late. I didn’t really mind, actually, because it gave me a little more time to calm down from the drive so I’d have a more typical blood pressure reading.

I saw the doctor maybe a half hour late, and told her what had been going on with me. She was aware that severe fatigue was a common-enough side effect of beta blockers, and I told her I didn’t know what we should do, but I couldn’t go on like this. I told her I was reluctant to begin a new drug that may be no better or even worse for me. I told her I was aware that calcium channel blockers were sometimes used to control tachycardia, and I thought that was ironic because my original blood pressure medicine was in that class.

Through our discussion, it finally dawned on me that the various doctors have been reluctant to deal to the beta blocker too aggressively because they were unclear why I’d been given it in the first place (to prevent tachycardia). That’s because it’s also give to people who’ve had a heart attack to help heal the heart and prevent another heart attack. I never had a heart attack, but because that’s one the most-common reasons the drug is prescribed, I now understand the doctors’ caution.

So, she suggested that I reduce my dosage by cutting my pills in half. She noted I was on a low dose of the other drug, and while dosage isn’t directly comparable, the current one was reasonably high. She wants me to try it for a month so there’s time for me to adjust. I’m due to go back next month for a re-check and to renew my prescriptions, so the timing would be perfect.

I did a little shopping after the appointment (nothing exciting—mostly just a couple grocery stores). By the time I was done, and on the road, it was very late afternoon. Traffic was a nightmare from earlier breakdowns on the motorway. When I got to the construction area again, it rained hard again, with the same result as when I was heading north. Fortunately, this was near the end of the construction zone, so it didn't last as long as on the trip North.

Because of all this, I got home exhausted.

I was so tired, in fact, that I actually dozed off in my chair watching TV. I had some things I needed to do that evening, and I did them anyway, then got to bed late. All of which is is why I didn't write this post last night.

I was tired this morning, even before I took the first half-pill dosage. I had things I wanted to do today before the predicted rain arrived—and, I did them.

Mainly, I wanted to clean out the gutters (often called “spouting” in New Zealand) on the sides and back of the house (grass grows in them because of this bottle-brush like stuff previous owners put in there to stop grass from growing…). This is the second time I’ve cleaned out the gutters since we moved in back in February.

After that, I pulled weeds out front, something I’d wanted to do for a very long time, but couldn’t muster the energy to actually do it. And, I felt… fine. I’m tired from a messed-up sleep schedule in recent days, and when I stopped I was tired from the physical activity (from being unfit, basically), but that’s pretty much it. The test will be how I feel tomorrow, whether I have the energy to do anything or not. If I do, the dosage reduction may have done the trick. Or, maybe I just had a good day today. I’m optimistic, though, because the lack of sleep left me tired, and yet I was able to get done all the physical jobs I wanted to get done today.

Obviously, it’s way too early to know if a reduction in dosage will fix the fatigue problem, and, if it does, whether it will still help prevent tachycardia incidents. And that, ultimately, will be the subject of future posts.

Right now, this was just another episode of my health journey—this time including actual journeying. The important thing about today’s episode, though, is that I feel a lot more optimistic than I did a week and a half ago, and right now, I’ll take that.

Important note: This post is about my own personal health journey. My experiences are my own, and shouldn’t be taken as indicative for anyone else. Similarly, other people may have completely different reactions to the same medications I take—better or worse. I share my experiences because others may have the same or similar experiences, and I want them to know that they’re not alone. But, as always, discuss your situation and how you’re feeling openly, honestly, and clearly with your own doctor, and always feel free to seek a second opinion from another doctor.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Explaining that photo project

The thing about social media photo challenges, is that they come with rules. Sure, rules are meant to be broken sometimes, but unless there’s a good reason to do so, it makes more sense to play along. It’s part of the challenge. Even then, there can be ways around the rules, and this post is an example of that.

Recently, I took part in a photo challenge: “7 days, 7 black and white photos of your life, no people, no explanation.” Leaving the photos unexplained was part of the challenge for me and anyone seeing the photos. Sure, the main question could be “why did he choose that?!”, but there’s also the much simpler, “where/what is that?”. This post will answer that last question for each photo.

Starting in the upper right corner is Day One (links for each day are to the blog posts about each photo): That grid-like pattern is shadows on the carpet, as may be obvious. It’s the shadow of the vertical blinds hanging in front of one of the doors in the lounge that lead out to our deck (we’re not keep on vertical blinds, but don’t have a better alternative yet). It was not, however, the photo I was going to use. That photo is at the bottom of this post (and in colour). I didn’t use it because I was under the mistaken notion that the photos were supposed to be inanimate objects. As soon as I posted my first photo, I saw someone else taking part in the challenge had posted a photo of their furbaby. Doh! It’s too bad because I liked the photo of Sunny’s paw much better, but one of my own rules was the photo I posted had to be taken that same day, so I couldn't use it another day.

Day Two, left most photo in the middle row: This is of tomato and capsicum seedlings in our kitchen window. I almost posted a comment about them because I was concerned a botanically-challenged viewer might think the tomato plants were something illegal, but I realised that would be an explanation, so I said nothing. Until now.

Day Three: This is from our deck, and I’ve posted similar photos before, but this one struck me because a storm was moving in and there was a weird mix of light—the last gasps of sunlight as the clouds thickened, the different light hitting the clouds over the harbour, all that. I just liked it. Apparently, others did, too, because as I’m writing this that photo got more Instagram likes than any other photo in the series.

Day Four: This photo came about because of an unexpected opportunity. As the geo tag in the original post said, it was at Smith & Caughey’s upmarket department store in central Auckland. The photo’s actually of the back of the store on Elliott Street (its main facades are on Queen Street and Wellesley Street). The Elliott Street side looks very urban to me—a bit New York, Chicago, etc. It’s a heritage listed building built in 1929, though it looks much older (the company itself was first established in the 1880s). It was unexpected because Nigel had a meeting in teh CBD ans asked me if I wanted to come along for an hour or so, and I knew I’d have a photo opportunity or two, so I went, and this photo was my favourite of the options I saw walking around for most of that time. This was my second most-liked photo.

Day Five: This is a welcome sign on the road leading into the area where we live. Nothing special to report about that, except I actually was in the car with the dogs on my way back from picking up the package with the flag poles and flags that the courier had delivered to their local agent rather than us (long story). I stopped, shot some photos, and continued on home.

Day Six: One of two least-liked photos, this is our letterbox. This one bugs me because, due to glare, I didn’t notice how I could have framed the photo better. Oh, well.

Day Seven: This is a shot of grapefruit lying on the ground under the tree in our yard. This will amount to a memorial, since we’re going to cut down that tree: I can’t eat grapefruit, none of the people we know who can eat it actually like grapefruit, so it’s taking up room we could use for a fruit tree we’d actually like (we’re thinking maybe a lime tree, since limes are expensive to buy; we already have a lemon tree). These grapefruit are a particularly cruel variety because the skin is bright orange, so they look like they could be nice—and they’re just not. They’re grapefruit. This was the other least-liked photo.

Since I mentioned it, here’s the relative popularity of the various photos at the moment, from most to least liked: 1. Day 3 From our deck, 2. Day 4 (Smith & Caughey’s), 3. Day 2 Seedlings in our kitchen window, 4. Day 5 Welcome sign, 5. Day 1 Shadows on the carpet (I bet the one I wanted to post would have been more popular…), 6. Day 7 Grapefruit, 7. Letterbox. I have no idea what the relative popularity of the photos means, if anything, except that I agree with the two most popular photos (I like those two the most, too). The thing about statistics, social media likes, etc., is that it’s difficult to draw any guidance from them, which is a shame if the goal is getting more eyes seeing the stuff we post.

So, that’s what those photos are of, and a bit about what I liked about them. However, I haven’t said why I chose those particular photos rather than any others I shot the same day (apart from the one below that I didn’t used because of a misunderstanding). I didn't talk about that one aspect because there are probably some things that should remain a mystery.

That photo that could have been first—and probably more popular than what was first.

The American problem


Many American Democrats were rejoicing after the recent elections in the USA because Democrats did so well. In fact, they did much better than expected. This is a good omen for the US Elections next year, right? Well, no, not really. The American problem is that the current system is set up to prevent change.

The video above from Vox talks about one of the main problems facing US elections: The country’s antique elections system which helps Republicans keep power, even when they win only a minority of votes. Changing the USA’s election system to a fairer and more democratic system is so difficult as to be nearly impossible, but the video is correct about the ways in which it could help—and how it could smash the Democratic v. Republican duopoly in elected offices.

The second big problem is gerrymandering. Republicans made a big effort in the mid-to-late-2000s to take over state legislatures so they would control how election district boundaries would be drawn to ensure their party got as many seats as possible, and Democrats got as few as possible, all to ensure Republicans maintained a majority of elected representative seats (both state and federal), even if they lose the popular vote (which is how Republicans held onto the Virginia legislature this year despite the massive swing to the Democrats in that state’s elections).

The third problem is Republicans’ voter suppression laws designed to keep Democratic-aligned voting groups—especially poor people, working people, and Black and Hispanic voters—from being able to vote. Republicans initially were able to hoodwink some Democratic legislators into supporting them, but most Democrats eventually realised Republicans were lying about their reasons fo their voter suppression laws. By then it was too late.

The final big problem is money: There’s WAY too much special interest money in politics. Because of the rightwing majority on the Supreme Court’s infamous gift to the Rightwing, Citizens United, corporations can spend as much as they want to buy politicians through campaign spending. It, and other, mostly Republican, legislation has increased the availability of “dark money”, the vast, vast majority of which goes to support Rightwing candidates.

Add it all up—an anti-democratic voting system that makes it easier for the two existing parties to remain in power, gerrymandered districts to keep Rpublicans in control, laws to make it harder for many Democratic-aligned people to vote, and virtually unlimited money to help Rightwing candidates, and even under the best of circumstances the odds are against Democrats re-taking the US Congress next year.

Democrats may do better in state legislatures, and statewide races (incuding some Governor races and some US Senate races in some states), but they’re unlikely to make major inroads in the US House until after redistricting, and then ONLY if they get control of the map drawing and are able to do to Republicans what they did to Democrats. Add to that the fact that people generally don’t vote against incumbents, and the odds are long.

There are some things that may help Democrats. As the current occupant of the White House continues to plummet in opinion polls, it could encourage his opponents to go vote for Democrats (his True Believers, it’s important to remember, are a small minority of voters even if they all turned out to vote). Of course, if he resigns, is impeached, or removed under the 25th Amendment, that might change everything—in either direction; it would depend on the circumstances.

For lasting reform and restoration of democracy, I’d do four things (if I could…):
  1. Switch to a fairer, more democratic voting system. There are several options, but the point is to end the First Past The Post system.
  2. Outlaw gerrymandering by requiring all district boundaries be drawn by independent, non-partisan commissions who would be forbidden by law to consider party identification of voters when drawing maps. Non-partisan systems are used in some US states and many countries, like New Zealand.
  3. Pass new laws making it easier to register and easier to vote. A national Fair Voting Act would outlaw voter suppression laws and ensure every citizen’s right to vote is protected and their participation encouraged.
  4. Amend the US Constitution to overturn Citizens United, to ban all “dark money” in US politics, and to enable legislation to severely regulate contributions to candidates for Congress and President, far beyond any restrictions that exists now.
I don’t think any of my reforms will ever see the light of day, and some are clearly more do-able than others. But without serious, strong reform, nothign will ever change. The system is designed to frustrate change, and it keeps Republicans in power. And that is why I’m pessimistic about Democrats re-taking Congress in 2018. In fact, defeating the current occupant’s campaign for re-election may also be very difficult.

And that’s the real American problem.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

B&W photo challenge: Day seven of seven

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

The last photo in this series—a sigh of relief for everyone! I thought of this one about the same time I thought of yesterday’s, but I didn’t shoot the photo until today. Like all the others in this series, I didn’t use any special photographic techniques, apart from getting down on the ground to take the photo. Afterward, I cropped it slightly and adjusted the brightness/contrast after converting it to black and white.

In keeping with the rules of the challenge, I haven’t said anything about the photos themselves that could even remotely be thought of as explanation. However, now that the challenge is over, I see no reason why I can’t talk about the actual photos.

So, I’ll do a sort of omnibus post talking about all of the photos, but because I’m busy with work, I may not get to it until next week. I’ll add a link here on this post once that one is up.

Thanks to my friend Linda for tagging me, and thanks to everyone for playing along, or indulging me, as the case may be.

Previously in this series:
A new photo challenge (day one of seven)
B&W photo challenge: Day two of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day three of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day four of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day five of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day six of seven

Best laid plans

Today we planned to fly our flags for the first time, in answer to long-held wishes. It was the perfect date to begin, but the weather didn’t cooperate, and we instead only had a dry run with no fulfillment. Life is like that.

For more years than I can remember, Nigel and wanted to have dual flag poles so that we could fly the flags of both our native lands. Quite how we would make that happen was the sticking point, and we never did it. We had flags, of course, and at various times we hung them in our house, but the only time we ever hung them outside was in 2011, when the Rugby World Cup was held in New Zealand, and we hung them out under the cover over our deck. And no one outside the family knew.

When we moved to this house, we talked again of flag poles, but erecting free-standing poles in the ground is expensive, and we really had nowhere suitable. So, we decided to hang them from our deck, Nigel found a suitable source for poles, flags, and mounting brackets (not easy to come by in New Zealand…), and we were ready.

Nigel installed the flag holders yesterday, and we did a trial fly, pictured above. It worked well, and our neighbours wondered what the heck we were doing (Nigel saw them, I didn’t), but we brought them inside as soon as we were satisfied that the position was right—entirely our esthetic choice, since New Zealand offers no guidance on how to display flags from buildings, despite offering other advice on NZ flag etiquette.

Today, November 11, is Armistice Day in New Zealand, and Veterans’ Day in the USA, a day to fly that country's flag (the Ministry for Culture and Heritage has posted a list of dates on which flying the New Zealand flag is encouraged). What better day could there be to fly both countries’ flags? The weather thought otherwise. Rain threatened all day, and the winds were mostly very strong, so flying the flags couldn’t happen, despite our best intentions. We’ll eventually have the right weather, I assume.

We both wanted to fly the flags because we’re proud of our respective homelands, even though there have been times they didn’t deserve our affection. And, if I’m totally honest, it doesn’t bother me at all that the fact I want to display the flags of both my countries upsets both those on the Right and those on the Leftward side of Left. It turns out that mainstream Liberals like me can feel for the flag as strongly as the Rightwing does, and despite what the Leftwing thinks—the sort of feeling and freedom of expression that good people gave their lives defending.

So, we now finally have our dual flag poles, and our dual flags (with more to be added). I don’t know when the weather will cooperate, but we’ll be ready and willing when it does.

Today's empty flagholders.

In which John Green is stunned by Kiwi kindness


In this video, John Green talks about how Kiwis’ expression of kindness meant a lot to him by sending in “thousands and thousands” of the now discontinued New Zealand 5 cent coins were gathered and sent to him, all because of the tuatara that was on that coin. And from this story, dear reader, we learn that we should never underestimate the power and effect of helping someone with something small, because it can be quite big to them. Even when it’s a small denomination discontinued coin that means so much more—to them.

Related
Change for the better – my 2006 post on the end of the five cent piece and other currency changes

Friday, November 10, 2017

B&W photo challenge: Day six of seven

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

Once again, this is an ordinary photo: There’s nothing unusual in how I took it, and all I did was a tiny bit of cropping and some brightening. This is a photo that popped into my head yesterday, which is handy because it gave me something to photograph today.

I’m quite busy with work at the moment, so this is the only post for today—for a change.

Previously in this series:
A new photo challenge (day one of seven)
B&W photo challenge: Day two of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day three of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day four of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day five of seven

Thursday, November 09, 2017

B&W photo challenge: Day five of seven

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

This is the first photo I thought of when I was thinking about this series, but today was the first chance I had to take it. I didn’t use any unusual techniques in this photo—it was all about how I took it. I took the photo from close-up from one particular point, and from a particular angle. So, like all the photos in this series, this one isn’t about unusual techniques, but instead it’s about positioning the camera.

And that, too, is somthing I like about this sort of thing: It makes us look at every photo subject from multiple viewpoints. Digital cameras make that easy to do, of course, and taking multiple photos in multiple angles is always a good idea, in my opinion.

And all of that’s true, even when it’s for a social media photo challenge series.

Previously in this series:
A new photo challenge (day one of seven)
B&W photo challenge: Day two of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day three of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day four of seven

An improvement of a prayer

The prayer recited at the opening of each session of the New Zealand Parliament is changing, dropping references to the Queen and Jesus Christ. There are Members of Parliament who want this change, and others who don’t, as is always the way with such changes, both because it goes “too far” in removing religion, and because it "doesn’t go far enough". Overall, this is long overdue, and while it doesn’t go far enough, it’s a vast improvement.

Parliament's Speaker is consulting with Members about the prayer, but has started using the new version in Te Reo already, which displeases some Opposition MPs. Even so, this is a good way to get the feel of the new prayer in its real-life context, and that’s a good thing.

The original version was:
Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen
I always loathed that prayer, and had three main objections (apart from their being any prayer at all). First, the people of New Zealand and the country are mentioned only obliquely and at the very end (“and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand”). Who are MPs serving? The prayer made it sound like it was all about the Queen and the church she heads.

Second, and most obviously, the prayer mentioned Jesus Christ, when New Zealand has many different religions, including not only different flavours of Christianity, but sizeable numbers of non-Christians (plus atheists, agnostics, and non-theists, of course).

Finally, the phrase “the maintenance of true religion” is derived from the British tradition in which the Queen is “defender of the faith” because the UK, unlike New Zealand, has an established (which means official) church.

The overt religiosity of all that also bothered me.

For many years, when I watched "Question Time" I'd mute the TV when the prayer was being said. I firmly believe that a prayer doesn't belong in a governmental setting, which is and ought to be totally secular, independent of all religions, and neutral on the very question of religion. I always felt that if religious MPs want to get together before the proceedings—and I never saw any evidence that many did—they could have a private prayer outside the Chamber, elsewhere in the building or wherever else they wanted—that'd be their business. But it just doesn't belong in the People's House.

Despite that, I think the proposed prayer is a real improvement:
Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on New Zealand.

Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand.

Amen
It’s better because it talks about New Zealand in the first sentence: No one would mistake that for a prayer from the United Kingdom or wherever. The second sentence is obviously drawn largely from the old prayer with some improvements, such as, taking out the reference to the Queen.

Constitutional arrangements dictate the structure of New Zealand’s government, but Members of Parliament are the servants of the people of New Zealand, not the Queen. While the Queen can dismiss Parliament, she can’t choose who will serve within it—only the people of New Zealand can do that. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but one day New Zealand will be a republic. In fact, in most respects, it already is in all but law.

I think a further improvement would be to change “for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand” to “for the people of New Zealand and the welfare and peace of the nation” or something similar because the people ought to be mentioned specifically. Still, the fact that New Zealand is mentioned in the first sentence is a vast improvement, and the proposed phrasing IS shorter than my version, so there’s that.

Personally, I don’t care what people believe or don’t—that’s their business, not mine. While I’m automatically suspicious of all religious conservatives, and for very good reasons, I nevertheless don’t pre-judge them or their potential service as an elected representative. All politicians ought to be judged on their performance, and if they put their religion ahead of their public duty, that will be obvious very early on—if it wasn’t already obvious from their election campaign.

My objection to a prayer before a governmental meeting is about ensuring all people, the religious and nonreligious alike, are served by their government. Having a religious prayer at the start of official government business isn’t even remotely neutral, it’s the exact opposite: It’s taking religion’s side. By not having a prayer, all sides are included equally, since the religious are still free to pray privately (as my mother demonstrated to me when I was a child).

I know that New Zealand won't drop a religious prayer any time soon—fidelity to tradition among the parliamentary descendants of the British Empire is still very strong. But it is a discussion we ought to be having as New Zealand continues to evolve into a nation very different from the one it was a century ago, let alone the one from which it was born.

The proposed prayer in Te Reo Māori:
E Te Atua Kaha Rawa, Ka tukuwhakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakiakua waihotia mai ki runga o Aotearoa.Ka waiho nei I ō mātou pānga whaiarokatoa ki te taha, nei rā ēnei e īnoi atu anamō Tō ārahitanga, I roto i ō mātouwhakaaroarohanga, ā, kia whakahaere aie mātou ngā take o Te Whare nei, I rungai te mōhio, me te whakaiti mō te oranga,te maungārongo, o te tūmatanui o Aotearoa.

Amene

State Opening of the NZ Parliament

Yesterday was the State Opening of the New Zealand Parliament, with a whole lot of pomp and circumstance. This post includes the significant videos from the ceremonies, arranged in chronological order, unlike the way they appear on Parliament’s YouTube Channel video listings. These videos are different from the Commission Opening videos I shared the other day in that they’re mostly narrated to explain what’s going on. One note about that: The captions always get Māori words and phrases wrong or leave them out altogether.

Arrival of the Governor General and Mana Whenua Greeting




Inspection of the Royal Tri-Service Guards of Honour


This video is of the arrival of the Governor General of New Zealand, and her inspection of the Royal Honour Guard representing the three branches of the NZ Defence Force (Navy, Army, and Air Force). I noted that the NZ Army brass players playing the fanfare all had sheet music. A very wise move, I thought: You wouldn’t want a nervous person to mess up the whole thing. Also, the New Zealand National Anthem was played a galloping clip, I thought—much less dirge-like than it normally is. Maybe that was because no one had to sing along?

There’s also a half-hour long video of the various dignitaries arriving [WATCH], as well as a video of the arrival of the Governor General is also available [WATCH]. They’re not actually part of the ceremonies as such, and the video of the arrival of the Governor General is quite short, so I’m not including the actual videos.

Members of the House proceed to the Legislative Council Chamber


In this video, the Acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is sent to summon the Members of the House of Representatives. The narrator explains all of the significance, but I felt sorry for the guy for messing up the summons.


This video begins where the last one left off, with the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod summoning the Members of Parliament to the Legislative Council Chamber, which was originally the debating chamber of New Zealand’s now abolished upper house of Parliament, the Legislative Council.

Speech From The Throne


The Speech From The Throne is written by the Government, and sets out the goals and agenda of that Government. The Governor General delivers the speech as the representative of the Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth II.

Members of the House proceed from the Legislative Council Chamber


This video is about the end the events of the day. Again, the narration describes what’s going on until the video resumes covering House business. From there, among other things, the House began the Address in Reply, which includes Maiden Speeches from new Members of Parliament. Those aren’t part of the State Opening as such, but they’re available to watch on Parliament’s YouTube Channel.

And that’s it for another three years.

Related:
"It was the PM's turn to strike – and she did not hold back"
 – By Stacey Kirk, Stuff

B&W photo challenge: Day four of seven

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

I had an unexpected chance to take this photo, but was unable to share it here on the blog last night. So, here it is. There’s nothing unusual in how this photo was done, although I did crop it slightly and, as usual, brighten it a bit after converting it to mono. This is one of my favourites in the series, for reasons I can't explain without breaking the rules.

On thing I haven’t said about any of these photos is that the reason they’re all square is because that’s the shape that Instagram likes, and these photos are all shared there first. I don’t mind that because I think it adds another layer of discipline and challenge onto the project.

Previously in this series:
A new photo challenge (day one of seven)
B&W photo challenge: Day two of seven
B&W photo challenge: Day three of seven

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

B&W photo challenge: Day three of seven

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

Today’s photo has no special technique, apart from adjusting the contrast slightly (colour photos often become muddy when converted to black & white). I can also say that I was being pushed around a little bit by the wind, which had become quite strong. But I can’t really say anything more without getting into explanation. And so, I won’t.

Previously in this series:
A new photo challenge (day one of seven)
B&W photo challenge: Day two of seven

Commission Opening of NZ Parliament

New Zealand’s 52nd Parliament has begun. Today was the Commission Opening of Parliament, the swearing in of the new Members of Parliament and the selection of a Speaker. This happens after every General Election, regardless of whether there’s been a change or government or a re-elected government. It establishes the authority of the new Parliament under law, so it’s very important. The following videos are taken from the live broadcast from the House today.

Reading of Letters Patent


In this video, the Royal Commissioners, three senior judges appointed by the Governor General, enter the House of Representatives Debating Chamber in Parliament, preceded by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (that’s the black stick he’s holding). They then read the Letters Patent appointing them.

Proclamation summoning Parliament


After reading the Letters Patent, the Commissioners read the Proclamation summoning Parliament, followed by a request to select a Speaker who will be presented to the Governor General for confirmation as Speaker. There is also a video following this one [WATCH], but just showing the Commissioners leaving, and the very beginning of the video following it, the next one I’ll talk about.

Swearing in members of Parliament


In this video, the longest of them by far, the Clerk of the House of Representatives administers the Affirmation or Oath of Allegiance, calling MPs in alphabetical order, one to three MPs at a time.

Each Member of Parliament has the right to say either the oath or affirmation, and to do so in either English or Te Reo Māori. After that, they are entitled to repeat the oath in their native language if they want to. The first five people sworn in demonstrate all of that. This is why MPs are sometimes called alone: The person following them is doing something different. They’re called in groups of two or three when they’re all doing the exact same thing—oath or affirmation, and in the same language. It’s kind of interesting how some are better at reading in unison than others are.

It’s worth noting that nothing whatsoever can be concluded by whether MPs choose the oath or the affirmation: Some religious people prefer to use the affirmation, for example. On the other hand, New Zealand is a very secular nation, and many members probably have no religion. You just can’t tell what their story is based only on which they choose.

While I would prefer that the oath and affirmation be worded differently (a topic in itself), this is a remarkably egalitarian and democratic way of doing things. And, yes, I watched or listened to most of it.

Election of the Speaker


In this video, the new Speaker of Parliament was selected. However, it descended into a circus and farce, courtesy of the National Party. The Opposition decided to play stupid games and tried to trick the Government into thinking they didn’t have the votes to elect a Speaker, and National would nominate someone. To get National’s support, the Government had to allow more National Party MPs onto select committees—something they’ve been arguing about pretty much since the Government was formed. So, in other words, it was a power play by the Opposition.

This must never happen again.

National has now demonstrated that they will use every tactic, no matter how underhanded or deceptive, to try and derail the elected Government. Apparently, they just can’t accept that they’re not in government anymore, and are having a perpetually bad day.

Be that as it may, the Government apparently didn’t realise that they did, in fact, have the votes to elect a Speaker without National, which is why National didn’t push for a vote. The government must never again not know how many votes are there, no matter what games National plays. They must also be prepared for more silly games from National—because there will be a lot of games played by them.

At any rate, the new Speaker, Trevor Mallard, was selected unopposed, and he makes his first remarks as Speaker at about 7:40 in the video. At the conclusion of those remarks, at about 13:20, the Serjeant-at-Arms bends over and picks up the Mace, which is the symbol of the Speaker’s authority, and places it on the table in front of the Speaker’s seat. At that point, Parliament is officially in session (though it can be even if the Mace isn’t present or in the right place—it’s just a symbol).

After the election of the Speaker, party leaders congratulate the new Speaker, and it’s mostly good-natured, though with a dig or two. Those videos are available for viewing the NZ Parliament’s YouTube Channel, “In The House NZ”.

In the final video posted to YouTube today [WATCH], the Speaker made his final remarks, and then adjourned the House until 10:30am tomorrow for the State Opening of Parliament, and the Speech from The Throne by the Governor General (the speech is written by the Government). The speech will be followed by the Address-in-reply Debate, leading into the maiden speeches by new MPs. This can take several days, so it’s broken up so the House can get on with ordinary business, including eh first Question Time in the new Parliament on Thursday.

But the main thing is, New Zealand’s 52nd Parliament is now in business.

Monday, November 06, 2017

A NZ Christmas ad series


The video above is the new ad for New World, a New Zealand-owned and operated chain of supermarkets. This ad is part of a series featuring a store employee named “Noel” who seems to be Santa Claus—or is he? The ad just began airing on television in New Zealand, and was posted to YouTube today.

When I shared the Farmers Christmas ad the other day, I said, “the best television and video advertising tells a story,” but this ad is part of a multi-year story. I think that makes it more interesting than a single ad would be—and pretty unusual for Christmas advertising.

Here’s the Noel ad from last year:


That ad is the same ad as the Noel ad from 2015 [WATCH], except that in 2016 the backing music was a song, not just an instrumental version used the year before, too. I haven’t been able to find the song or anything about it anywhere, so it could be one of those stock music compositions.

There are the three ads from 2014 available to share, all of them short:







The three ads from 2014 sort of set the stage, while the ads from 2015/16 push the story along. This year’s ad is really quite dark, imagining what could happen if Santa (or, someone thought to be Santa…) was publicly identified as such. That thought leads Noel to tell a the child he’s not Santa. In 2014, he either swore a child to secrecy or played along with her mistaken belief, depending on your assumption of who Noel is.

That’s the point of this multi-year series: Noel could be Santa, or maybe he’s not and for obvious reasons everyone thinks he is. That uncertainty combined with the plausibility of either conclusion is what makes the series work: They tell a story, but in this case it’s one that people can draw their own conclusions about.

The supermarket also runs ads specifically about various promotions and specials in the weeks leading up to Christmas, so the ad up top won’t be the only Christmas-related ad from them—but it will probably be the most creative.

Because this is a multi-year ad series, it seems a little unfair to rate this ad, though if I was pushed I’d probably give it four out of five Santas for being clever, but maybe a bit dark for a Christmas ad. On the other hand, I give the multi-year series five out of five Santas for creativity and for creating a mini holiday tradition.

B&W photo challenge: Day two of seven

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

This is the photo for day two of this series, and it’s the other one I thought of yesterday, as I mentioned in yesterday’s post. Ideas can and do happen at any time, but I take each day’s photo the same day I post it; I don’t shoot any in advance.

Like yesterday’s photo, I put my phone very low, though this time it was below the subject so I could shoot up. While only the subject was in focus, the clouds are easy to see in the background, which is also why it’s shot at an angle.

Yesterday I joked about these challenges: “Now, if only that worked for me with verbal things, too…” I realised today that, technically, they do: I write a blog post about every photo. Not quite what I meant, but it’ll do.

Trendy and not

Like everything else in the “media landscape”, blogging is changing. There’s not much in-depth research on blogging, but Orbit Media Studios has been conducting an annual survey of bloggers since 2014, which provides interesting data on trends in blogging. Because of their survey for 2017, I learned that it’s possible to be trendy and not, and at the very same time.

I found out about the survey from Roger Green, and my first reaction was to joke about it. “Oh great,” I said, “even MORE to feel inadequate and insecure about!” I mentioned some of the report's key findings, specifically:

  • The average blog post takes 3 hours and 20 minutes to write.
  • In 2017, bloggers spent 39% more time on a typical blog post than in 2014
  • Three years ago, 1 in 20 bloggers spent 6+ hours on a typical blog post. Today that number is 1 in 8.

The reason I found that funny is that, on average, I spend nowhere near that long on a blog post. In fact, the posts I spend the most time on I almost never publish. That’s because it’ll be a topic I can’t find the right words to talk about, or maybe it’s “controversial” and I don’t feel comfortable publishing anything about it (this happens surprisingly often), and sometimes the post is just too negative (and I’ve actually blogged a couple times about not blogging for that reason). Also, if I work on a post and get bored with it, I take that as a good sign a reader would, too.

However, when it comes to frequency of publishing blog posts (see the chart up top), I seem to be right “on trend” (a phrase I hate, by the way). The relevant key findings:

  • Publishing frequency for individual bloggers is down. The most common answer is “several per month.” Two years ago it was “2-6 times per week.”
  • Daily and monthly are unusual. Most bloggers are somewhere in between.
  • Consistency remains steady! Around 85% of bloggers publish regularly.

I still at least attempt to blog daily (jury’s still out on whether I’ll succeed this year…), though that’s an average of one post per day, not necessarily literally that often (sometimes, like lately, it’s more than once per day). Be that as it may, I could easily publish “2-6 times per week” (and have this year), but that's matched by only 18% of surveyed bloggers. Most frequent was “several per month” at 22.7% and “weekly” at 21.9%. Daily was a mere 2.6%.

The thing is, those of us who blog for personal rather than commercial reasons always have to balance the time and effort we put into blogging with the demands of our lives. What we can do (including how often we publish and how long a blog post is) is directly affected by what’s going on in our lives, as I’ve certainly demonstrated this year. That’s just reality. Predictability in the length of posts and their frequency probably requires a commercial model of some sort, but that would change everything, I think.

So, I spend way less time on each post than is the average, but, despite everything, I still post much more frequently than is the average. That’s how I can be both trendy and not, and at the very same time. I wonder if I can claim that as a special talent?

At the very least, it turns out I’m not quite the blogging slacker I thought I was. That’s nice to know.

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Weekend Diversion: More ad music


The video above is a current television ad for AMI Insurance, which had been a New Zealand mutal (policyholder-owned) insurance company until the NZ government forced a sale after losses caused by the Christchurch earthquakes destabilised the company. The company has been running a series of ads, many of them very vague ads that, like this one, don’t promote insurance products directly.

Once again, it was the music used in the ad that caught my attention.

The song is called “Where I’m From” [LISTEN], a 1993 song by Digable Planets, an American hip hop trio. The song peaked at number 60 on the US R&B chart, and number 7 on the US Rap chart. It doesn’t seem to have charted anywhere else, but it sounds like something that could have been popular in New Zealand at the time, particularly among Māori and Pacific Islands youth. Its feel reminds me of Sisters United “In The Neighbourhood” (I shared the video for that last month). At any rate, that’s why I noticed it.

I used Shazam to find out what the song was—one of the few times that’s actually worked with a song in a commercial, actually, mostly because the music used is often from stock agencies, not actual pop music. One other time it worked was for a KFC ad I shared last month, and I was reminded of that because it also had some problematic lyrics.

Mostly, the lyrics to “Where I’m From” “speak in ghetto tongue”, to quote a lyric not in the ad, and there’s a lot of talk about drugs and other things one would think wasn’t suitable for a TV ad. But, then, most people have never heard the song, and even fewer would ever bother to find out more about it, let alone find the lyrics. I just can’t help being, um, unique.

The thing about music in ads is that it’s almost never the point—it really is just the background to the visuals and any text or narration. Very often it’s so much in the background that we don’t even notice it, but other times it’s forward enough to be noticed, as it was in the KFC ad and this one. For most of us most of the time, that’ll be the end of it, and of our interest. Sometimes, though, there’s something that catches us, and then the advertiser wins. Well, technically, we do, too, when we learn something we didn’t know before. I’d never heard of “Where I’m From” or Digable Planets, but now, thanks to that ad, I have.

I don’t have any insurance with AMI, and I don’t plan on having any with them any time soon. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be intrigued by their ad. Once again, though, it was the music used in the ad that caught my attention, not precisely what the ad was promoting. But if ad creators get us to pay attention to their ad at all, that has to be a win. Because no one can tell where watching an ad might lead.

New photo challenge

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on

The photo above is the first in a seven day photo challenge. As with the series I did last year, I was challenged by a friend on Facebook, but part of this challenge is to make no explanation. That means that most of my sharing of the photos here will be less detailed than last year.

Like last year, I’ll share any technical details about how I took the photo, but this time I won’t say what it depicts, not that I think that part really matters, anyway. So, the caption on the Instagram sharing is all the “explanation” I’ll be making of the photos themselves.

Several people I know have done this challenge, and whoever does is supposed to tag someone else to do the challenge, too. Every day. I don’t challenge people to do stuff like this, but do I like seeing others join in and what they create. If you do it, too, leave a link in the comments.

There was nothing remarkable about how I took this photo: I just put my phone very low, and angled it so only one part was in focus. I do that sort of shot all the time, and it's one anyone using their phone to shoot photos ought to try, too.

What I find fascinating about this sort of thing is how it focuses the mind. When I first saw photos in my Facebook newsfeed, I decided I’d do the challenge, too, regardless of whether anyone challenged me. And, I immediately thought of one photo I’d shoot. The one above is not it, but was one that “popped into my head” when I decided to start today. Later, another one did, too, along with a few less well formed ideas. So, like last year, I have subjects for the first few days sorted, which is nice. All of which means that ideas popped up as soon as my mind was committed to the idea of doing the photo challenge. I think it’s really cool how the mind does that. Now, if only that worked for me with verbal things, too…

Saturday, November 04, 2017

Acting like a loser


The video above is from the New Zealand National Party’s Gerry Brownlee attacking Foreign Minister Winston Peters. He’s attacking Peters for doing what he himself could have done, but the worse things is, he doesn’t even get the story right.

In the video, Brownlee says: "Last June an Iranian diplomat gave a speech at an Auckland mosque that meets all the tests of hate speech." June? And who was Foreign Minister then, and for months afterward? Why, it was Gerry Brownlee! Why didn't HE do it when HE was foreign minister? And, does he even know what he’s talking about?

Why Brownlee didn’t act could be that he didn’t know about it. News of the event was only published this past weekend, and if Brownlee got most of the information related to his portfolio from the newsmedia or official National Party blogs, he wouldn’t have known about it at the time. But if he had known, he’d want all the facts, wouldn’t he? And wouldn’t he want to get them right?

The video shows a page from Stuff headlined, “Calls to expel Iran diplomat from NZ after fiery anti-Israel speech 'fuels radicalism'”. If Brownlee bothered to read the story, he’d have learned that it was NOT the diplomat who made the speech, but a cleric, an individual made another hateful speech. The calls to expel the diplomat are because he was at the event, not because he “gave a speech”. Being there, the argument goes, encouraged radicalism. Stuff made all that pretty clear, even if they didn’t tell readers the even was months ago, when Brownlee was Foreign Minister (newshub’s coverage of the controversy provides more details about the event).

National’s written press release to go with the video is worded somewhat differently. One of the biggest departures is that instead to declaring the speech “meets all the tests of hate speech" as the video does (before Brownlee also points out that can be a crime in New Zealand), the press release says it was “effectively a hate speech”, a much weaker description that’s an ideological and semantic—but not legal—definition.

Perhaps if Brownlee and his fellow National Party senior MPs had paid more attention to details like that these, and to the portfolips they were responsible for, they’d still be in government instead of flopping around on the Opposition benches. So far, they’ve shown that arrogant posturing is the way they intend to act in Opposition. That’s their choice to make, but it could give them a long wait to get back into government.

Related: “This is who we do not want to ever become” – Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy’s response to the anti-Semitic speech at that Auckland mosque.

Stalled progress

Recovery from any health issue is a journey, and so is making improvements designed to prevent problems from developing in the first place. But sometimes that journey encounters washed-out bridges, cul-de-sacs, and all sorts of other things that that slow or even stop the momentum. Working out why it’s happened is important, but recognising that it will happen from time to time is probably even more so.

When I talked about my quarterly check-up last month, I said: “I asked the doctor to change my beta blocker tablet because I felt very tired nearly all the time, and that’s one of the side effects of the drug I was on.” She did, but the new drug, Atenolol, has only slightly improved things, and this has become a problem, too.

I was put onto a beta blocker in May, just a few short days after I’d finally had the follow-up appointment with the cardiologist. That Sunday, I had another tachycardia incident, which is where the resting heartrate is above 100bpm for a prolonged time. I say “another” because it was the third incident, and the second one that made me go to an urgent care facility to get checked out. Both resolved themselves eventually, as did the first one I didn’t seek any treatment for (the first one lasted a few minutes, but the second and third were much longer). Among other things, beta blockers help regulate heartrate.

Since going on beta blockers, I haven’t had any more tachycardia incidents, which is great, but the first pill they put me on, Metoprolol, gave me pretty terrible fatigue. So, last month, the doctor changed it to Atenolol, which I thought could be different. It’s only slightly better.

Last week, I wrote about going to Pukekohe, but what I didn’t say was that when I got home I was utterly exhausted. The next day I did very little, because I had no energy. The day after that, I did some work in the gardens—something I’ve been wanting to get to for a long time—and this involved a lot of digging, pulling weeds, and other physical labour. I was exhausted very quickly, but kept pushing, anyway—and then I hit the wall and just stopped for the rest of the day. The next day was a struggle, too. This has been my reality for the past couple weeks in particular.

As I often do, I turned to the Internet to understand what was happening, and hopefully find a solution. Fortunately, I can tell the difference between advice offered by quacks and cranks and that offered by people who know what they’re talking about. Part of that is my natural scepticism, I suppose. In any event, I learned that fatigue is one of the most complained about side effects of beta blockers, and for most people it was similarly debilitating. There are also other less severe side effects I’ve experienced, such as, a sort of shortness of breath, as if oxygen is in short supply, and mild weight gain (this last one could be related to feeling too tired to move). They also have a tendency to raise triglyceride levels in the blood, and my levels were up a bit in my most recent blood tests, and I couldn’t figure out why. Now I know.

All of this is caused by the class of drugs, not any one in particular. Even so, it’s possible that I may tolerate a different drug better—after all, I better tolerate/am less affected by the current drug than the one before it. However, the people who shared their experiences online had no workarounds, no diet or exercise or nutritional supplements or anything. Instead, some of them took themselves off the drug, which a terribly dangerous—potentially even fatal—thing to do without a doctor’s supervision, and which apparently has side effects all its own.

So, I have no solution other than trying a different drug, or maybe hope that in another month things will stabilise enough, and I’ll have adjusted enough, that I can function better. At the moment, I’m doing the second option: I’m due to go back to the doctor in December, and by then I’ll know if the drug has stopped affecting me so badly. After all, the dry cough caused by my blood pressure medicine has gone away, but it took months to do so.

I mention all this because someone else may do as I did and search the Internet to find out why they feel so awful, and they may find this post and learn they’re not alone, they’re not crazy, and they’re not morally defective.

Yes, I meant “morally defective”, because an insidious thing this experience did to me was make me judge and condemn myself. I thought that maybe this tiredness was because I wasn’t being tough enough, that I should push past the fatigue and just get on with things, no matter how awful I felt, how heavy my legs or arms became, or now desperately I wanted to sit down. I thought it was because I stayed up too late (never mind that if I went to bed at “a reasonable hour” I’d lay in bed awake for maybe two hours, another common side effect). I thought that I was just being self-indulgent, lazy, a bad person. It turns out, it was much simpler: It was chemicals wreaking havoc on my body.

The result of this has been, as I said last month, that “this made me unable to make any progress on some of the last projects organising the house, especially my office: I just didn’t have it in me.” However, it wasn’t just physical activity that this affected, but mental activity, too. It’s the main reason that I haven’t been blogging or podcasting: I just haven’t had the “oomph” I needed to do even that.

The positive side, though, is that, fatigue aside, I feel really good. My blood pressure is brilliant, the tachycardia hasn’t returned, I’ve had no gout attacks—not even tiny ones—in months, and overall my mood is much improved (apart from when the fatigue is really bad).

So, I’m willing to give it a little more time to see if my body and the drug can learn to get along. If not, I’ll try a different drug. After all, this is a journey, and stalled progress will happen from time to time.

Important note: This post is about my own personal health journey. My experiences are my own, and shouldn’t be taken as indicative for anyone else. Similarly, other people may have completely different reactions to the same medications I take—better or worse. I share my experiences because others may have the same or similar experiences, and I want them to know that they’re not alone. But, as always, discuss your situation and how you’re feeling openly, honestly, and clearly with your own doctor, and always feel free to seek a second opinion from another doctor.