Arthur Answers 2017, Part 8: Music and song

Here we are, finally at the end of this year’s “Ask Arthur” series. It’s also the last day of the year, which seems appropriate. Today’s questions are from Roger Green and about one of my favourite topics, pop music. First, Roger asked:

What are your favorite songs originally done by the Beatles?

This was a much harder question than I could’ve made it because I decided to look at cover versions, rather than just the songs themselves. Mainly, I often tuned out others people’s versions because I heard the Beatles first and, as is my way, I liked them first, and so, the most. The larger problem was remembering songs I’d liked over the years. In recent years I’ve found out that there are a LOT of songs I’d completely forgotten about until something reminded me, like a TV commercial, movie soundtrack, that sort of thing.

So, the first thing I did was trigger my memory by checking out Wikipedia’s "List of cover versions of Beatles songs”. Then, I rearranged the list in chronological order. That actually helped quite a bit.

The first cover versions I can remember were on The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits, a 1964 album by Alvin and the Chipmunks. I don't know why, precisely, I heard it, because I don’t think anyone in the family had a copy—maybe someone borrowed it. There was one single released from the album ("All My Loving" b/w "Do You Want to Know a Secret?"), but I I have no idea if I heard it on the radio, either. The year was 1964. I was five. Cut me some slack on this one. I do remember that I liked The Chipmunks at the time, so I probably liked their covers. Like I said: I was five; cut me some slack.

The first real cover I remember hearing and kinda liking was Joe Cocker’s “With a Little Help from My Friends” from his 1969 album of the same name. I also remember seeing him perform it on television and thinking, “WTF?!” except, good Christian boy that I was, it would have been cleaner language. But John Belushi’s later imitation of Cocker was a dead ringer.

The first cover I owned was “Ticket to Ride” by The Carpenters. It was their first charted (barely) single in 1969, but I never heard it until the release of their 1973 album, The Singles: 1969-1973. I later bought the album it came from, which was originally called Offering but had been re-released as Ticket to Ride in 1970. I’ll be honest: As big a fan of The Carpenters as I was, I never particularly cared for their version, mostly because I preferred the sound they developed in the mid-1970s, not their early stuff.

Another song from the year after The Singles was released that I did like was Elton John’s 1974 cover of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”.

Skip ahead a few years to 1978, and I liked Aerosmith’s cover of “Come Together”. Unfortunately, the song was from the soundtrack album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which I frankly thought was mostly pretty awful. To this day, I’ve never seen the 1978 movie.

In 1981, I was in university, newly out, and going to the gay bar in town. One of the things they played was the melody by Stars on 45, and I liked it—enough to actually buy it, which is ironic because I bought the album that the Carpenter’s cover was on, and I didn’t even like that one. To be honest, though, the main reason I liked it was that when I listened to it, the medley reminded me of the bar and the safe place it was for a newly-out gay boy.

I don’t know quite where to put this one chronologically, but I suppose it ends up in the same place: I like Rufus Wainwright’s cover of “Across the Universe”, which was a 2002 release from the soundtrack to the 2001 film I Am Sam. I never saw the movie, and I never heard Wainwright’s version until this year when it was used on TV ads for Samsung mobile phones [WATCH the music video].

That’s pretty much it for me, though.

Roger also asked:

Who would you say are your current favorite musicians, and how has that changed over time? And specifically, how has being in New Zealand affected that?

At the moment, I don’t have any favourite musicians as such, precisely because it changes over time. However, current artists that I really like—at the moment and in no particular order—are Ed Sheeran [Also see about Ed Sheeran], Sam Smith [Also see about Sam Smith], P!nk [Also see about P!nk], Katy Perry [see also about Katy Perry], Troye Sivan [See also about Troye Sivan], Lorde [See also about Lorde], and many others (I picked ones whose music I’ve actually bought). I often share music I like, new and old, on this blog under the tag/label Music. Nearly all of them have videos (or had when I posted them…).

I’ve frequently mentioned older artists I liked (and often still do), and but what’s changed since I arrived in New Zealand is that I became familiar with New Zealand, Australian, and British acts I’d never heard of until I moved here, plus ones that emerged after I arrived. Very often artists from those countries don’t get airplay in the USA, so there was a lot of music from the 1980s, for example, that I would have loved back in the day if only I’d known it existed.

Nowadays, I tend toward favouring electronic pop (or synthpop), even EDM (electronic dance music), which is something I didn’t hear much when I lived in the USA, so living in New Zealand has in some ways focused my music preferences—while adding singer-songwriters. Having said that, in the USA I liked British acts Erasure, Pet Shop Boys, OMD (Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark), and others that were electronic pop.

However, not everything has stuck. When I arrived in New Zealand, I discovered that reggae and reggae-influenced music was quite popular, especially among Polynesians in particular. I didn’t like reggae then, and I still don’t. On the other hand, there was something liberating and energising about being exposed to so much music I’d never heard before, and from so many countries, that it began to broaden my appreciation of pop music—including even music from my homeland, especially genres and older artists I’d always ignored.

So, my music tastes have changed over time, though evolved is a probably a better word, and living in New Zealand is the main reason for that. Music hath charms, and all that.

Thanks to Roger for these questions!

And that’s it for this year’s series of Ask Arthur posts. Huge thanks to Sherry, Linda, my sister, Roger, and Andy for all the questions! I plan on doing this again next year, but whether that’s something to look forward to or to dread is completely up to you.

Thanks!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example
Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 3: Easy answers
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 4: About the regime in DC
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 5: About the nasty folks in DC
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 6: Penultimate answers
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 7: Bonus questions

Arthur Answers 2017, Part 7: Bonus questions

Surprise! This is a bonus post in this year’s Ask Arthur series! Yesterday I issued the last call for questions, and I got two. So, here’s an unplanned extra Ask Arthur post for this year’s series.

The first questions today comes from my friend Andy, who asked:

Alright, Arthur – I've got a question. What was your best – and worst – experience since arriving in New Zealand?

I could be glib and say the best thing was Nigel, because what could be better than finding the love of one’s life, then getting to be with them? That’s an obvious answer though, and while he was the entire reason I came to this country, Andy’s question is actually asking about New Zealand itself.

There are a lot of things I liked about New Zealand from the very beginning, and I’ve written about many of them over the years. But the best experience I had, overall, was my participation in Labour Party politics at the local level. That has nothing to do with party or ideology, but about the things that are still great about New Zealand.

What I found in my years of volunteering was that there are people who care passionately about their community and their country, and who want to make both a better place. They are people who are willing to give freely of their time and energy and talents to make that possible, and, with effort, they may even succeed. It’s an ethic that seems to have been lost in my homeland.

The other thing is that it’s very easy for an ordinary person to become friendly with politicians, local or national, and friendly enough that the politician will recognise them and they can have pleasant conversations. That’s happened to me many times over the years, and there’s just no equivalent in the USA, at least, not for national politicians. The personal and familiar—sometimes even familial—nature of New Zealand politics was a surprise to me (I actually wrote about that—in a more partisan manner—in a post about the Labour Party’s campaign launch in 2014).

So, the experience that was the best was that, and, indeed, all the community groups I participated in, not just that political one. New Zealanders are pretty awesome most of the time, but especially so when working together to make their community better.

The worst experience is much harder for me to define. Part of the reason for that is that I try hard to avoid dwelling on the negative—people or events—to focus on the positive. I don’t always succeed, of course, but because it’s what I try to do I often simply forget about negative things.

Certainly the earliest bad experiences were dealing with NZ Immigration in the days before I was a permanent resident. A lot of the time it was fine, but other times it was truly soul-destroying. Jury duty was similar for me—I absolutely hate, loathe, and despise jury duty in any country, though, so that’s not unique to New Zealand.

The trouble is, most of the things I think of are irritations or annoyances, not anything bad enough to be called “worst”. In fact, the truly worst things were all personal, having nothing to do with New Zealand (the usual sorts of things—death in the family, sickness, that sort of thing).

But that gets at what I’d consider the worst: The realities of being an expat, specifically, the personal toll that time and distance can take. For example, my good friend’s mother died, a woman who was very important in my own childhood, and I couldn’t go back to the USA for the funeral or to be a support for my friend, nor more recently when his dad died. Some of my family members were in a serious car accident, and I couldn’t go back to support them in the immediate aftermath.

That, too, has nothing to do with New Zealand as such, but it’s about the reality of living so far from my native land, as this country is. That’s not a great answer, I suppose, but at the moment it’s the only thing that comes to mind.

The next question is from Roger Green who asked:

This is a variation on a question you asked me last year. Do you think tRump has destroyed Barack Obama's legacy?

No, but he’s certainly tried to. As recently as a few months ago, I’d have said he’d utterly failed, but times have changed and I now say he’s succeeded nearly completely in hiding President Obama’s legacy, though not destroying it. Despite what the current occupant of the White House obviously thinks, he’s no pharaoh, and he can’t wipe out his predecessor's existence by chiselling his name off monuments. When the current regime is gone, saner heads will prevail and will undo all the damage the current occupant and the Republican Party have done.

However, much of what President Obama achieved will take years—maybe even decades—to restore. If the petulant brat in the White House cared about the American people just a tiny bit as much as he’s jealous of and hates President Obama, the Affordable Care Act could have been fixed and been a good way to steady things until the inevitable time arrives to move to single payer. But the current occupant’s obsession with undoing President Obama’s legacy means that real healthcare reform in the USA will now take decades, quite possibly not until after the utter defeat of the Republican Party at the state as well as federal levels, and that won’t be any time soon.

So, destroy? No. Hide? Absolutely. Because everything that the current occupant has attacked and attempted to destroy can be restored once the grown-ups are back in control and saner heads prevail.

Thanks to Andy and Roger for these questions!

At the risk of playing the same note again, the next Ask Arthur Post, which I’ll publish tomorrow, really will be the final in this year’s series.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example
Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 3: Easy answers
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 4: About the regime in DC
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 5: About the nasty folks in DC
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 6: Penultimate answers

Arthur Answers 2017, Part 6: Penultimate answers

One thing that’s common in these Ask Arthur series is that I often miss questions, even though I’m much more careful than I used to be (for example, I put all the questions into one document so I can track and them make sure I answer). Sometimes, mostly because I group questions thematically, I sometimes miss questions, and today’s totally different questions from Roger Green are two such skipped questions.

So, to start out this penultimate post in this year’s Ask Arthur series, here’s Roger’s first question, a political one:

Who will be the last person standing after Mueller implicates Jared, Jared rats out Sessions, et al?

This assumes that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t fire Mueller before he has a chance to hand down indictments of people close to him. I’m not sure I’d take that bet. The current occupant is clearly and obviously setting up an attack strategy to fire Mueller to prevent him from issuing indictments—especially of the current occupant himself. The whole smear campaign against the FBI is intended to set the stage so that he can use it as “justification” for blocking the pursuit of justice.

However, if for whatever reason the current occupant doesn’t fire Mueller, then the last person standing will probably be the current occupant himself. If, as seems obvious, senior staffers and advisers were all in on collusion with the Russians, then there’s no one who’s innocent. But the current regime is arguing that collusion with the Russians isn’t even a crime, which under some circumstances might actually be true—though it’s unlikely to be true in this case. That would leave Mike Pence to step in and pardon the current occupant, probably as part of a deal to get him to resign rather than face criminal trial, so technically Mike would be the very last person standing—assuming he wasn’t already indicted.

Let’s suppose the speculation accurately foreshadows Mueller being fired. And let’s further suppose that the current occupant of the White House pardons everyone indicted by Mueller (again using his smears against the FBI as “justification”). With all the evidence of obstruction of justice, the US House of Representatives should impeach the current occupant and the US Senate should convict him and remove him from office. But none of that will happen. There is, in fact absolutely nothing the current occupant could do that would be bad enough to make them remove him—he really could even shoot someone in Fifth Avenue in New York without any consequence, as he famously bragged during the 2016 campaign. In this scenario, too, the current occupant would be the last one standing.

So, it all comes down to when the current occupant fires Mueller. But at the moment all signs point to the current occupant himself being the last one standing.

Roger’s next question is totally unrelated:

Which blogpost or posts have gotten the most comments well after when you first posted?

This question has a very short answer: I have no idea. The problem is that I use the Disqus commenting system, and it tracks total numbers, not the number of comments per post (something Blogger’s built-in—and spam-plagued—system did do).

Even so, the bigger issues is that like most small bloggers (meaning small readership; I’m actually rather tall), I generally get very few comments. In fact, Roger is often the only commenter. So, when I do get comments well after I first published a post, they’re almost always spam, but even then there’s not a huge number.

The old posts that attract spam comments are usually ones with popular topics that spammers can try to leverage, or things that show up in Google searches. If I had to pick a post that attracted a lot of spam comments, it would be a 2011 post called “Coffee or Tea?” that kept getting comments well after I published it, including some VERY spam-ful comments I deleted. But, even so, at the moment there’s only six comments in that post, one of which is from Roger (I sometimes, though seldom, get more comments on a current post). I also had an emailed request to use one of the graphics I made in a UK course teaching students how to interpret infographics, something I particularly liked since that sort of graphics work isn't something I do all that much. In fact, that’s the main reason that particular post sticks in my mind.

Thanks to Roger for these questions!

The next Ask Arthur Post will be the final in this year’s series—and that’s music to all our ears. Look for it on New Year’s Eve (New Zealand time, of course).

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example
Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 3: Easy answers
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 4: About the regime in DC
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 5: About the nasty folks in DC

Arthur Answers 2017, Part 5: About the nasty folks in DC

The Christmas festivities are now over, so time to get back into this year’s Ask Arthur series before the year runs out. Even though this is winding down, there’s still a window of opportunity to ask questions—just leave a comment to this post (or see the bottom of this post for more options).

Today, Roger Green asks about the bad folks in the Washington, DC.

Here’s Roger’s first question:

Do you think the election of the Pussygrabber in chief has led to the #MeToo? Would it have happened if HRC had won?

I don’t think there’s any causation there—but they’re not merely coincidental, either. It’s unlikely to have happened just because of the allegations against the then-Republican presidential candidate. No one—not the mainstream newsmedia, not the voting public, no one except those who were already opposed to him anyway—cared that the Republican presidential candidate had bragged about committing sexual assault and—in addtion—that there were credible allegations of sexual harassment and even assault. That certainly frustrated many people, but to suggest that it alone caused the entire thing seems a bit farfetched to me.

However, the Weinstein allegations are probably tangentally related: There’s been the constant suggestion, so far neither proven nor disproven, that the prominence given to those allegations was because he’d been a donor to the Democratic Party, and Republicans, their spokespeople on mainstream news shows and, obviously, their Fox propaganda channel, were desperate to deflect attention from the current occupant of the White House and the serious allegations against him.

There’s an absolute logic to that supposition, and it may even be—and definitely could be—true. However, the allegations against Weinstein were so salacious and grubby that there was no way any news outlet would NOT give the scandal saturation coverage. And they did. From there it was a short jump to a frenzy of allegations and recrimination and public shaming (especially on social media) of anyone who didn’t unquestioningly accept all allegations as equal and equally true.

So, if it was the salaciousness of the Weinstein allegations that brought the attention and encouraged the frenzy, then it could have happened regardless of who was in the White House. However, if it really was hyped as a plot to distract from the criminal allegations (Russian, financial, or salacious) against the current occupant of the White House, then that frenzy, and the “MeToo” movement it spawned, might not have happened if Hillary Clinton was president.

For me, the question comes down to whether the powerful elites who backed the Republican nominee and his party would’ve had the determination to hype the scandals if Hillary Clinton was president. Certainly the allies of the guy installed as president would have siezed on ANY opportunity to embarrass Democrats, because they always do, and they would have wanted alllegations of sexual assault in the news because that’s been one of their constant lines of partisan attack against Hillary, that somehow she’s responsible for the allegations against her husband.

Therefore, on balance, I think there’s a high probability that the frenzy would have been in the news regardless of who was president because strong partisan motivations by Republican allies would have ensured that it was ONLY allegations against Democrats, and not any against Republicans—including the Republican nominee—that got all the attention. Whether that taints any good that came from the “MeToo” frenzy is for others to judge.

In a related question, Roger asked:

Should Al Franken resign? Should John Conyers?

My short answer would be that since the current occupant of the White House wasn’t forced to resign after serious allegations were made against him, then, no, neither one of them should have resigned. However, the unpunished sins of one don’t excuse the admitted sins of others, so just because the current occupant of the White House is getting away with being a sexual predator is NOT a reason why others shouldn’t be held accountable.

One thing that does concern me is that for Democrats—and absolutely NOT Republicans—accusation means guilt means something to be punished with full fury and retribution. Actually, that was an unfair characterisation of Republicans, because they absolutely DO support punishing a politician accused of sexual harassment or assault with full fury and retribution IF—and only if—they’re Democrats. Republicans, as we’ve seen, can molest children and be within a whisker of being elected US Senator.

For Republicans, it’s all about partisan politics, and their own cognitive dissonance: They truly believe that any Republican—even a child molester—is preferable to ANY Democrat, so to reconcile their moral revulsion to enthusiastically supporting a child molester (for example—could be a “pussy grabber”, too), they go on the offensive (the best word in so many ways…), declaring the accusations are false, lies, smears, “fake news”, partisan attacks, all so they can live with themselves for choosing to vote for a child molester (or a “pussy grabber”).

For the Left in general, and many Democrats, it’s all about moral superiority: The Left feels smug and superior because they force out anyone who is accused of any sexually-related impropriety (against women…), no matter what, and they gang up on anyone who doesn’t share their particular view. On the plus side, they act the same way toward Republicans and Democrats alike. That’s probably a good thing.

However, where is the path to redemption? In the recent frenzy, some of the accused made jackasses of themselves, however, some of them made what seemed to be sincere acknowledgements and appologies, but they were never good enough. They were driven out of their professions, all based on allegations. Is that always the best solution? Is there no way an accused can ever redeem him or herself? Certainly the Left’s excess is better than the Republican approach of no consequences of any kind ever no matter what a Repubican is accused of, but there has to be a better way than utter and permanent destruction of the accused.

The problem is, first, not all allegations are equal, no matter what the Left says. There’s a HUGE difference between someone accused of rape (actual or attempted), child molesting (actual or attempted), and someone accused of making sexually-suggestive remarks/propositions. Yet at the height of the frenzy, they were all treated as if they all carried exactly the same seriousness and had to be punished equally seriously.

Which brings me back to Franken and Conyers. The allegations against Conyers were very serious, and his resignation seems like a good outcome. But unless there were more allegations against Franken that we weren’t told about—which is absolutely possible—forcing him to resign seemed excessive (I certainly raised my eyebrows at what seemed like an over-the-top response from Kirsten Gillibrand). Still, maybe there’s more that we don’t know about, but, if so, forcing him to resign seems like a good way to prevent those allegations from being reported. Which is why I have my doubts that forcing him to resign was the right move. But, I can certainly be persuaded.

Thanks to Roger for these questions!

It’s still not too late to ask a question—though time is running out! Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though some people may want to keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. If you’re on Facebook, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example
Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 3: Easy answers
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 4: About the regime in DC

Arthur Answers 2017, Part 4: About the regime in DC

It’s been a busy weekend, but now it’s time to get back into full blogging mode. Today, Roger Green asks about the current regime in the White House.

Here’s Roger’s first question:

Who are the 3-5 (or more most reprehensible people in the Cabinet or a dept head (EPA, OMB, Census, FCC) and why? Feel free to select those now out of office (Tom Price, e.g.)

I had two problems with this question. First, I couldn't remember who, precisely, is in the Cabinet (thanks, Wikipedia!). The problem was that there have been so many people in the regime who left, and so many non-entities still there, people that no one has ever heard of before, that it was really hard to remember more than a couple names.

Once I looked at the list, it occurred to me is that it would be far easier to list the LEAST reprehensible person on the list because the only well-known one who isn’t utterly without any redeeming quality whatsoever (so far!) is Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. He SEEMS to be the real deal, and he SEEMS like he COULD be the sort of decent fellow who would stand up to the current occupant of the White House if the guy, say, ordered a nuclear strike against North Korea. I doubt John Kelly would do that.

So, then the question becomes, who makes the list of the worst of the worst? Does it matter? Nearly every single one of them is either a leader and driver of the regime’s agenda, active and eager participants, or at least they’re willing toadies, in the dismantling of every regulation and law to protect the American people from corporate greed, and/or to transfer most of the USA’s wealth to the top 0.5%.

Among the most vile, in my sincerely held opinion, the most exuberant at extremism, greed, graft, corruption, and/or theft from the people are: Betsy DeVos, Steve Mnuchin, Scott Pruitt, and Ryan Zinke (Price would have made the list if he hadn’t been fired).

While I’ve long been a critic of Ben Carson and Rick Perry, mostly because of their idiotic political ideologies and theocratic tendencies (especially Carson who often veers well into christofascist territory), they don’t make my list because they’ve been mostly useless in their cabinet jobs so far—they’d be among the willing toadies, not among the true drivers of the corruption, since neither is smart enough to destroy America without explicit instructions, preferably written at an 8-year-old’s reading level.

There are also some who are pretty awful, in my sincerely held opinion, mostly because of their politics, but sometimes because of their personalities or personal agendas (or a combination). That list includes: Elaine Chao, Dan Coats, Mike Pence, and Mike Pompeo (all of the people on the vile list would make this list, too).

But how about some not truly awful ones? In addition (maybe) to Mattis might be Alexander Acosta, Robert Lighthizer, Kirstjen Nielsen, and David Shulkin, none of whom have done anything truly awful—yet. Anyone not listed anywhere else is instead on my “watch list” because they’ve done good and bad or because the evidence is just too unclear and/or contradictory.

Among agencies, in addition to the ones I already mentioned, the Census chief is clearly awful because they’re planning on rigging the census to help Republicans stay in power and to advance a radical Republican political agenda, and also the chair of the FCC not just because he’s a raging idiot, but also because he’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporations who has nothing but contempt for the American people—and their intelligence. Others are awful, too, for a variety of reasons, but those two are the worst not already mentioned.

Those are my sincerely held opinions, not any sort of declaration about the people as people or as political appointees. Whether my opinions are valid is up to other people—or maybe a court of law—to decide.

In a relayed question, Roger asked:

Who are the 2-3 most reprehensible members of the WH staff? (Kellyanne, Sarah Huck, Pence, Stephen Miller). Feel free to select those now out of office (Spicey, Bannon).

Again, I had to look this up (thanks again, Wikipedia!) because the current White House has had a revolving door. Time was, in one of the innumerable earlier iterations of the current regime, I would have put Bannon and Miller on the list, with Pence at the top. But Bannon is gone and Miller pushed mostly to the side. Pence was there because he’s a charlatan, trying to pretend he’s Oh! So virtuous! (that whole never being along with a woman who is not his wife is a great gag, though…) He is as corrupt as anyone else in the current regime and a christofascist to the core (that is, he wants an authoritarian “Christian” theocratic government). He is more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House because, unlike him, Mikey hasn’t shown narcissistic personality traits, and he’s of at least average intelligence. So, remove the Moron in Chief, and you get a smarter theocratic extremist in his place, someone who would know how to use government to advance his extremist radical rightwing religious agenda.

So, Pence is still top of both my Awful lists for both the White House and Cabinet. However, it you limit it to ONLY those on the White House Staff, then Conway (because she knows better and does evil anyway), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (ditto—well, one assumes: Her father may have taught her how to be evil and pretend to be a saint), and Mr. and Mrs. Kushner because of their untoward influence over the current occupant of the White House (and Jared’s obvious financial conflicts of interest and role in the Russian collusion).

But, again: Those are just my sincerely held opinions, not any sort of declaration about the people as people or as political appointees. As before, hether my opinions are valid is up to other people—or maybe a court of law—to decide.

Thanks to Roger for these questions—more to come!

It’s still not too late to ask a question! Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though some people may want to keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. If you’re on Facebook, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example
Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song
Arthur Answers 2017, Part 3: Easy answers

Arthur Answers 2017, Part 3: Easy answers

Roger Green has always been a great source of questions for all the Ask Arthur series over the years, and this year’s Ask Arthur series is no different. Because it’s Friday evening, a time when I usually take things easy as the weekend begins, so I thought I’d take on what were actually his first and last questions.

Here’s Roger’s first question:

Will you get to 365 posts in 2017? Is AAA an opportunity to get there?

I could be glib and answer “no and yes”, but, as always, there’s more to it than that.

I will “almost certainly” not make my annual goal of 365 posts. The reason it’s unlikely is that, even including this post, I still need 61 posts to make the target. When this month began, I needed 81 posts. The most posts I’ve ever published in a December is 68, back in 2014. The fact it’s only 13 more posts needed this year may sound promising, but it means an average of 3.81 posts per day, and if I keep posting 3 or fewer posts per day, it won’t be long before I need four—or more—per day.

This year’s Ask Arthur series will certainly help with whatever number I do end up with, but I’m not sure how many it will add (it depends on how many questions I combine in one post). Still, every post counts, so…

Interestingly, I haven’t yet posted anything that I wouldn’t post even if I wasn’t trying to get a decent total for December (now always among my most heavily-blogged month). While there have been a few things I wanted to post earlier but couldn’t get to, a lot of the posts over the past few days have been ones that—like usual—I wrote shortly before posting, and they’ve been about things I saw that day or within a few days before I wrote the post. Fresh, in other words.

And yet there’s a lot of stuff I haven’t had a chance to get to yet. There’s stuff about our recent trip to Australia, which I’ve already mentioned doing, and I have several others I just didn’t get a chance to get to earlier. And then there are a couple waiting for some final bits and pieces, and whether they ever make this blog has nothing to do with me because it’s waiting for things beyond my control.

So, maybe the real answer is “no and yes and maybe for both”.

Roger’s last question (so far—and there’s still plenty of time for anyone else to join in the fun; see below) was:

Why don't you have a Kiwi accent? Does Nigel? And how good are you in deciphering the Kiwi accent? Also, how much of the language of the Māori do you know?

I have no idea why I don’t have a Kiwi accent, although, to be fair, the family here—all of whom, including Nigel, have NZ accents—says I have a “mongrel accent”, in the sense of a mixed-breed dog. Of course Roger knows what I sound like—as indeed anyone can—from my podcast.

From time to time I see American-born New Zealanders on TV (and I’ve met a few), and they all seem to have their original accents, more or less. Among the explanations for that is that while we’re born able to make all sounds used in all human languages, our ability to make sounds not used in the language around us begins to drop off at six months. In addition, there’s what some people call the “musicality” of speech, which has to do with sound, yes, but specifically the rhythm, stress, and emphasis, along with vowel positions, and everything that goes into the way speech sounds. It’s very difficult for most people to hear and adapt to that musicality.

So, the odds are stacked against anyone changing their accent to match the place they live. Even so, some things have changed.

I say a great many words the way New Zealanders do—such as, “tomAHtoe” instead of my native “toMAYtoe”. I also soften the R in my own name, so it’s more like “Ah-thuh”. I do all this so I’m understood. If I spoke with my native Illinois accent, Kiwis would have trouble understanding some of what I say.

This is kind of ironic because I’m quite good at understanding New Zealanders and their accents (plural because there are variations). There are some individuals I have trouble understanding, of course, but that was true sometimes where I grew up, too. But, in general, I understand it as clearly as someone from my homeland. A side effect is that I can imitate the Kiwi accent—always privately because I don’t mock Kiwis, and because I don’t think I do it very well. Another side effect is that I can now hear the accent of people in my native Illinois whenever I hear them, and I could never do that when I lived there. Mongrel, indeed.

I don’t speak Te Reo Māori beyond a handful of words and phrases, most of them the most obvious ones. Last September, when I was planning to post my Election Day selfie, I asked our niece, who is fluent in Te Reo Māori, for an appropriate phrase to use (I also consulted her and her mother on an appropriate sign-off for my podcast, which I started using several months ago).

Not all that long ago, I accepted that I almost certainly have no hope of ever learning Te Reo Māori, and I’ll almost certainly never be fluent. That’s because I came to understand that I have no aptitude for any language other than English. I tried to learn the language of my ancestors (German) and failed after years of trying—a couple decades, actually. And yet, just like whether I’ll meet this year’s blog post goal, I’m too stubborn to ever give up completely. So, you just never know.

Thanks to Roger for these questions—more to come!

It’s still not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though some people may want to keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. If you’re on Facebook, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example
Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song

Arthur Answers 2017, Part Two: Addiction and song

I don’t expect to publish an answer for this year’s Ask Arthur series every day, but sometimes, like today, they will be on consecutive days. Both of today’s questions come from people I know in real life, and the first is from my good friend Linda who asked:

So here's my question for you. This article (“The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and
It Is Not What You Think”), and its premise, does it have any validity?

Linda knows me very well, probably because of the many great discussions we had at work back in the day. She also knows that I have opinions about a great many things, including some I probably shouldn't have or express. Although, as she also knows, that fact has never stopped me.

So, I should state upfront that I’m absolutely NOT an expert on addiction or psychology or pharmacology or medicine or any other field related to this topic. Also, while I’ve known plenty of alcoholics in my life, I’ve never known someone who was addicted to hard drugs. But this topic touches on so many of the things I DO study, especially as it relates to politics and public policy, that I have an interest in it (as well as pretty much everything to do with science).

The basic premise of the article (and, I presume, the book, though I haven’t read it yet) is that what we call addiction is for most people a coping mechanism for people who are in some way cut off, isolated, and without control. On an intuitive level, this makes a lot of sense.

The author, Johann Hari, cites the example of the Vietnam war. Around 20% of US soldiers were addicted to heroin, yet when they returned home to their lives and safety in the USA, most stopped the drug completely. Why?

He also cites rat studies in which rates were given water laced with cocaine or heroin, and they would drink more and more of the water until they died. But researchers realised there was a problem with the study: The rats were all alone in a boring, sterile cage.

So, researchers built a “rat park”, filled with other rats, plenty of interesting things to see and do, plenty of food and opportunities to play and have sex and all the other things rats do, AND they were offered the drug laced water. But the rats didn’t want it. Why?

The theory is that the rats in the first cage, like those Vietnam soldiers, were reacting to the cage they found themselves in. If rats—or people—find themselves in a better cage, that is, a more interesting, fulfilling life, fewer will choose to abuse drugs.

One of the reasons this interests me is the politics of it. As Hari says in the video interview accompanying the piece, this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of the Right—addiction is a moral failure—and of the Left—addicts are victims of chemicals over which they have no control. If Hari is correct, then the actual problem is that when people feel helpless, hopeless, and in danger, they’re far more likely to abuse drugs, and that means that if we improve the lives of the most vulnerable in society, drug abuse and all the social problems that go with it will decline.

This is just slightly beyond the growing consensus on the Left, among some Centrists, and even some sensible Conservatives, that drug abuse is NOT a law enforcement problem, it’s a healthcare problem. Hari’s views don’t contradict that growing consensus, they build on it by saying, yes, it’s a healthcare problem, but that’s mainly because it’s a social problem first.

As a student of public policy solutions, and how they can exist within political realities, I find Hari’s ideas refreshing and the policy implications exciting—especially if evidence continues to show that the new approaches really do work better than the old “lock ‘em up” mentality ever did.

The bottom line for me is that, as I said, these ideas make intuitive sense. But we know that the “war on drugs” has been a total failure and that we need radical new approaches, so we must be open to ideas that are challenging and maybe even a bit scary. If this proves to work, then we will help so many people who aren’t being helped now, reduce the harm of drug use, save lots of money now spent on law enforcement, courts, and prisons, and have a happier and healthier population. It seems to me that this is well worth exploring further.

The next question is completely different, but it also comes from someone I’ve known a very long time—my entire life, in fact. This question is from my sister who asked:

Do people go Christmas caroling over there?

The short answer is, I have no idea. The longer answer is that I’ve seen people dressed in Dickensian clothes doing carolling as part of a shopping promotion for a business association or whatever, but I don’t know if ordinary people ever do it. I’ve certainly never seen it anywhere, but it could be something that’s done in some places—I honestly have no idea. I should note that I never saw people carolling in all the years I lived in Chicago, either. On the other hand, it IS summer here, and some days it’s just too hot to even think about carolling, so that may be a factor.

One thing that does happen is that, as I mentioned in passing in yesterday’s post, many local councils will have some sort of “carolling in the parks” family event, which is often a sort of sing-a-long. I’m not sure if that counts, exactly, but it does show that singing Christmas carols happens in New Zealand, just maybe not in the traditional carolling sense.

Thanks to Linda and to my sister for their questions!

It’s still not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though some people may want to keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. If you’re on Facebook, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:
Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series
Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: NZ Example

Arthur Answers 2017, Part One: The NZ Example

It’s time to begin answering the questions in this year’s Ask Arthur series. As always, some of this year’s questions are more involved than others, and some are less so. While I usually answer questions in the order I received them, I also often group related questions into one post. Today, it’s the first question, and it’s a good'un.

Kicking off the festivities this year, as she did last year, is my real-life friend Sherry who asked:

America feels like it is so messed up. Do you feel like New Zealand is a far better example of the way a country should be? Would you ever move back to America?

This is a really good question, and so much better than a question I’m sometimes asked: Which country is “better”. That question is unanswerable because, first, there’s no such thing as a “perfect” country, and because perceptions of relative “good” and “bad” are mainly subjective. But whether New Zealand is a better example? THAT I can answer!

The short answer is, yes, absolutely, I do think that New Zealand is a far better example of the way a country should be. There are two main reasons for that: Political structure and societal structure.

First, the structure of New Zealand’s political system—not the politics or the political games, but the underlying system—is far more fair and democratic than what the USA has. Because we have a proportional system of representation, it is far more likely that the Parliament (our national legislature) we elect will mirror the will of the people FAR more than the USA’s system can do. But the structure of our government works better, too. Back in 2014, I talked about those differences in governmental and political structures of the USA and New Zealand [see: “Lessons from two countries”].

One thing both countries could benefit from is the adoption of some sort of instant run-off voting method for electing people to represent specific areas (US Congressional Districts or NZ Electorates). There’s a lot of reasons for that, but chief among them is that it would reduce the “spoiler effect” that small parties and independent candidates create, and would make it more likely that a true majority of voters support the person who is eventually elected. However, that wouldn’t change the make-up of the NZ Parliament, though it would change the make-up of the US Congress, the House in particular.

New Zealand’s election district boundaries are drawn by a non-partisan, independent panel, so we don’t suffer from gerrymandering as the USA does. If there was only one lesson that the USA could take from New Zealand, one that could be adopted without major changes, this would be it, and the difference it would make would be enormous. [Related: “The American problem”, a post on reforming the USA’s election system].

The other advantage New Zealand has is its societal structure.

Both New Zealand and the USA are largely dominated by people of European descent, but the similarities start to fizzle out from there. New Zealand, because of its origins, is an expressly bi-cultural nation (European descent and Māori). Both English and Te Reo Māori are official languages (as is NZ Sign Language), and while I can’t imagine the USA ever having two official languages, it’s worth noting that the USA actually has NO official language, despite what many people think.

New Zealand has it’s own problems with multiculturalism and what it means, but—in general—they tend to be less overtly hostile to other cultures than is often the case in the USA. I think the main reason for that is the partnership between the Crown (basically, government, representing us all) and Māori people. We’re accustomed to being bi-cultural, so being tolerant of other cultures is somewhat easier, though we have our own xenophobes and racists, of course (human nature, probably). But because this has happened because of the country’s unique origin, especially the partnership between European settlers and the indigenous people, I don’t think the USA can learn anything except that peaceful coexistence is possible, and E Pluribus Unum is actually achievable; the USA’s path will be different, though.

New Zealand is also a firmly secular nation, even though a majority still claim to be followers of a religion (mostly some flavour of Christianity, not surprisingly). What this means in practice is that NZ just doesn’t have the religious divisiveness that the USA has, and THAT means we can talk about issues as issues, rather than as extensions of religious dogma (marriage equality and abortion are two examples of that). We have religious extremists of all stripes, of course, and extremist Christians try to dictate public policy in NZ, too, but the difference is that, unlike the USA, they never succeed, and we have none in Parliament because their percentage of the population is so tiny.

An interesting side effect of New Zealand’s secular nature is that the presence—or absence—of religion is NOT a big a deal here. Three of our public holidays—and the three full days it’s illegal for most businesses to trade—were originally religious: Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. These days, most Kiwis think of those as public holidays, not religious ones in even the remotest sense. However, we’re not bothered by those who view them as religious. There are public Christmas Carol sing-a-longs in many cities’ public parks, and they can include religious carols (because, after all, many of the best ones are religious!). Similarly, it’s impossible that NZ would erupt in outrage over what cup Starbucks uses in December or whether a shop’s workers say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” (though most say the first, in my experience).

What the USA can learn is that religion isn’t the problem, it’s people deciding to be dicks about their religion. New Zealand shows that religious and non-religious people can live peacefully side-by-side—as long as the religious folks don’t try to impose their beliefs on everyone else. The religious extremists in the USA won’t easily give up their power, but if mainstream Americans can push them aside, it would be possible for the USA to be more like New Zealand.

Beyond all that, New Zealand is a far more relaxed culture than the USA is: We don’t hyperventilate about some supposed outrage in the news (unless it has to do with rugby…), we’re not paranoid about other people or our government, and, in general, we’re pretty laid back. Basically, what the USA can learn from that is simple: Chill out!! Honestly, there’s not nearly as much wrong with the world as many Americans seem to think there is. Kiwis know that, Americans can learn it.

So, peaceful, laid back, more democratic and tolerant, New Zealand has a lot to teach the USA.

The final part of the question, “Would you ever move back to America?”, is the single most-asked question I’ve had over the past 22 years. My specific answer has varied a lot over those years, but it boils down to, “Who knows?!” Certainly after two decades living in New Zealand, and with the way the USA is right now, it’s highly improbable that I’d ever move back. On the other hand, the huge obstacle preventing that—the fact that Nigel couldn’t come with me until marriage equality arrived in the USA—has, for now, been removed. That means that a move back is at least theoretically possible.

So, while a move back to the USA is highly improbable, it’s at least possible, something that wasn’t true for most of the years I’ve lived here. Based on all that, my current answer is “probably not, but never say ‘never’.”

Thanks to Sherry for the question!

It’s not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though some people may want to keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. If you’re on Facebook, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

Let the 2017 asking begin The first post in this series

Let the 2017 asking begin

The end of the year is rapidly approaching, so that means it’s once again time for my annual “Ask Arthur” series of posts, something I’ve been doing every December since 2012 (plus two July series). This year, I thought I’d ask for questions the end of November so that I can begin the answers earlier in December (last year, it took me nearly two weeks to begin answering questions).

This series is a chance for people to ask me nearly anything, and I try to answer whatever I’m asked. I have no particular topics that are “off limits”, but if I can’t answer something for whatever reason I’ll say so, though I’ve never had a question that I wouldn’t answer.

I’ve been aksed about myself, my past, about life in New Zealand—mine or in general—about being an expat, what I think about various topics or events in the news, and so on. Many different things, many possibilities.

To ask questions, leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom de question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though some people may want to keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog.

UPDATE: My friend Linda reminded me that you can also send a question as a private message by clicking on "Send a Message" on the AmeriNZ Facebook Page. I forget about that because, as the page owner, I don't see that button whenever I visit the page.

Finally, as I always note, this idea is stolen from inspired by Roger Green’s “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts, which he still does, and far more often than I do.

So, over to you: Ask your question whatever way works best for you, and I’ll do my best to answer it.

All posts in this series will be tagged “AAA-17”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

What do you want to know? (December 2012)
Ask Arthur (July 2013)
Ask Arthur – Again (December 2013)
Ask Arthur Again, again (December 2014)
Ask Arthur yet again (July 2015)
It’s that time again (December 2015)
It’s ‘Ask Arthur’ time again (December 2016)