Weekend Diversion: Unexpected ads

I share a lot of ads, for all sorts of reasons, but what today’s ads have in common is that they surprised me. I don’t know whether any ad could/would be broadcast in my native USA, but they're on the air here. Of course.

The ad above for Wrigley’s Extra gum features young people, er, um, being friendly when her father knocks on the door. Gum saves the day. The ad on our TV ends when the father breaks into a slight smile, and we don’t see the handshake or woman’s reaction.

What surprised me about the ad was that the couple is interrupted just short of being in flagrante delicto, and they play on that. To be sure, I’m not the least offended or scandalised by the ad, nor am I prude—it merely surprised me. I’m also fascinated by how the ad pushes the envelope on what is okay to broadcast, though I realise that if the couple had been same-gender it wouldn’t have been made.

The second ad is for Berlei bras Australia:



The ad surprised me the first time I saw it on TV, maybe a week ago, give or take. Our TV ads and programmes don’t usually show boobs, so even kind of cartoonish representations are unexpected. I have no idea—obviously!—whether the ad is true/accurate or not, but I have to tip my hat to them for their originality. The surreal visual of seeing boobs bouncing is strangely effective, in my opinion as a member of a non-target market.

Finally, the current ad from Kiwibank:



This ad is, in some ways, nothing special: Lots of banks run similar sorts of ads. What surprised me was the casual inclusion of same-gender couples (one of the shorter versions of the ad has a different same gender couple). It’s not that unusual for a bank in New Zealand to include same-gender couples, and I shared other bank ads like that last month. Also, it’s appropriate for businesses to include matter of fact depictions of same-gender couples because their presence means inclusion as part of everyday life and the fabric of New Zealand.

Obviously, such depictions in bank ads (or other LGBT-friendly ad imagery) shouldn’t surprise me at all—they should be commonplace. But I come from a time when gay people were very careful who we shared our authentic selves with, out of concern for our safety, and the idea of seeing ourselves included in advertising imagery the same as anyone else would have been unimaginable. I hope some day it stops surprising me so much.

New ads pop up on our TV all the time. Obviously, some I love, some I don’t (and I recently blogged about ads in both categories), and others, like the ones in this post, surprise me for one reason or another. Your mileage may vary. But chances are good I’ll share more examples in the future.

New Zealand’s very good week

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has completed her trip to the United Nations. The NZ Labour Party released very short daily videos of highlights from that day, something I only found out about halfway through. Jacinda also did a Facebook Live event several days. The best way to see them is probably one right after the other, so here they are:

Day One



Day Two



Here’s the first Facebook Live that the prime minister did:



Day Three



Day Four



The prime minister also did a Facebook Live from the greenroom of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert:



Day Five



The prime minister also did a Facebook Live video from “backstage” at the UN, and she provides some background about where she was, and her speech:



It was a very successful trip in which Jacinda promoted, as pundits call it, “New Zealand, Inc.” as well as New Zealand’s values and commitment to international solutions to global problems. We’ll be hearing more about all that here in New Zealand over the coming years, but this week the USA and other countries got to hear it all for themselves.

It was a very good week for New Zealand.

New Zealand on the world stage

The video above is of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s speech to the United Nations. The nature of the speech made some people describe her as the “anti-Trump”, but this is unfair. She was articulating New Zealand values and New Zealand’s vision for the world, and if other countries find their leaders lacking, that has nothing to do with us, or our prime minister.

For me, one of the highlights came near the end of her speech:

I for one will never celebrate the gains we have made for women domestically, while internationally other women and girls experience a lack of the most basic of opportunities and dignity. Me Too must become We Too. We are all in this together.

This is a powerful statement in support of of women’s empowerment, which is so desperately needed in so many countries, but also of fundamental human values. This is what New Zealand stands for.

While the United Nations speech got most of the headlines here, Jacinda also delivered the keynote address at the International Conference on Sustainable Development:



This speech echoes some of the things she said in the UN speech, but this one was more pointed. “Politics is a place that you can address injustice,” she said. That is one of the most fundamental values of the New Zealand Labour Party that she leads, and it’s what I have always believed, no matter what party I supported. Beyond that, she sets out a vision of an entirely new way of measuring a country’s success, one that can pave the way forward, and out of the mess that all Western nations find themselves in.

Our prime minister is a breath of fresh air, espousing both progressive and human values—New Zealand values—and she has done us proud on the world stage. It was a successful visit.

Justice begins

This is an important moment for New Zealand: Today Justice Minister Andrew Little announced that the first two men convicted under now repealed laws against men having sex have had their criminal convictions expunged—it’s as if the convictions never happened. It won’t take away the pain or suffering caused by the injustice, but it is nevertheless a huge step forward.

The Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Act 2018 received its First Reading in Parliament on 6 July 2017, which I blogged about at the time. The bill had its third and final reading on 3 April 2018, and Royal Assent on the ninth of that month.

When I talked about the bill’s First Reading last year, I noted:

“The convicted men would be obligated to reveal their conviction for any number of reasons, such as applying for some jobs or for visas to visit foreign countries. Having the law on the books also left gay men open to blackmail and extortion.”

In the USA, expungement is even more important, because the men convicted under the archaic laws were usually required to register as sex offenders. Many of them are elderly now: Imagine an elderly man applying to live in an assisted living facility, and when they ask if he’s a registered sex offender, he’d have to answer yes, and be denied. All US states need to expunge these wrongful convictions.

However, there’s a problem here, beyond politicians’ reluctance to right historic wrongs, and that’s the fact that things could easily go backwards if the Republicans get to install one or two more extreme radical rightwingers onto the US Supreme Court.

In 2003, the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v Texas struck down all remaining state sodomy laws. While some states repealed their laws after the Lawrence ruling, there are some 17 states that have not repealed or appropriately modified their laws to reflect the Lawrence ruling, including three—Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—that specifically outlaw gay sex. This means that if a future Court reverses Lawrence, those laws will be in force once again. If that happens, free states should refuse to recognise those convictions, since they couldn’t happen in free states.

None of that can happen in New Zealand. The country’s sodomy law was repealed in 1986, and now men convicted under the old can apply to have their records expunged. It is so much better here.

One Planet Summit Keynote Address

In the video above, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern delivers the keynote address at the One Planet Summit in New York. The Summit was co-hosted by French President Macron and UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

NZ Prime Minister on US television

The video above is of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. She does a really good job. She showed the typical self-deprecating Kiwi humour, while also remaining diplomatic and even talking about tariffs. She even got in a plug for Air New Zealand’s direct flights from Chicago to Auckland, which start in November.

Among other things, Jacinda gave an idea, often subtly, of what life is like in New Zealand. For example, at the end, Colbert asked about what people call her, and she said most people call her Jacinda, and that she's had conversations in stores. This is absolutely true: Kiwis think nothing of addressing their politicians by their first names—even the Prime Minister—and will chat to them pretty much anywhere. That's partly because of how informal Kiwis are, and also because we don't stand on formality—we're all pretty much equal, and while she IS Prime Minister, she's also Jacinda. It's one of the things I most like about New Zealand's society and politics.

It’s nice to see a leader of country who makes actual jokes, and when people laugh, it’s a good thing. It’s also nice to have a leader who’s nice, and who’s also not an embarrassment. Or, so I’ve heard.

Worth Quoting: Willie Jackson

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is attending the United Nations General Assembly and spoke yesterday. Her partner, Clarke Gayford, and their baby, Neve, were in the audience. Apparently, it was the first time a baby had been there.

In response, Labour MP Willie Jackson posted this on his Facebook Page:

Let's just take a pause from all the angry politics and allow the joy of Jacinda, Clarke and beautiful wee Neve at the UN to wash over us and feel pride at our leader and us as a people.

"We must not be silent in the face of intolerance, hate and discrimination. We must speak for those who do not have voice", when Jacinda spoke these words at the UN General Assembly during the Nelson Mandela Peace Summit, while Clarke held Neve, she not only channeled a new type of leadership based on kindness and compassion, she challenged every stereotype that has locked women and men into the career or family trap. They showed everyone that with support, people can have family and career.

She has also shown the planet that leadership doesn't require brutal tough guy masculinity, there can be an equally strong leadership through simple kindness. She has done more for our international standing in one appearance than many Prime Ministers manage in a lifetime. We should all feel a deep pride in the way Jacinda, Clarke and Neve have shone and represented us on the global stage. Their humble grace reminds us all of our basic humanity. There is a joy in all of this and we should all drink deeply from it, this is a moment where we are all included and have all been served wonderfully by our Prime Minister and her family.

We can get back to arguing and bickering about politics tomorrow, but today was truly special.

I completely agree with him. It’s time not just for a new generation of leaders, but also a new generation of leadership, and Jacinda is an example of that.

This is the speech Willie Jackson was responding to, given at the United Nations General Assembly during the Nelson Mandela Peace Summit:

Hail, Spring

View this post on Instagram

Aw, hail! Wintry weather hitting the country this week. This hail fell a little while ago, as it had been off and on this morning. Eventually, maybe, Spring will arrive for real. 🤷🏻♂️ #aucklandweather #lifeinnz #lifeinnewzealand #lifeinauckland #nzspring2018

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on Sep 24, 2018 at 1:34pm PDT

We’re in the midst of a wintry blast in New Zealand, with freezing cold winds and snow in the parts of the country that get that. This morning we had several bouts of hail in Auckland (Instagram photo above). Welcome to Spring.

In this part of the world, we say seasons begin on the first of the month, not on the equinox or solstice, which means Spring began on September 1. As it happens, the September Equinox arrived this past Sunday, September 23, at 1:54pm NZST, so by anyone’s measure, it’s Spring here now. All of which just goes to prove that seasons have nothing to do with calendars.

It’s not unusual for wintry blasts to hit this time of year, though it’s certainly unwelcome, especially after a glorious day Sunday and a mostly good day yesterday. Similarly, hot days can arrive as early as October, but November can be quite cool. This is why no one with any sense would say what a given month is like: This may be the year it’s not at all what it’s “usually” like.

I know that I haven’t mentioned it before, so I should probably add that I despise winter. I could quite happily never experience it again in my life, and the fact it’s easier here than it ever was in Chicago is beside the point: I want warm, sunny weather. Sadly, most of the places with climates like that are places I wouldn’t want to live. More importantly, neither would my husband. Besides, with climate change, warmer days may become much more common here, but with enough rain that we may avoid the droughts that may strike the places that currently have a climate I’d prefer.

So, today was not a pleasant day—at all, really (the brief bright and sunny periods don’t make up for the rest). But better weather will arrive sooner or later, and I’ll get to talk about that, too.

In the meantime, here’s a photo of Leo napping on my lap today when I sat down to have a coffee. He clearly had the right idea for a day like this one.

View this post on Instagram

Sat down to enjoy a coffee and Leo decided to climb in my lap for a nap. NOW what do I do?! I’m trapped—being held prisoner! 😉

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on Sep 24, 2018 at 6:29pm PDT

First fortnight

It’s now been two weeks since my most recent hospital adventure, and today is two weeks into the new drug routine. Which means it’s a good time to note where things are at.

It was about three months ago that I started taking Diltiazem, a calcium channel blocker that replaced the beta blockers I had been on. I felt better—more myself—almost immediately. I wasn’t as tired, and my head was definitely clearer, all of which was fantastic. The thing I was most worried about was, as I said, sliding backwards if the medication was changed back to beta blockers.

However, I also knew that the Diltiazem had similar side effects to the beta blockers, just not as severe. After two weeks, I can confirm that is correct.

The drug makes me tired, though it’s not as thoroughly exhausting as it used to be. It’s not nice, and I don’t feel quite myself, but it’s definitely not as bad as it was under beta-blockers in the sense it’s at least tolerable. I saw on a forum that someone said this tiredness peaks at about two weeks, and a couple weeks later things go back to normal.

The main reason this happens is that Diltiazem slows down my heart. The doctor told me some months ago that they wanted my heartrate to be no more than about 70bpm, but it was often IN the 70s, and went up much higher when I was active—or having an AFib incident, as I later found out.

The new drug keeps my heartrate in the 60s most of the time, and it goes in the 70s when I’m active. It can go down to the upper 40s when I’m resting, and it has gone into the 90s when I’ve been very active, but, most of the time, it’s in the 60s. And that’s why I feel tired and without “oomph” to do things, or, when I do things, I may need to sit and rest for a while.

However, beta-blockers’ worst effect on me was to dull my head: I had trouble concentrating, including reading anything more than a few paragraphs. I had additional memory problems, too, but it was the lack of focus that was the main problem, and I thought the memory issues were related to that. The most frustrating thing for me was that I couldn’t write blog posts, either because I was too exhausted, because I was too foggy in the head, or both.

That went away completely when I went off beta-blockers, and it’s largely remained away on the new drug’s higher dosage. However, when combined with the tiredness, I do have trouble staying motivated to actually do the things I want, including reading and, most obviously, blogging. I’ve struggled to get myself to sit down at the keyboard, and when I do, I often can’t make myself do more than one post at a time. I’ve even skipped days since starting this new drug dosage. Hopefully that’ll get better.

The doctors also put me on an anti-clot drug, Dabigatran, which they called a “powerful” one. They warned me that I may bleed more and it may take longer to stop, however, so far, and uncharacteristically, I haven’t been clumsy, so I don’t have any experience with that—and I’m glad about it, of course. Not being clumsy also means I haven’t gotten a bruise yet, which is also very good news: They can look pretty awful for people who are on anti-clotting and blood thinner drugs.

So, at the moment, things are better than they were on beta-blockers, but not as good as after them, and before the current drugs. Hopefully, that person on the Internet was right, and things will get better. This story will be continued.

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.

125 Years of Votes for Women

125 years ago today, New Zealand became the first self-governing nation in the world to grant women the right to vote. It seems almost quaint now to think there was a time when women couldn’t vote, but that was once universal. Until New Zealand changed that.

The video above was made by TVNZ’s 1 News team for release on the Internet. It provides some details—especially voices of some of the first women to vote—not always accessible to people interested in the topic. They did a really good job.

Gaining the right to vote was only the first step: It wasn’t until 1919 that women won the right to stand for Parliament, but it wasn’t until 1940 that the first woman—Elizabeth McCombs—was elected. In the most recent Parliamentary elections, a year ago this month, a record number of women—46—were elected, which is 38% of the 120-member Parliament.

We’ve had three female prime ministers, but all three of them have been since 1997, when Jenny Shipley rolled then-Prime Minister Jim Bolger as National Party leader, becoming New Zealand’s first female prime minister. Two years later, the Labour Party won the election and party leader Helen Clark became prime minister, the first to become prime minister by election. In December 1993, she became New Zealand’s first female Leader of the Opposition, when she replaced then Labour Party leader, Mike Moore, who’d just lost that year’s parliamentary elections. Ironically, when she succeeded Shipley as Prime Minister, Shipley succeeded her as Leader of the Opposition. So, both were a first and a second.

Our current Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, was the first Prime Minister to give birth while in office. She won’t be the last.

So much has changed in the past 125 years, but there’s so much left to address: The wage gap, violence against women, lack of women in the boardrooms of corporations, lack of respect for traditionally “female” professions. But if New Zealand could be the first nation to grant women the right to vote, it can find solutions to all those problems. Anything’s possible

Coverage from RNZ (Radio New Zealand):


…And their site has printed coverage, too.

Happy Women’s Suffrage Day!

Previous posts:
Women’s Suffrage Day (2012)
Women’s Suffrage Day at 120 (2013)

Signalling virtue

The Left and the Right both have some similar behaviours, including branding their opponents with nicknames and reductionist words and phrases intended to insult and demean the opponent. Most of the time they’re just dumb, eye-rollingly so, even. But sometimes they’re worse, like when they create problems for bloggers.

One of the Right’s favourite insults of the Left is “virtue signalling”, which to them means empty, banal, superficial, and stupid public expressions to publicly prove not just one’s virtuousness, but also one’s fidelity to the accepted positions of the Left. Naturally, it’s not actually true, but it has enough truth in it to endure as a stereotype the Right holds about people on the Left.

People on the Left do, indeed, talk about the things they do that are consistent with their values, because living our values is part of what our tribe does. But we’re not alone: The Right does it ALL the time, too.

The Right’s social media “virtue signalling” in the USA includes things like using a “support the troops” hashtag, using patriotic motifs (like flags, bald eagles, etc) in their profiles, using religious imagery or words (especially about praying for something/someone), or posing with favoured talismans (like guns) or destroying whatever they’re currently boycotting at the moment (like burning their Nike shoes). In other words, they do exactly the same things the Left does—they just can’t see it, and even if they did, they’d see theirs as being sincere and real, while they see the Left’s as being faked, insincere, superficial.

The problem with “virtue signalling” isn’t that it exists, it’s that the Right can’t see they do it, too.

I’ve never cared about the Left or the Right engaging in “virtue signalling”, whether they realise they’re doing it or not. The whole point of sharing stuff on social media is to share what’s going on in our lives, and showing how we’re acting on our values is a bit more important than showing a photo of our lunch. Even for the Right. In my virtuous opinion.

This is a problem for bloggers who talk about life. It’s not possible to talk about some things without in some way “virtue signalling”. For example, when I talk about how we’re trying to live more sustainably, that’s “virtue signalling”, made only slightly less so when I talk about trying things that work and things that don’t work. But the reason I talk about the sustainably thing is to provide context for the products and methods I try, which I then write about.

As much as I don’t care whether anyone engages in “virtue signalling”, neither do I care what someone may think of me when I do it. It’s their issue, not mine. Besides, a blogger needs content!

So, we have the Left and the Right both engaging in “virtue signalling”, that fact doesn’t matter, and neither does the “virtue signalling” itself, and, anyway, bloggers are exempt from such concerns. This isn’t a matter of ideology or semantics or tribalism or even one of debate, in my opinion.

However, if “virtue signalling” really bothers you, that’s your choice. Not my concern. There are some times when someone just has to point out the emperor—or rightwing social media resident—is wearing no clothes.

And I’m stating that plainly, so no signalling is required.

Mary Poppins Returns

The video above is the trailer for Mary Poppins Returns, an update of the classic 1964 film. I like the look of this trailer, which has a lot in common with the original, and some nods to it. I’m keen to see it because the first feature movie I can remember seeing was the original Mary Poppins, which my mother took to me see, then bought me the soundtrack album afterwards.

Mary Poppins Returns is due to be released in the USA on December 19, however, it’s not scheduled to be released in New Zealand until January 1, 2019. We went through a period when all major movies had a global release date, but that’s been slipping in the past few years, and we now often get movies weeks after they open in the USA. It’s a terrible mistake.

Hollywood studios want people to see their movies in the cinema, but if we have to wait to see them a couple weeks later, it is often too late because there’s no such thing as isolated markets anymore. The buzz from Americans on social media can convince some people to not bother seeing a movie by the time it opens here. But if the movie is very popular, that provides a powerful incentive for people to watch the film illegally, costing the studios money. A global release date is the sensible option in this interconnected age.

This means that since I know I’ll see people talk about the movie well before it opens here, it’s probable I won’t see it in the cinema at all. It’ll eventually show up on free-to-air TV, and that may end up being how I see it—if I can be bothered by then.

So, even though I have big sentimental reasons for wanting to see the film, regardless of whether it’s any good or not, the delayed release date may talk me out of seeing it, especially if it’s bad. But, right now, I’d like to see it. Everything is possible—when it's possible, actually.

This matters, too

The questions about the current nominee to the Supreme Court are piling up, and the allegations of attempted rape are only among the latest. But those allegations matter a lot, not the least because the hearings next week will tell us a lot about Kavanaugh’s character. But the biggest reason of all for why this matters is that this is a lifetime appointment—there is absolutely no reason to hurry this.

We need to know what happened, and at the moment we have a “she said/he said” situation. We have every reason to believe the victim, while the Republican propaganda on this simply isn’t believable at all.

It is extremely rare for a victim of sexual assault, attempted or actual, to lie about it. In this case, the victim has no reason to lie because she’d get nothing for doing so. In fact, she originally wanted to remain anonymous because she knew the abuse she’d be subjected to, and she was right: The rightwing’s attack machine has been operating at full throttle.

The Republican propaganda has been transparent in its mendacity. I heard Republican Senator Lindsey Graham claim that Republicans had only heard of the allegations a few days ago, and he apparently expects us to believe that’s true; he thinks we’re incredibly stupid. The allegations were made public, and within 24 hours Republicans produce a list of 64 women who, they claimed, knew it was a false allegation. 24 hours to line up all those women, despite name changes in the 36 years since the alleged attempted rape. Right.

Republicans have also tried to make an issue of the fact that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein was alerted to the letter in July but said nothing. That’s irrelevant. She was protecting the victim who didn’t want to become attacked.

The Republicans have also attacked the fact the victim hired an attorney and took a polygraph test which, they’re trying to imply, was evidence of some sort of plot. That’s defamatory nonsense. She no doubt realised that sooner or later her identity would be revealed (not the least because Washington leaks like a sieve), and she needed protection. She has no firm evidence, apart from telling her husband and a therapist some six years ago, so the polygraph was a good idea. Would Kavanaugh be willing to take a polygraph on this?

There are other issues that should be settled before the Senate votes. There are millions of pages of documents that the White House flat out refuses to release. They’re being sued on that right now, but the wheels of justice grind slowly, even when justice is at stake. However, there are already allegations that Kavanaugh may have lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the documents the White House is hiding may well provide evidence of perjury. No one can know without looking at those documents.

We know for sure that the hearing on Monday could well prove to be the single decisive moment in this battle. He’s adamant it never happened, and denied it even though the victim never said where, precisely, the alleged rape happened. If he follows that line and it’s proven that he was there, that undermines everything he’s said about it.

If he attacks the victim, especially if he belittles the lasting effects of such a crime against a 15 year old, that will create a huge public backlash mere weeks before the midterm elections. This is not 1991, and neither Republicans nor Kavanaugh can afford to do this victim what Republicans and Clarence Thomas did to Anita Hill back then. Even the newsmedia is seeing the “Echoes of Anita Hill in allegations against Kavanaugh”.

Republicans definitely want this to all just go away—the old white men who run their party didn’t want there to be any hearings on the allegations, and they had to be shamed into it (though troglodyte Senator Orrin Hatch apparently didn’t get the change of strategy memo fast enough).

Democrats want to stop the nomination, as anyone paying even the barest attention knows. But Republicans’ attempt to spin that fact into an imaginary “plot” to somehow “sully” Kavanaugh is flat out offensive. The victim must be heard, and even Republicans know that—sort of.

There’s no way to know how this will end. Republicans may very well steamroll over all opposition and all the serious questions about the nominee’s character to ram the confirmation through the Senate. Or, they may decide doing so will cause too much damage to their party’s chances in the midterms, and they may delay action until the lame duck session following the elections, underhanded as that would be.

But the bottom line is still this: It’s a lifetime appointment. We have every right to fully judge the nominee, and so far the Republicans have done everything in their power to ensure that can’t happen. It’s about time we found out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Weekend Diversion: Coldplay

Coldplay is a band among a relative few in an odd position: Loved by many, and also one it’s fashionable to hate. With this band, as is usually the case, the majority of people are somewhere between those two extremes. I’m with the majority: I like a lot of Coldplay’s songs, but I wouldn’t say I love the band—or hate them, either. But what I like, I really like.

The video up top is the video for “Miracles (Someone Special)”, which I saw for the first time yesterday when it was broadcast on our free-to-air music video channel, and it’s what made me think of talking about them in a Weekend Diversion post. I’d never seen the video, and had never heard the song, either. Maybe if I was an actual fan I would have. But, then, if I was an actual fan, I may have talked about them already.

In any case, I love the visuals in that video, the old photos that are animated in whole or part, or in which the subjects move. It’s trying to show the diversity that makes a person “someone special”, which, while at first it may seem counter-intuitive, it nevertheless makes perfect sense, and those visuals that make the song better. In my opinion.

The song was released last 14 July 2017, the second single from Kaleidoscope EP. While the EP hit number 12 in New Zealand, this song was not especially successful. It never entered the Top 40 in New Zealand, but did hit 5 in the “Heatseekers” chart of songs outside the Top 40. It hit Number 42 in Canada, and 54 in the UK. It didn’t chart in Australia or the USA.

The first song of theirs that I ever heard was 2000’s “Yellow”. The song was on their debut album, Parachutes, and had mixed success: Number 23 in New Zealand, Number 5 in Australia (Platinum), didn’t chart at all in Canada, and 4 in the UK (Platinum), but only 48 in the USA, though it went Gold. I liked it well enough, in part because there were other songs that had a similar feel back then.



Next up, “Viva La Vida”, a song I really liked when it was released in 2008. The reason I liked it was because of the infectious enthusiasm for it from a friend and fellow podcaster. In fact, I bought the album, Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends on iTunes because of that infection. I now rarely listen to the album, but it still pops up sometimes when I have music on shuffle play.

The song was quite successful: Number 16 in New Zealand (Platinum), 2 in Australia (Platinum), 4 in Canada (Gold), Number One in the UK (2x Platinum), and Number One on the Billboard Hot 100 (3x Platinum). The album it hit Number One on all those same countries.



The Coldplay song I like the most is “Fix You”, from the 2005 album X&Y. This song has popped up several times in TV talent competition shows, which kind of reinforced for me what a good song it is. I think that hearing other people’s interpretations is what did that. One of the things I most like about this song is the way the tempo picks up toward the middle, where other pop songs would just have a key change and call it done. Instead, this one takes on a new and assertive direction, before returning to the gentleness of the beginning of the song. If I hear this song at just the right time, and when I’m in just the right mood, it can make me tear up.

The song hit 17 in New Zealand, 25 in Australia (Platinum), 4 in Canada, 5 in the UK (2x Platinum), and 59 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the USA (Gold). The album hit Number 100 in all those same countries.



That’s it for this week’s Diversion. There could very well be another song or two that I like, or, maybe it’s more accurate to say their could be more if I heard more of their songs, since I don’t know all of them. I’ve included ones I like, however, including two—“Viva la Vida” and, especially, “Fix You”—that I really like.

I wouldn’t have thought of sharing them had I not happened to see the video up top yesterday, and it then reminded me of their other songs that I like. And that’s really the point here: It’s not necessary to be a fan of a singer or group to like particular songs they’ve done. Obviously I couldn’t possibly care less whether those who fashionably hate Coldplay approve or not—Arthur’s Law (https://amerinz.blogspot.com/2013/04/arthurs-law.html), and all that. As I always say, “Like what you like and forget about everyone else.”

And, I do. And they’re not all “Yellow”.

Good and awful NZ TV ads

I frequently share ads that I like because they demonstrate something. It could be the effectiveness of their message, the unique presentation, the humour, any number of things. Today I have two ads, one I really like and one, well, one I really don’t.

The ad above is called “Road Commander”, and it’s part of a campaign created by FCB to promote VTNZ’s new campaign promoting the slogan, “We’re on your side”. Among other things, VTNZ is one of the companies evaluating vehicles (and trailers) for roadworthiness in New Zealand, according to current regulations. A vehicle with a “Warrant of Fitness”, as it’s called, can be legally driven on the roads, and a vehicle without one cannot (and if it is driven without one, and is an accident, most insurance companies won’t pay).

What I like about the ad is the offbeat Mad Max-like character in the storyline, and the very Kiwi humour. The part where they talk about wiper blades is especially well done. I think I could get sick of this ad, but it’s still new, so right now I like it.

At the other extreme, is an ad for Specsavers, a chain of places selling optometrist services and discount eyeglasses. The ad features people becoming all emotional when asked to sell their eyes.

The TV version of the ad isn’t online at the moment, so the video below is the long version. It provides a fuller context that might have helped the TV ad, but without that fuller context the TV ad is just plain weird.

The TV ad provides no reason to think the emotional responses are genuine because there’s little or no build-up to provide motivation for those responses. It comes across as fake and the ad as manipulative. It’s a terrible ad—eye-rollingly bad, in fact.

This is an outlier for the company, though, which has produced some quite good ads. This just isn’t one of them.

So, up top is a current ad I really like, and down below is a long version of a current ad I really don’t like. I don’t think I’ve ever shared an ad I don’t like before, and it was probably time to do so.

But the one up top definitely is much better. At least, until I get sick of it.



Update – 25 September: Blind people aren't happy with the Specsavers ad: "Opinion: Specsavers' Priceless Eyes ad is an insult to blind people".

They call him a flipper

The news that the former campaign manager for the 2016 Republican candidate has flipped, pleading guilty to the charges against him in a plea deal that guarantees full cooperation with the Mueller investigation, is likely to prove to be far more important than many people realise. The unindicted co-conspirator in the Oval Office must be wearing clothes soaked in sweat. He should be.

Manafort knows the full details of the Republican campaign’s collusion with the Russian government. He knows what happened before the infamous meeting at Trump Tower, and he was at that meeting and can attest to what really happened. Don Jr. and Jared should be worried.

Manafort also single-handedly chose Mike Pence to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Why? Why Pence, specifically? Manafort—who was doing the bidding of the Russian government—knows. Pence went on to completely direct the transition, including who would take on what jobs. Pence should be worried, and many of those same officials still in office should be worried, too.

In the run-up to the 2016 Republican National Convention, the campaign changed one—and ONLY one—item in the Republican Platform, and that was a plank on Ukraine, which they wanted changed to a pro-Russian position (a 180-degree change). The platform was changed. Paul Manafort was responsible for the change, so he’ll know why it was the only thing they cared about. Everyone in the current regime, potentially, should be worried.

Meanwhile, the former personal lawyer of the current occupant of the White House has pled guilty and is also cooperating with federal investigators. Everyone in the Trump organisation and family should be shit scared about that, because he knows where all the bodies are buried, so to speak.

So far, every single one of the people charged in connection with the Mueller investigation has pled guilty, and any of them who know anything material are also fully cooperating with federal investigators. This cannot end well for the unindicted co-conspirator in the Oval Office, but how, exactly, will it end?

It is unlikely to be impeachment. Even if Democrats re-take the US House of Representatives, where impeachment begins, they will not have the votes in the US Senate to remove him from office, even if they take control of that body, too.

However, that could change if Democrats take control of the US House and their thorough investigations turn up more damning information about the corruption and criminality of the current regime. That could be enough to convince Republicans to act against the current occupant—or to use if for political justification for acting.

It’s also possible—probable, in fact—that the Congressional investigations will cause the current occupant to launch into increasingly, unhinged tantrums and even more bizarre behaviour than usual, and that could embolden Pence and the cabinet he installed to remove the current occupant under the 25th Amendment. This is not as difficult to do as some pundits have been saying in media reports, but would be easier if Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly back it, and if they can lay out a convincing case that “the president is absolutely nuts”, they just may get away with it.

The Republicans need only two more things from this regime and its leader. First, the confirmation to the Supreme Court of their ultra rightwing extremist, and that will happen before the November elections. He, in turn, is absolutely guaranteed to help overturn reproductive choice in the USA, as well as to cement the power of corporations over real people, both of which are top priorities for the Republicans and the tiny numbers in the special interests they actually serve. Their Supreme Court pick is also a sure vote to prevent the current occupant of the White House from being indicted for his crimes while in office, which could buy them time to make the case to remove him.

The second thing Republicans in Congress want to do is to make their tax cut scam permanent, to keep taxes cut for the rich and for corporations, while allowing taxes to go back up for working people and middle class people. They’ll wait to do this in the lame duck session after the midterms, if the Democrats win, or any time after that if they don’t (though it may still be in the lame duck session to inoculate incoming Republicans from voter backlash in 2020). This is also certain to happen.

One option that could be off the table is resignation. The current occupant’s malignant narcissistic personality disorder could well prevent him from agreeing to resign. However, if Democrats start making the case for impeachment, he may agree to go in exchange for a pardon to protect him from federal prosecution, though it would do nothing to protect him from charges in the several states where he’s done business.

The Republicans’ actions will be dictated on calculations of how much damage acting against the unindicted co-conspirator will do to them with the frothing fanatical fans of their party’s current leader, weighed against how much damage NOT acting will do to them with the VAST majority of voters who are not Republican. This is why a convincing case that “the president is absolutely nuts” is so important for them.

Failing that, they’ll have to try to continue the flow of negative propaganda on their party’s TV channel, Fox “News”, in order to try and turn Republicans’ opinions against their leader. That would take a lot of work.

For Democrats, there’s a positive aspect to not being able to remove the current occupant from office: To fix all the damage the current regime has done, it will take a massive change in Congress, and 2020 will be better for that. The current occupant’s inevitable unhinged tantrums and even more bizarre behaviour than usual will help Democrats win in 2020. Meanwhile, Democrats will be in a position to block all of the current occupant’s worst legislative agenda impulses, and to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution—and the republic itself.

Ultimately, what happens will depend on two things. First, what information, precisely, will Manafort and the others provide to investigators? That could speed everything up by emboldening Republicans to act. Second, what will happen in the midterm elections? The stronger the position of Democrats in the new Congress, the more likely an early resolution will be.

There is only one thing that is absolutely certain beyond any doubt: It’s time to pop the popcorn, because this show is about to get really interesting.

Photo above assumed to be by Logicaldisaster~commonswiki (based on copyright claims). [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

AmeriNZ Blog is twelve

Today is the twelfth anniversary of the AmeriNZ Blog: I published my first post, “I live in a land downunder. No, the other one…” on September 13, 2006 at 10:53pm NZST. This blog and I are are both still here to tell the tales.

Last year, I looked at where I was in my annual blogging goal of an average of one post per day, and at this point last year, it wasn’t great. I had a shortfall of 64 posts from where I should have been if I was on track. That meant needed an average of 1.59 posts per day to meet my goal. That never happened, because I was right: It WAS a tall order.

This year is better. Including this post, the shortfall is 55, and the daily average required is 1.5 posts per day. That’s a somewhat shorter order than last year.

I’m in this position because of two very good months: July exceeded that month’s goal by 8 posts, and August exceeded it by 14 posts. This month is, at the moment, right on target, but there’s no reason to think that this month won’t exceed targets, too.

The reason this is all possible is because I’m finally off of beta blockers, which both zapped my energy and clouded my mind. So far the new drug regime has left me tired, but things are nevertheless better than at this point last year.

Of course, the real story here isn't my blogging output compared to last year or any other, because whether or not I make my blogging goal doesn’t matter. What does matter is the fact that I feel better than last year. That’s the reason why my blogging output is going as well as it is this year, which is a benefit of feeling better and clearer. I don’t care all that much whether I make my blogging goal or not, but I do care that I’m feeling well enough that it’s a possibility.

Something I said last year is still true: “And that’s actually the story of this entire blog over the past 11 years: I haven’t given up.” Another year later, and I still haven’t given up.

That’s the real story of this blog.

Thanks for joining me on the journey so far.

Previous posts on my blogoversaries:

Anniversay Time (2007)
Blogoversary 2 (2008)
Anniversaries Three and Fourteen (2009)
Fourth blogoversary (2010)
Fifth blogoversary (2011)
Sixth blogoversary (2012)
Seventh Blogoversary (2013)
Ten years of the AmeriNZ Blog (2016)
The AmeriNZ Blog is eleven (2017)

For anyone who doesn’t know already, this 2015 AmeriNZ Video explains the origins of the name “AmeriNZ”:


The photo up top is a portion of my Macbook Pro keyboard, which is what I now use to write most of my blogs posts. It seemed fitting, somehow.

September 12

Yesterday, a lot of Americans were posting on social media about September 11. A number of them also posted about “September 12”, the day in which, they say, Americans were kinder and nicer to each other than at any time before or after. Whether it’s true or just perception almost doesn’t matter: It underscores what it means to be human.

I wasn’t in the USA on September 12, 2001, so I have no way of personally knowing how much of what people recall about the time is true or merely believed to be true. However, it’s probable that there’s at least an element of truth to it, and for a simple reason: We’re human beings.

Whenever there’s a major event that affects a number of people, even some sort of family tragedy, people rally together for mutual support. When the event affects an entire community, the same thing happens, just on a much bigger scale. We humans evolved to interact in that way because it increases the odds of survival.

So, it makes perfect sense that the September 12 legends could be true, or largely true, because it’s consistent with the way humans act.

At the same time, we all know that jerks and arseholes were still around that day, but people may not remember that because of another thing we humans do: We minimise pain. This makes evolutionary sense, too, because dwelling on pain makes it difficult to move forward, and life demands that we move forward.

But that’s all about why the legends about September 12 could be true. There’s one final thing about it, and why the legend persists: We all need to believe that things can be better than they are—especially these days—and focusing on one day that was especially good, better by far than the norm, makes us believe that we can have it again.

There’s a dark side, too, though. Many of the September 12 memes I saw yesterday carried a judgemental undercurrent, implying that the reason there’s so much division now, as opposed to the legendary time, is because we choose to be that way. Specifically, we choose to be Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, just to be divisive. While none of the memes I saw explicitly said such a thing (of course they didn’t), it was the clear implication.

I think the truth is the exact opposite: To the extent the legend is true, it was an exception to the rule. Ordinarily, human beings are tribal, and in the modern world that shows up as political party, ideology, or religion—any number of things, actually. The peacefulness after September 11, 2001 was because of the events of that day, nothing more, and the eventual return to normal was about normality itself, and nothing whatsoever to do with September 12. Put another way, the fact that the nirvana didn’t last is a good thing because it meant people were returning to normality, and were moving forward as life demands.

I personally don’t care whether the stories of September 12 are completely true or not, because on some level, and to some extent, they are. What interests me more is how much it demonstrates how we human beings operate, that we rally together when we need it most, and, eventually, we move on. I think both things are worth celebrating on any day.

23 years ago

Welcome once again to the Season of Anniversaries! Twenty-three years ago yesterday, I arrived in New Zealand as a tourist, beginning my current story arc. The recent changes in that story arc are part of the reason I didn’t post about this anniversary yesterday, though there were other reasons. But the fact is, I’m still here, and that’s what matters.

September 12 is the date the marks the start of my not-totally-serious annual series of blog posts about various anniversaries, some of them quite important, that fall between now and January. I wouldn’t want to totally neglect that tradition.

I said last year something that’s always true about these posts:

I’ve said a lot about this date over the years, about the date in 1995, what it meant, why I sort of forgot about it, and how it became important again. Check out previous years’ posts, listed at the bottom of this post, to get more about all that.

Something similar could probably be said of any the annual posts I make, regardless of subject. A particular one may not matter, but collectively they are a story—my story, in whole or in part.

This year there have been complicating factors. I’m still adjusting to the new medication regime the doctors put me on, and that’s left me tired. It’s not as bad as when I was on betablockers—I haven’t had the same issues with memory and focus—but I sometimes completely run out of energy, despite having had a solid night’s sleep. That, and the need to take care of forgotten chores before going to bed, meant I just didn’t have the “oomph” to post last night. Still, my blog, my rules, so I can still mark the occasion the next day.

However, the other reason I didn’t make a point of posting yesterday was because of the same reason I often forgot about this anniversary: September 12 here is September 11 in my native USA, and I saw all sorts of people from all over the ideological map posting about THAT day. It just felt kind of selfish to focus only on my own history—especially because that morning, oblivious to the date, in part because I hadn’t yet checked out Facebook, I shared to my personal page a YouTube video from Vox about bike lanes, of all things. Maybe an important subject, but, regardless, once I went to Facebook, I felt like I’d already intruded on what seemed to be a day of intense reflection for many of my American friends.

Nevertheless, September 12 is an important anniversary for the past 23 years of my life. Last year, I called it “a sort of foundation date”, and it was. And that’s why I remember it each year, even if there are sometimes barriers to doing so.

After all, I’m still here. That’s what matters.

Previous posts about this anniversary (the first three only mention it):

Anniversay Time (2007)
Blogoversary 2 (2008)
Anniversaries Three and Fourteen (2009)
Where it began (2010)
Anniversary of the beginning (2011)
Another anniversary (2012)
18 years ago today (2013)
19 years ago today (2014)
Twenty years ago today (2015)
21 years ago today (2016)
22 years ago today (2017)

Tooth Tales: Planned pause

The current round of periodontist treatments ended today with the second and final one—until after I see him again in six months. It was much the same as ever, though today was considerably more expensive than usual. This will all start again in six months.

This visit was expensive mainly because he did my entire lower jaw, and that took more time and more anaesthetic. Ordinarily, he’d do one side, top and bottom, then the other side in the next treatment. But my bottom jaw is always the worst of two. At one point someone (it may have been him, but I’ve forgotten) speculated that this could be because the chemical composition of my saliva encourages the accumulation of calculus. Add that to what seems like a genetic predisposition toward developing “pockets” at various teeth’s roots, and that’s why I have so much trouble.

I saw him for the first treatment of the upper teeth August 28, though that was originally supposed to be the second treatment. It would have been had I not totally messed up my departure time for the first appointment. This meant I had to re-schedule the second appointment, and it was supposed to be yesterday. The problem is that due to my recent hospital stay, I lost two days of work last week and I had to work very late this past weekend. I cancelled that appointment and rescheduled to today.

For some reason—maybe because I was sleep-deprived—I made the appointment for 10am today. Ordinarily, I have to leave the house a bit more than an hour before I have to be there, however, that was also rush hour, which includes parents taking their kids to school. At that time of the morning, there are also horrendous delays getting to the motorway. So, I actually left the house about 8:30am. I ended up getting there with three minutes to spare.

The periodontal work itself almost never hurts at the time, but may do when the anaesthetic wears off. He used a short-acting one today because it’s not adrenalin-based, again because of my recent adventure. It wore off abruptly at around 2pm or so, and my back teeth hurt. I took a couple paracetamol, expecting to be in pain all night, and the pain was gone. I think that I was lucky.

The periodontist asked about the tooth that needs to be dealt to. My inclination at the moment is to remove it and leave the space empty. I told him the cost of an implant (around $8,000 just for his work) was unaffordable, and a bridge was too risky given the known problems with a neighbouring tooth.

As it happens, there’s an endodontist in the practice and he gave some quick informal evaluation/advice. Specifically, the periodontist thought about a kind of edgy solution: Remove the root that had to be removed, and leave the other root intact to hold the crowned tooth. The endodontist said it wasn’t worth the cost—about as much as a bridge—and it would fail sooner rather than later.

However, the endodontist said that 50% of bridges fail, and that usually means having to repair the roots of the two teeth the bridge is anchored to—if they can be saved. So, it’s not a goer, especially when I know that one tooth isn’t in good shape.

The periodontist said that I could have the implant done for $1500 and $50 a week for year, then have the dentist put the tooth part on later. I don’t know how much the tooth part would cost, so I don’t know how practical any of that is.

So, I have ongoing tooth problems that are related, in part, to my genes, which means they’ll continue to happen. Meanwhile, I now have to start dealing with failing teeth and figuring out what to do about them, too.

Sometimes, being a grown up isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, late middle age even less so. You could say it bites. So far, so can I.

The image above is a reproduction from the 20th US edition of Gray's Anatomy, and is in the public domain. It is available from Wikimedia Commons.

The problem with the Left

The Facebook video above from ABC (Australia) uses humour to talk about a lot of what I’ve been saying about the state of the Left for the past couple of years. Most of of what I’ve said has been expressed privately, however, due to the very problems with the Left that this video talks about. If we really want our ideas and ideals to win, then I think it’s high time we had a hard look at what we’re doing to each other, starting with those on the same side, but also including those we need to win over.

I’ve been called a “neo-liberal” by Leftists merely because I didn’t completely agree with one thing they were passionate about at that moment. This is because of their attitude that anyone who doesn’t agree with them 1001% is, by definition, an enemy. I don’t work that way, and I never have.

When I was a grassroots activist in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, I knew that to make any progress on LGBT+ issues, I’d have to get the support of people I didn’t agree all the time—or even much of the time. It was a largely hostile time for LGBT+ people, and we needed allies where we could find them. So, we’d form issue-by-issue alliances with people we might disagree with every other time. These days that’s nearly impossible, but it doesn’t have to stay that way.

Yesterday, Former President Obama delivered a speech in my native Illinois, and he talked, in part, about why this strategy is so important (it’s at roughly 47:48 minutes in the video linked to):

Let me tell you something, particularly the young people here: Better is good. I used to have to tell my young staff this all the time in the White House: Better is good. That’s the history of progress in this country—not perfect, better. The Civil Rights Act didn’t end racism, but it made things better! Social Security didn’t eliminate all poverty for seniors, but it made things better for millions of people. Do not let people tell you the fight’s not worth it because you won’t get everything that you want. The idea that, “well, there’s racism in America, so I’m not going to bother voting. No point.” That makes no sense! You can make it better!

Better is always worth fighting for. That’s how our founders expected this system of self-government to work, that through the testing of ideas and the application of reason, and evidence, and proof, we could sort through our differences, and nobody would get exactly what they wanted, but it would be possible to find a basis for common ground. That common ground exists.

President Obama also talked about how working to make things better does NOT mean surrendering our principles or goals. All this means is that we can make things better right now, while we continue to work to achieve full justice and equality of opportunity. Better IS good.

I’ll tell you who gets this, who acts on this advice, and who has acted on it for decades: The Right. They constantly work to chip away at the rights and freedoms gained over the past 50 years, and they don’t care how long it takes. They took away enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. In Citizens United, they gave corporations unlimited power to buy politicians. And now, hidden behind the White House-caused outrage of the hour, the regime, led by the vice president, is working diligently out of sight to destroy the rights of LGBT+ people, of women, of minorities, and to make far-right Christianity the de facto state religion. When they install their new extremist ideologue on the Supreme Court, the days of legal abortion will be numbered, and nationwide marriage equality will be on a death watch. This is what the Right has been working toward for decades, and they’re poised to get everything the they want while folks on the Left are busy shouting at each other about “micro-aggressions”.

Obviously the Right is every bit as bad, and sometimes far worse, about excluding and demonising people who disagree just a little. However, if we want the Left to win—and I do—we will only do that by first being better people, and treating other people—including those on the Right—humanely. I want the Left to be better than the Right, not the same as.

I totally understand that people on the Left have slotted into the roles they play, and they’re used to them. They feel duty-bound, more often than not, to publicly vent over that day’s Big Outrage, and that leads them to overreact to folks on their own side who don’t completely agree with them. But my question is simple: Would they really rather be “right” on the Internet, or do they want to make things better for us all?

Better is good.

A speech that was more than reported

The video above was all the talk on the US news today, and it made the evening news here in New Zealand, too. In it, Former President Obama talks about many of the sorts of things he’s always talked about, such as real American values, making things better for all Americans, and that things can be so much better than they are. That’s not what the newsmedia focused on, of course. Still, it was a good speech.

The news media focused on the few moments President Obama talked directly about the current occupant of the White House, and there’s no denying it was strongly stated, but that was only a part of his speech. Instead, he presented the case for how and why Americans of all sorts can and should put checks and balances onto the current occupant, something important to mainstream Americans, regardless of ideology or party identification.

However, many of his strongest criticisms were directed at Congressional Republicans, and he asked, “What happened to the Republican party?” That’s a fair question that even Republican voters must ask.
There were some parts of the speech that affected me deeply, but I was mostly struck by how nice it was to hear an adult again, someone who can use complete sentences with grown-up words to express coherent thoughts. Even his digressions were on topic.

This speech won’t change anything by itself, but if it, and the ones to follow, fires up the Democratic base, it may. If President Obama can also energise Independents, and help disgruntled Republicans feel empowered by voting for Democrats in November, then it could change everything.

Mostly, though, it was nice to see a real president again.

Regroup – again

Yesterday was one of those days that threw yet another curveball into this Health Journey of mine. It wasn’t completely terrible, but it was unwanted and more than a little frustrating. And yet, I’m still moving forward.

Yesterday morning I felt “unwell”, a little lightheaded, but mostly just odd. I checked my pulse on my Apple Watch, and it was really high (at that point, around 117 beats per minute). So, I next took my blood pressure, which was very high because I was a bundle of anxiety by then, and it confirmed a fast heart rate (I took my BP again a little while later, and it was in the normal range, though the BPM was still high).

I puzzled about what to, and at that point I thought it was tachycardia, like I had last year, and that’s very uncomfortable, by my type (SVT), isn’t really life threatening. So, I waited it out, and sometimes it went down, other times back up, even higher sometimes.

Nigel came home early yesterday, and was worried enough that he called our doctor, who said I should probably go get an ECG.

So, we went the same A&M in Takanini that we went to last year, and it became clear it wasn’t SVT—my heart rhythm was sometimes faster, sometimes slower, while SVT is steady but fast. The doctor called the hospital and spoke with the registrar who said I should come in for evaluation. (Note: An Accident and Medical clinic is a private after-hours medical clinic that handles low-level emergencies. It’s quicker to be seen at than a hospital’s Emergency Department)

So, Nigel drove me to Middlemore Hospital, and we reported to the Emergency Department (once we figured out how to get to it… Middlemore is a big, confusing maze). The nurse at their reception, who does the initial evaluation told a person in front of us that waiting time for them was SIX HOURS (this was at 6pm). This is mainly because of people going to the ED rather than a private doctor, and at Middlemore, that’s usually because they can’t afford a doctor and/or time off work to go to a doctor (hospital emergency rooms are free for citizens and most permanent residents). Patients are seen after critical cases (heart attacks, for example), so that’s the other reason why non-serious cases take so long to be seen.

We were waved through to the medical evaluation unit, of course, because we were asked to come to the hospital (well, I was). The unit is kind of like a specialised area not quite the ED or the “short stay” unit. Most patients stay only one night for evaluation and to stabilise their condition.

They hooked me up to a full ECG machine, they drew blood, and decided that what the A&M doctor thought: It was atrial fibrillation (aka AF), which is basically an irregular heartbeat. The problem is that the heart doesn’t always drain properly, may form clots, and they could cause a stroke or heart attack.

Now, as it happens, the drug I was put on for SVT (a calcium channel blocker) is good for AT, too, because it keeps hear rhythm normal, in part because AF is a form of SVT. So, they upped the dosage of that drug and lowered the dose on my blood pressure medication because the calcium channel blocker also lowers blood pressure, which was already good—they don’t want to lower it too much!

They also put me on what they called a “powerful” anti-clot drug, Dabigatran, so they stopped my low-dose aspirin.

A few weeks ago, I had a scan of my heart (which I mentioned before the appointment), and the doctors at the hospital had seen the report (which I haven’t). They said that the scan was normal. That’s basically why the prescription is the first option—structurally, my heart is operating normally, so they just need to fix the rhythm.

And that’s pretty much it for this latest side road in my Health Journey. I was never in any distress, pain, or anything, and I’m fine. And, it was dealt with because Nigel was my angel and rock of strength (yet again). Although, he did take the rather unflattering photo at right, which I shared with my personal Facebook post, which is what this post is based on. Still, I did tell him to take the photo!

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.