Ask Arthur 2025, Part 2: Rogues gallery

This is the final post answering questions in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series. A (very) short series, I know, but it is what it is.

This years' fiinal question is again from Roger Green, who wrote:

I'd like you to analyze the Worst of the Worst: your least favorite members of the regime and why. Don't feel limited to the executive branch; if you want to dis Mike Johnson or John Roberts, please feel free.

It would be much easier to list who among the regime’s inhabitants I like, or, at least, can tolerate, because that list would be empty. This is a first for me: Even when I’ve strongly disagreed with whoever was in the Oval Office, there nearly always was someone that I could at least tolerate—and that even includes the Convicted Felon’s first occupation of the White House. But that’s absolutely not true this time.

Most of the regime is made up of utterly incompetent, even demonstrably stupid, people, which has probably been the main thing that’s kept the USA from going fully fascist so far. There are, however, several people who are beneath contempt, the sorts who better pray every day that there are no Nuremberg-style trials once the regime is finally gone.

The worst of the worst are, in my sincerely held opinion, anyone and everyone who is any way attached to to the Department of “Homeland” Security, its secretary and the head of the ICE Gestapo, chief among them (I will refrain wherever possible from using the rogues’ names because refusing to utter someone’s name is probably a human’s greatest gesture of contempt). They have all broken numerous federal and state laws, violated the rights of thousands of people, and committed the sorts of crimes against humanity that in the Beofre Times would get a country on a US government watchlist.

The individual who outranks all of them in this list, though, has to be the guy often called “The Shadow President”, Herr Miller, who is the architect of the regime’s racist, inhuman, and inhumane war against immigrants, regardless of legal status. The Convicted Felon’s personal Stellvertreter, in the more appropriate German, has made deliberate cruelty the focus of his work, though ensuring maximum profits for the corporations that run the detention facilities is also a strong driving motivation for the regime—though much of that speaks to the regime’s general corruption, not merely its evil intent. His sick racist Christmas tirade is just another symptom of his moral depravity.

Also in the rogues gallery would be the head of the Department of Defence who has (allegedly) violated international law and (allegedly) committed war crimes. Beyond that, his open racism, misogynistic sexism, and homophobic über-bigotry make him incredibly gross—at the very least. But it’s his (alleged) crimes against humanity that could cause him the most problems after the regime ends.

Similarly, the Secretary of State has been shockingly disgusting. Was the guy the Felon used to call “Little” always so sick and twisted, or did joining the regime give him permission to stop pretending he was ever anything other than sick and twisted? Maybe one day a Truth and Reconciliation Commission can find out.

Although generally notable mostly for incompetence, the “Attorney General”, so-called, is in the gallery because she’s been tripping over herself to eagerly do whatever her Felonious Lord and Master demands, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional it is. She better hope someone gives her a pardon.

Finally, among the denizens of the cabinet/politburo is the weird and flaky guy in charge of health. Were he merely a crackpot shouting on the Internet, he could be safely ignored. Instead, his actions will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people before everything he’s done can be reversed when sanity finally returns.

The next group in the rogues gallery are sort of second-string players, though still central to the regime’s fascistic dreams. First, there’s the Shady VP who lately has been desperately trying to convince the Republicans that he alone can be the successor to their God-King. What places him in this gallery, apart from his aggressively boorish behaviour, is that he’s now trying to convince the cult that white supremacism has a place in their cult, the very thing that’s causing deep divisions precisely because so many cultists are saying, “Nah, bro, that’s too racist even for me”.

Special mention, too, goes to the two Roger specifically mentioned, starting with Maga Mike, the worst House Speaker in my lifetime, and that includes his fellow Republican who was convicted of historic sexual abuse of young people. For a man who’s so arrogantly smug all the time, he never seems to know anything whenever he’s asked about the latest crimes or excesses committed by the regime—though perhaps he gets that from his God-King, because he, too, always lies that he doesn’t “know anything about that”. Worse, for someone who constantly parades his supposed religious beliefs, often seemingly performatively, he has done more to not just reject the message of the Jesus he claims to follow, he actually chooses to do the exact opposite. There are rumours that his slavish devotion to the God-King is because the regime has something on him, but it the real explanation is probably just he’s this awful because it’s his nature.

John Roberts gets here, too, but only as an associate member of the rogues gallery, and that, in turn, is only because three of his fellow Republicans are far, FAR worse. Mostly, he’ll go down in history as being singularly responsible for destroying all public respect for the Court, something he seems to actually care about. If he really does, maybe he’ll do better, and reject the authoritarianism of the regime, even if that means he’s in the minority in a ruling.

The one who tops them all is, of course, the Rogue in Chief: Conman, grifter, utterly devoid of any compassion, morality, or ethics, he’s overseeing a deliberate campaign to destroy freedom, democracy, and human rights, all so he can get ever more huge piles of money for himself that he’ll never live long enough to spend. If the rot starts at the top, if the most important organised crime figure is the boss, then he has to have a tier in the rogues gallery all to himself.

Thanks to Roger for participating! Hopefully my response doesn’t make him regret doing so—though it does demonstrate why I almost never talk about politics anymore. Still, it was cathartic.

I don’t know whether I’ll do an “Ask Arthur” series next year or not. I suppose it’ll depend on how well 2026 goes. Thankfully, that decision is nearly a year from now.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-25”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2025 series:

”Doing the annual inquisition AAAgain?” – The first post in this year’s series.

”Ask Arthur 2025, Part 1: Popping bubbles?”

Ask Arthur 2025, Part 1: Popping bubbles?

This is the first of two posts answering questions in the truncated 2025 “Ask Arthur” series. This year, I forgot to promote the series, and so, there will be only two posts. But… at least there are two posts? Yeah, that’s it.

Most years' first question is usually from my pal Roger Green, and that’s true this year, too. In fact, he asked the final question for the final post, too. Roger’s question is in two parts. First, he asked:

Are we going to have an AI bubble? You may have seen this graphic where Nvidia is in this loop with the companies they are selling chips to; it looks unsustainable to me because things don't always get bigger and bigger.

Short answer: Yes, it’s a bubble, and it will eventually burst. Okay, that’s that, then! Just kidding: It’s obviously more complicated than that.

Nearly everything in the tech world is built with hype as much as actual products or services, and it’s been that way for decades. Also, there’s no such thing as a market that can’t crash, and so, it’s entirely possible it will happen to AI (speaking in general terms).

There are many tech and investment commentators who have their own reasons for warning of a bubble for the AI industry, and they’re quite persuasive, however, I’ve never found the “tech bros” particularly—what’s the right word? Let’s say persuasive, served with a side dish of scepticism in incredulousness sauce. Most of the tech bros are showmen, and it’s in their insterests to, shall we say, oversell what they’re offerening. That’s true in a lot of industries, of course.

While I haven’t seen the specific graphic Roger was referring to, I think his scepticism is exactly right, and for me, it comes down to one thing: Where’s the income? We keep hearing how the market capitalisation of Nvidia is reaching ever higher unprecedented levels, and that it’s because of all the cards they’re selling to AI companies. AI companies may offer paid accounts to users, and other companies are trying to force their customers/users into using AI, companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google (Chrome in particular, but also for search), among others. So: Where’s all the profits? Not one financial commentator has reported how the tech companies are making massive profits from all their expenditures on AI. At the same time, there’s noticeable reistance from consumers who resent having AI forced on them, particularly when there are still no regulations or saftey measures.

At the same time, there are places where AI could change everything, like medical research, for example, because of its ability to evaluate, say, medicines much faster than humans ever could. However, without safeguards or regulations, we’ll see more “AI slop” foisted on us, and deep fakes used to destroy people or promoote propaganda. Ordinary people are increasingly worried about all that—and they couldn’t possibly care less about corporate profits or the salesmanship of the tech bros.

Add it all up, and there are plenty of reasons to think the AI bubble could burst, and also reasons to think is definitely will.

In the second part of Roger’s question, he asks:

AI is an incredible energy suck; is it worth it, or will this end up hurting consumers?

It’s already hurting consumers. Part of the reason that electricity proces are so high in the USA is the skyrockeing demand for electricity from AI data centres—though the situation would be dramatically better if the current US regime hadn’t made the idiotic move to ban new renewable energy projects, particularly because it’s far cheaper and faster to build clean, renewable generation than to build fossil fuel power plants. This represents an existential threat to the AI industry, particularly as consumer anger grows at having to pay high power bills because of AI data centres.

Also, the data centres often have high demands for water at a time in which climate change is making droughts more frequent. If all that wasn’t enough, the centres usually offer little employment in areas where they’re located—not counting the short-term construction jobs, of course.

Maybe the tech bros should use AI to solve some of the problems they’re creating. If they don’t pay attention to the needs of ordinary people and ignore ordinary people’s suspicion of, and resistance to, AI generally, they may end up popping their own bubble.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question! The next installment will be on Wednesday, December 31.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-25”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2025 series:

”Doing the annual inquisition AAAgain?” – The first post in this year’s series.

Doing the annual inquisition AAAgain?

As the year draws to a close, most people are concentrating on holiday preparations, but for me it’s also included my end of year series of “Ask Arthur” blog posts. It’s something I’ve done since 2012, but over the years the number of questions have declined, so much so that I seriously considered not doing it anymore. Still, this annual series been around awhile, and I generally don’t like just abandoning something like this without saying something first—maybe I just did? We'll see.

“Traditional” blogs like this one have steadily declined in readership over the years, the rise of subscription-based platforms like Substack or Patreon notwithstanding. Actually, maybe the rise of paid options helped the decloine of free generalist blogs? Maybe paying for something brings connections that free options don’t. To me, offering something for a fee implies I’m an expert on something, or can plausibly present myself as one, when I’m not even an expert on being myself. Besides, charging a fee carries possible tax burdens in two countries, so it could well end up costing me money (that’s also true for podcasts, YouTube videos, etc).

As I said last year, “I’m sure that there will come a time when there won’t be any questions,” and I added, “I’m quite relaxed about whether I get any questions or not. Everything changes, and nothing lasts forever, after all.” All of which is still true.

To ask a question , simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question. Whatever method you choose, you can 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, however, please keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog, and anyone can read what you wrote. If you want to avoid being public in any way, the best solution is to email me.

Finally, as always, I have an obligation as the gracious thief blogger that I am, to note that this idea is stolen from inspired by Roger Green’s “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of thievery flattery.

So, over to you: Ask your question whatever way works best for you, and I’ll do my best to answer. And if you don’t want to ask anything, don't worry: We’re still good.

All posts in this series will be tagged “AAA-25”. 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)
Let the 2017 asking begin (November 2017)
Let the 2018 asking begin (November 2018)
There was no “Ask Arthur” series in 2019.
Sure, why not ask again? (December 2020)
Yes, ask again (November 2021)
AAA 2022: A decade-long inquisition (November 2022)
Let the annual inquisition begin (November 2023)
Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024 (November 2024)

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 4: Miscellaneous and me

It’s absolutely no surprise that several of the questions in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series have dealt with serious, even dark, topics. So, I decided to end the series with lighter topics, because I can. On New Year’s Eve I just don’t feel like dwelling on the dark stuff.

Today’s questions are all from Roger Green. First up:

What TV services do you currently have (streaming, network)? How many are free?

New Zealand has two main broadcast companies. First, and largest overall, is New Zealand government-owned Television New Zealand (TVNZ). It has three broadcast channels: TV1, TV2, and Duke. They also have a streaming service, TVNZ+, that I’ll talk more about soon.

The other main broadcaster is Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand (WBD), the local operation of the global US corporation. They have TV3, HGTV, Bravo, Eden, and Rush.

All broadcast television is done through a service called Freeview, a digital free-to-air broadcast service. There are two versions; One uses satellite, which transmits standard definition programming using the same satellite as pay-TV operator Sky Television. The other version—the one I use—is HD over UHF.

There’s already talk about shutting off the ground-based transmitters in the 2030s, but this wouldn’t necessarily change anything but the delivery: Satellite transmission could remain, and there could be a version streaming over the Internet. In fact, the rapid growth of streaming services is precisely why the industry is in discussions to shut down the ground-based transmitters.

And that brings me to streaming services.

I use TVNZ+ a lot. It began as a way for me to watch TVNZ broadcasts that I’d missed, and since then my use has expanded to include TV series like Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, for example (NZ doesn’t have Paramount+, though Australia apparently does). They also have a good collection of TV series that haven’t been shown in New Zealand, movies, and all sorts of other programming. TVNZ+ is a free ad-supported service, with one minute ad breaks at the start and then roughly every half hour afterward.

Similarly, WBD has a free streaming service called ThreeNOW that includes much of the programming from the company’s broadcast channels, and, I presume other programming not broadcast. I don’t actually know what’s on it because I never use the service, though it’s not because of what’s on it or not on it, it’s just that I find that the amount of programming I could watch on all the various services greatly exceeds my time (and patience) to watch it.

I have one streaming service I pay for—Disney+—though I don’t watch that anywhere near as much as a I should (since I pay for it)—and I probably would if the amount of programming I might watch didn’t greatly exceed my time (and patience) to watch it (a recurring theme).

I used to subscribe to UK streaming service History Hit, a documentary channel, but I changed credit cards and couldn’t figure out how to update my details, which was probably just as well: At the time I engaged in austerity measures and started cancelling all “unnecessary” subscriptions. Still, if I wasn’t overwhelmed with options of things to watch, maybe I’d have kept it?

Having said all that, the streaming service I watch more than any other—by far—is YouTube, and I have the free version and all its many (many) ads. I’ve thought about paying so I don’t have to watch all the bloody ads, but so far I’m not willing to add any paid services, particularly when I feel I’m overwhelmed by all the options of things to watch (I said it was a recurring theme…). At any rate, what I like about YouTube is that the videos are usually short—a half hour or less (in my case, usually much less), and that suits my way-too-short attention span nicely.

Next up, Roger also asked:

Do you think doing quizzes would increase the output of your blog? Also are we going to get more podcasts in 2025 from Arthur? Will we hear 2political next year?

Well, yes, actually. In fact, a month os so ago I started putting aside quiz-like memes and meme-like Facebook posts from friends that I thought I’d alter and answer here, mainly as a springboard for further discussion. They might suit a weekend best, and since I like word play like alliteration, I’m thinking I may call them, I don’t know, something like “Saturday Stealing”. Dunno.

There will definitely be more AmeriNZ podcasts in 2025, maybe even on a regular schedule again. Because it’s always been about whatever’s on my mind when I sit down to record, it’s not something I can easily plan ahead. Maybe that’s part of why I still do it. Still, I never stop tinkering with it, so there will probably be some of that, too.

As for 2Political, Jason and I talked vaguely about resurrecting it, though not in any kid of depth or detail. The website is gone because I allowed is end when the contract ran out. It had somehow become borked (possibly from a hack or maybe the unintended consequence of a plugin update—I have no idea what happened. Whatever it was that went wrong, even I couldn’t access the site any more, and by then we hadn’t posted anything for a couple years, anyway, so it was best to let it go. However, I still own the domain so if we choose to revive it, it’s just be a case of setting up a new home for it.

I also haven’t (definitely) ruled my reviving my forgotten child, my YouTube Channel, so there may be something about that in the new year, too. Or not. Part of the reason so much is in a fluid state is that I’m unsure about my AmeriNZ branding. I’ve spend more than two decades building it (which is a strong argument for keeping it), but after the US elections, I began to seriously question whether I wanted to create a different brand, one perhaps more appropriate for my current stage of life and the many changed realities that involves. We’ll see.

Speaking of blogging, Roger asked:

Are are you going to pose any questions to Roger when he does his Ask Roger Anything in December? (You can think about your question now; you don't even have to wait until then to offer it.)

Yes. In fact, I already did, though I was a bit late to the party because it’s such a busy time of the year (that’s the particular truth I decided to cling to).

I was amused by Roger saying on that post, “Running a daily blog involves talking to oneself, so having you talk to him is much more enjoyable and far less schizophrenic.” The humour for me wasn’t because of the necessary pondering whether writing about oneself in the third person might be an indication of schizophrenia, but, rather, because what he said is so very true. Although, it’s not like Arthur would know, of course, because he hasn’t run a daily blog in several years.

Thanks to Roger for today’s questions—and thanks to him and Sherry for all the questions in this year’s series. Thanks, too, to everyone who’s read even part of this year’s series. I hope 2025 creates plenty of opportunities for everything good—including new questions at the end of the year.

Thanks again!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?4”
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 2: An Orange hue”
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 3: Racism and change”

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 3: Racism and change

With one more post in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series, I decided to talk about the remaining “heavy” topic today rather than end the series with it, for no particular reason other than it felt right.

So, today’s question is from Roger Green, who asked:

From your vantage point, how has race and racism changed in the United States compared to, say, when you were living in the United States? Was Obama's presidency helpful or harmful in addressing racism; likewise, black lives matter, affirmative action, DEI. What has moved the needle in terms of race in America and in which direction? While you're at it, you could talk about race in New Zealand, which is a different animal, I know.

This topic is one of the most fraught because the opinions have become so polarised, and, for many it’s become a kind of moral litmus test. In my opinion, and from what I’ve seen and experienced personally, the folks on the Left seem to approach the topic from lived experience or based on their values (or both). In contrast, those on the Right seem to come, more often than not, from a place of fear and/or ignorance—which doesn’t mean they’re stupid, just that they’re uninformed, and, sadly, too often by choice.

I watched race and racism in the USA improved steadily, culminating in the election of President Obama. The rise of the “tea party,” however, led to a rise in openly racist rhetoric, leading up to and getting stronger after the 2010 Midterm Elections. To me, it’s been all downhill from there, and the situation is worse now than it was before I left the USA.

President Obama’s election in 2008 broke a barrier, one that can’t be rebuilt. Now, the idea of a black man being president is no longer weird, because it’s already happened. In that sense only, President Obama’s election in 2008 was very helpful. However, he also played down the historic nature of his election and administration, so it didn’t have the legacy-building it could have had. That, however, wasn’t the reason the USA started slipping backward: That was the deliberate work of the Rightwing.

The USA’s Rightwing spent a lot of time and effort spreading propaganda that was built on deliberate lies and disinformation, like, for example, when they said the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels”. Many Republican leaders, elected or not, used dog-whistle rhetoric to imply that President Obama and his supporters were "less than” in many ways, though often unspecified. Again, this took flight with the rise of the teabaggers, something I wrote about a lot at the time.

Affirmative Action was a useful policy for reducing systemic barriers to black people (in particular) breaking getting a chance in education and employment, but it was created in a different time when politicians saw the value in lifting up those who had been deliberately excluded from so much of society. Its success reinforced opposition from traditional conservatives, and created resentment among white people who felt that if someone else succeeded, it inevitably meant they (the white people) would have to fail. That was absurd, but telling disgruntled people that their feelings are absurd and not based in reality doesn’t make the disgruntled folks change their minds, it makes them more firmly disgruntled and very angry, something that inevitably leads to reactionary politics and turning back the clock. So, Affirmative Action started out as a positive, but because the resentment of white folks was never properly addressed, it became a flashpoint for everyone who was certain (though almost always wrong) that they’d been deprived of something by “a minority” person. Its downfall was predictable.

The Black Lives Matter movement was, like President Obama, the victim of unrestrained and often unhinged Rightwing rhetoric. By the time that BLM emerged, the Rightwing propaganda system was fully developed and operational, and when combined with legacy media failing to report fairly or accurately, that meant it was possible for people to never hear facts or reality in reporting on BLM, and that meant it was easily scapegoated by white folks who blamed it as an example of why they weren’t rich and CEO of a major corporation (or whatever).

This same fate befell DEI and even Critical Race Theory.

DEI is something that many people didn’t understand at all. Some may have had “cultural training” of some sort at work, which was intended to make sure workers weren’t insensitive to fellow workers or customers who were different from themselves, but it morphed into meaning a different version of affirmative action, leading to their claims that “unqualified” people were supposedly given preferential treatment over “qualified” people who were passed over because they weren’t part of a recognised minority, and that, in turn, led to it becoming an all-purpose epithet against anyone who wasn’t a white, cisgender, heterosexual male, such as, derisively calling someone a “DEI-hire”.

It’s certain that everyone spewing angry rhetoric about CRT has never had anything to do with it, since it was only ever part of graduate-level coursework in very particular fields. Many of the folks complaining the loudest barely completed high school, if that, and because they didn’t know what CRT was, they bought the Rightwing propaganda that it was about teaching 5 year old white kids to hate the fact they’re white—because so many of 5 year olds are doing graduate coursework at universities these days…

So, overall, race and racism have gone backward in recent years, and the main reason is that for far too many Republicans, nativism, white nationalism, christian nationalism, etc., have become defining characteristics of their politics, something that’s been driven by an extensive Rightwing propaganda media ecosystem and politicians eager to exploit it.

You didn’t ask about this, but one of the solutions, in my opinion, is to develop a strong alternative media ecosystem for the centre and the left, one that reports fairly and accurately, without resorting to the lazy “both-sides-ism” of the legacy media, nor the deliberate disinformation the Rightwing uses. If we can’t get back to facts-based and reality-based policy discussions, we won’t have a hope of moving things forward.

Pretty much everything I’ve said is also true for New Zealand, albeit with local flavour and issues specific to this country. The current Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, the leader of a rightwing populist party, campaigned using rhetoric lifted directly from the USA’s MAGAts. Just like their Dear Leader, Winnie (as he’s “affectionately” known) railed against transgender people (such as, he wanted a law that would require restaurant and cafe owners to ensure the public toilets customers used matched their birth gender—though he never said how that was to be done, like, maybe a quick genital check?), and he said that every policy he didn’t like, no matter how sensible, was "woke"—including government programmes designed to help Māori. In a plot twist, Winston is Māori.

Similarly, the leader of a hard-right neoliberal party, and set to become Deputy Prime Minister in around six months, David Seymour, railed against “special treatment” for Māori, and wanted a national referendum on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the nation’s founding document, to strip out everything he decided was “special treatment” for Māori in favour of one standard based on English law and customs. He, too, is Māori.

The current Prime Minister, the leader of the conservative National Party, has also railed again Māori, including demanding that all government agencies must use their English language name first and most prominently. This was in reaction to government departments using their Maori name first, as is the ordinary custom. For example, we used to have Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, and now those two are reversed. Similarly, Waka Kotahi–NZ Transport Agency is also switched around. In both cases the English name is stylised at a much larger type size than the Māori one. It will surprise no one who knows anything about me that I continue to use the Māori names, and exclusively. 

In doing so, the PM was pandering to the older, mostly white base of his party who “don’t like all that marry [sic] stuff” (older white folks often incorrectly pronounce Māori as “marry”, and it often seems deliberate. During the campaign, the PM said that “no one” could remember the Māori names of government agencies and got them confused, which was an incredibly condescending thing to say: The English names of LOTS of government agencies have changed—sometimes multiple times—and yet the PM apparently thinks that people magically didn’t have any difficulty remembering the changed English names.

Those of us who oppose the current government call it the “Coalition of Chaos” (or CoC) for their general incompetence, the corruption of some ministers, their lies, and their ulterior motives for some of their initiatives. But nowhere is opposition stronger or louder than against the COC’s “war on Māori”, as the loudest critics put it. The haka in Parliament and the <i>massive</i> hikoi (march) to Parliament are probably the best-known overseas. The PM agreed to support Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill only to the First Reading, and then will oppose it at the second and third—something that Seymour has attacked, of course. With National and all the Opposition parties against it, the bill cannot pass, no matter what the mercurial Winston does (though he’s unlikely to support it, if for no other reason than that it’s Seymour’s central policy objective.

Having said all that, there’s a very important way in which New Zealand is very unlike the USA: We can change it at the next election in 2026 by making the CoC a one-term government. If the Centre-Left win the next election, they will undo the worst things the CoC has done to Māori, as well as poor and working people generally. NZ doesn’t have the kind of “establishment consensus” that too often keeps Democrats from making real progressive change when they have power—and, arguably, that’s part of why Democrats lost so badly in 2024. Both the Democrats in the USA and the Centre-Left in NZ have every opportunity to come roaring back in 2026 IF they back real concrete progress. If they do, the conservatives’ failures on race will likely be one of the reasons the Right will be shown the door.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?4”
”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 2: An Orange hue”

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 2: An Orange hue

It’s no surprise that several questions this year deal with US politics, including some specifically about the regime due to take power on January 20. Today I thought I’d take on questions related to the Orange One.

The first question is from Roger Green, who asked:

How would you explain to someone that your disappointment at djt not being held liable for his crimes and alleged crimes is not from a personal vendetta against him, but by the sense that the rule of law has been totally scuttled?

The question kind of assumes that I know hoards of people who wouldn’t understand that, and I don’t. Whether Americans or Kiwis, people I talk with (online or in real life) all think he should have been held accountable for all his crimes, not just the political ones, but his various business-related crimes, too. Those people just assume that the rule of law has failed if someone like the Orange One has almost never has to face criminal trial (his 34 state felony convictions in New York notwithstanding), and they would never assume that someone had a personal grudge against him.

For a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the Orange One, there’s probably nothing I could possibly say that would help them understand or to convince them that it’s not just “radical communist leftist thug” hatred of the Orange One. However, a study has shown that AI has promise in helping conspiracy theory believers come to their senses, so maybe that approach could work for people bathing daily in MAGA koolaid.

In between those two extremes are a lot of people who aren’t true believers nor particularly sceptical of MAGA, either. Some of them may be too young to really remember the Orange One’s 2017-21 Reign of Error, or, more likely, they’re just not tuned into politics enough to pay much attention, and might be persuadable. If so it’d be because of what Roger was saying: The rule of law matters.

There’s one thing more, though: I’ve never once heard any of the Orange One’s fiercest opponents say that he should be arrested for non-existent crimes, something the Orange One says about his “enemies” pretty much every day. His fiercest opponents have never suggested that he should be thrown in prison without trial, but that, too, is something the Orange One says about his “enemies” pretty much every day. It’s really true that every one of their accusations is a confession, and that the ones who hold personal vendettas are all on the MAGA side.

So, for a person willing to listen in good faith, I’d probably say something along the lines of what Roger said in his question and begin simply saying that the disappointment is based on “the sense that the rule of law has been totally scuttled”. If they brought up the “personal vendetta” thing, I’d probably have to point out, as I have here, that the side with the vendetta is not those who oppose the Orange One.

Next, Roger asked:

Orange says he will impose 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico on Day 1. Why is this an inane idea?

I’d call rather call it insane than inane, but I know that the Orange One has absolutely no idea what tariffs even are, and doesn’t understand at all how they actually work. For the benefit of anyone reading this who doesn’t know, tariffs are paid by the importer, and NOT by the country the goods are coming from, as the Orange One keeps stubbornly insisting, even after world-renowned economists debunked him. The cost of those tariffs are ultimately always passed on to consumers, meaning prices consumers pay always rise whenever tariffs on imports are imposed.

The specific problem with the Orange One’s particular tariff threats against Canada and Mexico is that nearly everything US consumers buy—cars, fresh fruit and vegetables, oil, building materials, and so much more—comes in whole or in part from those two countries. If the Orange One follows through on his threat, ordinary Americans will see prices for nearly everything they buy jump by at least 25%—or, more realistically, maybe a lot more than that because corporations will take advantage of the opportunity to raise prices by more than the tariff amount in order to increase profits, just like many did after Covid.

I’ve noticed that the Orange One hasn’t been threatening Mexico as much since Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stood up to him; maybe Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should do the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if China doesn’t get tariffs imposed, though, because the actual incoming president, Elon Musk, depends on China for manufacturing his products, among other things.

Next, Roger asked about the Orange One’s nominees:

I heard Chris Christie on George Stephanopoulos' Sunday morning talk show suggest that the Democrats should challenge only one of the orange man's nominees for the Cabinet on the theory that if they go after three or more they won't be able to affect any of them. I happen to think this is BS but I was wondering what you thought.

I’ve heard a lot of Democrats and folks on the Left say something similar. For example, Brian Tyler Cohen has said many times that if everything feels like a 5-alarm fire, nothing feels like a 5-alarm fire. The central thing for both is one of tactics: Some of the Orange One’s choices are far worse than others, and the Republican majority in the US Senate is far too comfortable with doing whatever their party’s Dear Leader wants—except for being willing to approve Matt Gaetz because he was so awful that not even sycophantic Republicans could back him. So, since many or most of the Orange One’s nominees will be approved, the argument goes that the focus should be on stopping the worst of them, such as Kash Patel for FBI and Tulsi Gabbard for director of National Intelligence.

However, there’s an obvious flaw in that strategy: Rightwing media’s propaganda would spin that strategy as personal vendetta (vendetta is clearly a central theme in MAGA-land…), against the nominees because they’re close to the Orange One (or whatever). So, maybe a better strategy is to release whatever publicly available data exists on the nominees, and have Democrats go on Leftwing alternative media to spread awareness, as well as asking direct, pointed questions in confirmation hearings.

Pete Hegseth is apparently pretty much an all around awful person, but it’s unlikely he could damage the country as much as Patel and Gabbard. Pam Bondi as Attorney General would also be awful, but in addition to being hyper-partisan and unalterably loyal to the Orange One, she’s also VERY ambitious and no doubt views the job as positioning her to run for higher office, even president. So, she’d be more likely to lead the Orange One on, but avoid doing anything blatantly illegal or unconstitutional. So, going after too many awful but not catastrophic nominees could risk getting the worst confirmed. I wouldn’t want to be in Senators’ shoes!

Finally today, my friend Sherry asks:

Everyone knows we are doomed and bound for terrible change here in the U.S. How can I fight Trump on his road to autocracy and an oligarchy? He is immune to any law, and he and his minions will do whatever they want.

Even though I’m on the other side of the world, I feel the same fear and trepidation. I’ll say first that it’s important to remember how incompetent and stupid the Orange One is: Those natural traits are what saved the USA in 2017-21. A lot of what happens in the upcoming regime will depend on which of his gang members get confirmed by the Senate, but the essence of who the Orange One is hasn’t changed.

The second thing to keep in mind is that the Orange One’s entire political method is”kayfabe”, the pro wrestling term meaning “the portrayal of staged events within the industry as ‘real’ or ‘true’.” As a member of the WWE Hall of Fame because of his long business association with them, and apparently being a genuine fan, everything the Orange One says is kayfabe. This is what his fans were getting at when they said they took him seriously, but not literally. His entire political career is built on what he learned from pro wrestling.

Put those two things together, and it means he’s unpredictable, and talks a lot of shit, but the danger he poses will mainly be to his personal “enemies” and to the wallets of ordinary people who will suffer from his fetish for tariffs (see above). However, as I also talked about above, the level of danger will depend on which of his many awful cabinet nominees actually get confirmed.

Something to remember is that direct lobbying of members of Congress works: When incoming president Elon Musk ordered Republicans in the House to vote against a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown, his followers on Twitter flooded the Capital with messages demanding Republican Congressmen vote it down—and they did. If enough Americans contact their representatives and tell them to oppose the latest batshit crazy thing the Orange One or his boss Elon demand, they’ll do it. Most Democrats in Congress will do that automatically, of course, but many Republicans are pretty susceptible to pressure (unless they’re full-on MAGA), especially from the folks who live in their districts.

Next, never “obey in advance”, that is, we mustn’t do what we think the autocrat will demand before he demands it. I’ve seen people talking about deleting their social media accounts, or just their posts, so the incoming regime can’t use it against them. Apart from the fact that it’s stupid (everything’s archived, even on Facebook, for a long time), it means voluntarily giving up one’s freedom, willingly, and without even being asked. This isn’t easy precisely because people are frightened of what could happen if they state their opposition to whatever the regime has just proposed.

Another very important thing is to seek out independent media on the Centre and Left. The legacy media utterly failed to take seriously the danger the Orange One posed to democracy and the rule of law. There are numerous media organisations to follow, depending on your interests and issues of concern, but here are some I highly recommend: ProPublica is an award-winning nonprofit independent news organisation that specialises in investigative journalism. They’re non-partisan, but being on the side of the people and justice means the Right doesn’t like them. Another good choice is Democracy Docket, a legal organisation that specialises in fighting for democracy and voting rights. They talk at length about litigation on those issues. Then there’s The Bulwark, a centre/centre right pro-democracy media outlet that was built by never-trumpers, including present and former Republicans, along with some Democrats. For a perspective more to the left, there’s Meidas Touch. For a more or less centrist team, there’s Crooked Media, which was founded mainly by former senior staffers of President Obama. All of these organisations have YouTube Channels (and I subscribe to them all), but for the hardest-working progressive on YouTube, it’d have to be Brian Tyler Cohen, who I mentioned above. His content is direct: He doesn’t dance around the issues, including getting sweary sometimes (I identify with that, LOL), and he has interesting guests.

The independent progressive and pro-democracy media will help keep you informed about important issues that the legacy media doesn’t even talk about. There are plenty more than the ones I’ve listed, of course, so my advice is to try different ones and see what resonates with you.

Finally, and tying this all together, be careful about taking the regime too seriously. While they’re absolutely a threat to democracy, not everything they say is actually real (kayfabe again). Sometimes folks in the regime or Rightwingers in Congress or the legacy media will say outrageous things in the hope it was cause an over-reaction from the Left. This is why focusing on a few issues is important, as is one thing more: Occasionally turning off the news and social media from a little while will be very important to preserve our mental health.

And remember: It was because of the disaster that the Orange One oversaw in 2017-2018 that Democrats won so many seats in Congress in the 2018 elections, why President Biden won in 2020, and why the supposed “Red Wave” of 2022 because more of a pink puddle as Democrats outperformed everywhere, beating the predictions and even history. The moral of the story is that the Orange One’s incompetence and stupidity, combined with what an awful person he his, will inevitably cause a reaction and a rejection of him and Republicans more broadly.

All of which is to say: There’s always reason to hope, even when things seem bleakest. The MAGAts want us to feel discouraged, deflated, defeated, and powerless. Don't give them what they want!

Thanks to Roger and Sherry for today’s questions!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.

”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?” 

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?

Today I begin answering questions in the 2024 “Ask Arthur” series. In past years I started with the first question asked, and then continued more or less in order, sometimes grouping questions with similar subjects/themes together. This year, however, one of the later questions is more time-sensitive than the others, so I’ll begin with that one.

Before I begin, though, anyone can still ask new questions: Leave a comment on this post, or see the other options down below, at the end of this post. I’ll call time on new questions in a later post in the series, but I’ll finish this “Ask Arthur” series by December 31.

So: This year’s first question, as is usually the case, is from my pal Roger Green, who asked:

Hunter Biden pardoned by his dad. Orange said, "What about the J6 hostages?" which is silly because orange can do it himself. Thoughts? And also, who else should Joe pardon?

I Can’t think of anything I care about less than President Biden pardoning his son. I wasn’t the least bit surprised that the Right were—or, more likely pretended to be—freaking out about it. I don’t recall a single one of them whining after 45 pardoned his son-in-law’s dad—or any of the other criminals (or his own co-conspirators) that he pardoned. So, their reaction was largely performative, as it so often is. Some of them were even unintentionally hilarious, like the far-right guy who made an “error-filled” movie about illegal immigration who publicly complained about the pardon—despite getting one from 45. Glass houses, and all that.

What I find extremely tiresome, though, is the hand-wringing and rending of garments from those on the Left, including some I like and respect. One legal commentator went to great lengths to condemn President Biden, declared he’d lied about not pardoning Hunter, that his reputation and legacy was destroyed, and he kept droning on about how the pardon violates norms—even though he’s previously noted how the Orange One has already shattered norms and precedent and will do FAR worse once he’s enthroned in January. A prominent political YouTuber I’ve watched for years declared that “of course Biden shouldn’t have lied”, however, he’s also consistently pointed out the old norms are gone, and the incoming guy will do whatever he wants, whether it’s legal or not, and without regard for the Constitution. 

I have NO idea whether or not President Biden “lied” when he said several times that wouldn’t give Hunter a pardon—and neither does anyone else, Right or Left. However, there’s strong evidence supporting the assertion that he didn’t lie. In his statement on the pardon, President Biden said:

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

Indeed, “no reasonable person” (emphasis added), which obviously excludes the Republican politicians whining so loudly about the pardon. If President Biden had not pardoned Hunter, the supplicants the Orange One installs at the FBI and as Attorney General would almost certainly launch phoney “investigations” into Hunter Biden, followed by corrupt indictments (indeed, even after the pardon Republican politicians in Congress declared they’d continue with their own phoney “investigations”, anyway, because, well, politics…). A pardon was the ONLY way to protect Hunter from politically-motivated harassment and persecution. I think Joe Biden did the right thing, and I fully support it.

This brings up the question of “pre-emptive pardons” for folks who haven’t committed any crimes, but who the Orange One considers to be his personal enemies because they dared to hold him to account for his many crimes. He absolutely intends to keep his promise of revenge, a promise he repeated many, many, many times over the past couple years. So, should President Biden protect those the Orange One wants to destroy? I think that depends on the individual.

Many of the folks in question are high-profile politicians who can raise donations to help pay for their legal defence against the partisan attacks from Orange One’s minions and their phoney investigations and fraudulent “indictments” (assuming they can convince grand juries to indict with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any crimes having been committed). If they do manage to somehow “indict”, there are laws against malicious or corrupt prosecutions, and it’s not inconceivable that they could end up with an unbroken record of hundreds of losses in court—unless they get the right MAGAt judge, and, if so, we can guess what the far-right Republican Supreme Court might then do.

Because of all that, and years of partisan harassment and prosecution, some of the folks in the Orange One’s crosshairs may prefer to accept a pardon. I fully understand why they might, and wouldn’t blame them if they do accept one. So far, though, Ive seen that some folks presumed to have targets on their back, like former US Representative Adam Kinzinger and newly-elected US Senator Adam Schiff, have said they don’t need or want a pre-emptive pardon. Will anyone else say they do want one? We know that a Republican House of Representatives “report” “calls for an FBI investigation into [former US Representative Liz] Cheney, accusing her of witness tampering by being in touch with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide.” The chairman of the committee, Barry Loudermilk (MAGA-Georgia), notoriously gave a tour of the Capital to two insurrectionists right before the January 6 attack, which, whatever Barry might say of it, nevertheless gave the insurrectionists valuable reconnaissance before their attack. Yet, curiously, Barry wasn’t “criminally investigated”.

All we know for sure is that when the Orange One is formally installed in power, he’ll do whatever he wants, rule of law be damned, and that will include pardoning his most obsequious allies—if they’re sufficiently fawning, grovelling, and submissive. Having said all that, I’m not sure he’ll pardon all the people convicted of the crimes they committed on or about January 6, 2021. The Orange One is incapable of censoring or muting himself, and in an interview recently he seemed to equivocate slightly on his earlier promise to pardon them all. Who knows? The guy has never shown that he understands, much less cares about, anything to do with the rule of law or the norms of behaviour for someone in the office he’ll, tragically, soon occupy, and he probably doesn’t understand the seriousness of the crimes so many of those people were convicted of. On the other hand, he wants to be worshipped, so that will probably decide his actions.

The reason that I moved this topic to the top of the list is that last week, some 10 days after Roger asked his question, President Biden pardoned 39 people and commuted the sentences of 1500 others, and there’s no reason to think there won’t be more. I wanted to avoid the Christmas rush. I also delayed publication a couple days so I could tone down my contempt for the Orange One and his party. This post is as dispassionate as I can be—which is precisely why I've avoided writing about US politics.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question!

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

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin fpr 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.

Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024

Another year is drawing to a close, so that must means it’s time for another go at my end of year series of “Ask Arthur” blog posts. The series has been about giving readers the chance to ask questions about—well pretty much anything, apparently. As I put it in the 2022 series’s introduction post:

The “Ask Arthur” series of posts is a chance for people to ask me nearly anything, and I try to answer whatever I’m asked. I’ve never had a question about a topic that was “off limits”, however, I’ve always said that if I couldn’t answer a question for any reason, I’d say so. It turned out that I've never had a question that I wouldn’t answer. It also turned out that I haven’t yet met a topic I don’t have an opinion on. Who’d have guessed that?

Last year I answered my own question: “Yes, who could or would have guessed that there doesn’t seem to be any topic on which I don’t have an opinion?” In fairness, having opinions is pretty much a top requirement for any blogger, otherwise there wouldn’t be much point. Still, it seems to help if I mention the kinds of things people typically ask me. In past years, I’ve been sent questions about me, my personal history, about life in New Zealand (mine or in general), or perhaps more specifically about being an expat. Questions about my opinion on topics or events in the news, including politics, have also featured in the past. The possibilities really do seem to be endless.

Still, I’m sure that there will come a time when there won’t be any questions. Written blogs aren’t anywhere near as popular as they were in the early years of my own blogging, and my commitment to the work has wavered (and, yes, I’m good at stating the bloody obvious). What this really means is that I’m quite relaxed about whether I get any questions or not. Everything changes, and nothing lasts forever, after all,

However, there may well be questions this year. To ask one, simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can 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, however, please keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog, and anyone can read what you wrote. If you want to avoid being public, the best solution is to email me, or you can also send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

Finally, being the gracious thief blogger that I am, I always note that this idea is stolen from inspired by Roger Green’s “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of thievery flattery.

So, over to you: Ask your question whatever way works best for you, and I’ll do my best to answer. And if you don’t want to ask anything, don't worry: We’re still good.

All posts in this series will be tagged “AAA-25”. 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)
Let the 2017 asking begin (November 2017)
Let the 2018 asking begin (November 2018)
There was no “Ask Arthur” series in 2019.
Sure, why not ask again? (December 2020)
Yes, ask again (November 2021)
AAA 2022: A decade-long inquisition (November 2022)
Let the annual inquisition begin (November 2023)

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 5: Something about me

Here we are already: This is the final post in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series. Today's questions are about me, more than my opinions. Quite frankly, I’m surprised no one has asked some of these before, but there you go.

The first group of questions today is from AustininSeattle, and, as I did with Roger’s questions the other day, I decided to number them for clarity:

1. Are you currently working or are you retired?
2. If you're retired, are you financially comfortable? Is your house paid off? How does the pension in New Zealand work? Do you also receive the US Social Security money?
3. How often do you go back to the US to visit your relatives (siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces)? Do you see yourself returning back to the US since it's your home country and you have relatives?
4. Are you planning to find a new partner after Nigel? If so, have you dated anyone?

1. “Are you currently working or are you retired?” Technically, neither—and both. The job I had for 16 years ended just before New Zealand went under the first Covid lockdown, which was pure coincidence. The publication I worked on part-time was sold, and the new owners were going to do all the work in house. I’m not opposed to getting a new job—I think about it all the time, actually—but I have no idea what I’d do at my age and with my skils, which were niche to begin with, no longer in demand.

However, I’m considered “employed” for tax reasons because I still own our house on Auckland’s North Shore, and that’s a rental. The income from that has to be reported to both countries (as I understand it, it’s kind of analogous to self-employment income in the USA). Fortunately, we’re not talking big money—basically enough to pay the loans and maintenance—so I only pay income tax to New Zealand.

This actually nicely segues to the next question:

2. “If you're retired, are you financially comfortable? Is your house paid off? How does the pension in New Zealand work? Do you also receive the US Social Security money?”

I’ll take the last part first: As a US citizen living overseas, I qualify for Social Security, though not Medicare (not that I need Medicare, of course). However, as a New Zealander who has lived and worked here for more than ten years, I also qualify for New Zealand Superannuation (government retirement benefit, usually called "Super"). Because New Zealand and the USA have a treaty dealing with this, New Zealand deducts the US Social Security payment from my New Zealand Superannuation, though I still get the same amount net as any other New Zealander, it’s just that some of it comes from the USA (it would be similar for a New Zealander living in the USA, and in a situation similar to mine, and who retired in the USA). There’s one other thing about this: NZ Super begins at age 65 (next month for me), but I don’t qualify for my full Social Security entitlement until I’m 66 and 10 months, which would be November 2025. I’m required by New Zealand to apply for Social Security at 65 or else I can’t collect NZ Super.

I’m in the process for applying for both right now, and I’ll talk about that when it’s done. The important thing to know is that applying for the NZ pension is incredibly easy, and applying for Social Security from overseas absolutely is not.

As for the rest, I own the house I live in freehold (without a mortgage), which helps keep my monthly outgoings as small as possible. The rental property has loans that the rent pays. I don't have a frame of reference for what financially comfortable would mean, for me or someone else, but I know that I'm in far better shape that far too many people, working people, even. But whether the gold of my golden years turn out to be  lead that's painted gold is something I can't yet answer. In any case, I don't intend to stop working, in one sense or another, and regardless if it's for pay or not, until I'm no longer able, and that could affect my answer.

3. “How often do you go back to the US to visit your relatives (siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces)? Do you see yourself returning back to the US since it's your home country and you have relatives?”

Since I moved to New Zealand 28 years ago, I’ve been back three times: In 1997 and 1999 (both times with Nigel, and his cousin joined us for the ‘99 trip). I went back alone from late December 2007 to early January 2008 to tidy up some loose ends. That’s it. Nigel and I planned several different times to go back, but life got in the way, and time passed. We talked loosely about going to Hawaii for our 25th anniversary together, but, of course, he didn’t live that long. I have no plans to visit in the foreseeable future.

By “returning” to the USA, I assume you mean to live, and no, that’s impossible. First, I left the USA 28 years ago, after living there for the first 36 years of my life—half of which was when I was legally a child. So, I’ve lived more of my adult life in New Zealand than I did in the USA (28 v. 18), and that means that in a very real sense, the country I left doesn’t exist anymore: Many of the people I knew—friends and colleagues alike—have died or scattered across the country. The places I knew so very well when I lived there—Chicago and Illinois—have changed dramatically since I left, so much so that neighbourhoods I could’ve walked blindfolded are totally unfamiliar to me now. In fact, if I was to move to the USA now, it’d be like moving to a foreign country, because so much has changed. Heck, I often see Americans talking about something going on in pop culture, and I have NO idea what they’re talking about.

On top of that, I’m used to national healthcare, not an insurance-driven system, and having to pay for health insurance—even with Medicare—would mean I’d have to live a very, very modest life. Here in New Zealand, I have a bit more flexibility. Having said all that, I wouldn’t mind going back for a visit before I get really old, but that possibility no doubt depends on what happens in the 2024 US elections, though it’s kind of moot at the moment, anyway: My US passport expired several years ago, and I don’t have anyone to look after Leo while I was on a long trip. All of which means I have completely accepted the fact that it’s possible I may never get back the USA again.

4. “Are you planning to find a new partner after Nigel? If so, have you dated anyone?”

I could be glib and say “no and no”, but, while true, that’s not the whole story. I have no plans to ever have another partner, and I’ve never considered dating. The reality is, and I know I’ve talked about this somewhere, I have absolutely NO idea how to be a single gay man in 2023/24. When I was last single, the Internet had barely begun, and guys mostly met in bars, through friends, in social groups, or they sought someone through newspaper classifieds. In many places, most of those things don’t happen anymore.

Around the time of the first Covid lockdown, or thereabouts, anyway, I thought about how nice it would be to have some gay friends to just hang out with. Apple promoted an App (maybe for Pride) that, it said, was for gay people to find friends and chat. I downloaded it, but realised pretty quickly it was actually a hook-up app (it wasn’t one of the well-known ones, which is why I tried it). Then I got an email from the company that talked about their App having “the hottest gay singles”, and I immediately closed my account and deleted the App. That was the absolute last thing I wanted.

My current mindset may not be forever—I understand all too well the extreme importance of never saying “never”—but it would have to be extraordinary circumstances for anything to change my mind for the foreseeable future. Still, that’s not actually a “no”, but more of a “probably not” or maybe, more vaguely, “possibly one day, maybe.” Time will tell, I guess, even though right now I think it’s highly improbable.

Next up, and staying on the same overall theme, is one from Roger Green, and it requires some background. Earlier this month, I published a post, ”A venture out”, in which I talked about some errands I ran that day. In it I mentioned that at one shop I went to I was helped by a nice-looking young man with “a North American accent”, and, I added, “I didn’t ask where he was from; didn’t want him to think I was flirting”. After saying I could use it for this series, Roger commented:

I'm not quite sure: 1) Why is asking about where someone is from would be considered flirting, and 2) why a perceived flirtation would be problematic.”

I was mostly joking, however, humour is often a way of expressing truth, so: I don’t actually think he’d have thought that merely asking him where he was from was me flirting (that’s the part I wasn’t serious about). However, I never want guys to think I’m flirting, and that needs some explanation.

I came of age at a time when flirting with a guy could lead to a violent reaction, and while that’s far less true than it’s been in many, many decades, the possibility is still seared into my brain—I think that’s probably just a generational thing. The bigger issue is that I’m shy and an introvert by nature, and I don’t want to impose on people, or, in this case, to impose myself, even when I think the guy is good looking. I know that flirting isn’t the same as trying to pick someone up—except when I was younger, when it pretty much was. These days, as I was saying above, I have no interest in picking anyone up, so in my behavioural brain, still frozen in 1995, I think there’s no point in flirting when there would be no follow-through. Plus, being shy and all.

So, no, I don’t think he’d have thought I was flirting if I asked where he was from, and if I had been flirting, it would have been innocent and not a problem. Having said all that, I’m almost always extremely nice and polite to all shopworkers, even those who aren’t attractive men. And if an attractive man wants to respond to my niceness by flirting with me, well, who am I to complain? Unfortunately, this has hardly ever happened, though.

Thanks to AustininSeattle and Roger Green for today’s questions, and for closing out this series! Personally, I think most of today’s questions could use more discussion, but possibly in posts of their own—or next year’s series?

Thanks to everyone for playing along with this year’s series!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 4: Saying no and being okay”

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 4: Saying no and being okay

Today’s post heads in a different direction than the previous ones, but it’s actually not that different from questions I’ve taken on in past series, though it's perhaps a bit more specific than others have been. To me, that makes it more important than many previous questions.

Today’s question is from Anonymous, who writes:

How do I learn to say no? All my life I have tried to live my life helping others. As I approach my mid sixties, I have found myself embroiled in so many people's problems, that I am overwhelmed beyond belief. I'm so deeply involved that I let my needs and sometimes my immediate family needs go, to help someone else. I want to help, but I'm exhausted. I don't want to "not help"... because that changes who I am. But I'm being taken advantage of, and I see no way out, without becoming someone I'm not. Just say no, doesn't work for me.

I know this is more of a Dear Abby question, but you are one of the most reasonable people I know, and I trust you to give an intelligent, concrete answer. P.S. these are dear loved ones, I'm dealing with.

Two things up front: First, thank you for your kind words about me—I hope I live up to the faith you expressed in me, at least a little bit. Second, it’s important I note that I have no qualifications or formal training in helping people with life issues—I’m not a life coach, for example. However, ya know, I’ve been around a bit, and I’ve seen things: Been there, done that, and probably wrote a blog post about it. I mention this upfront because I want to be clear I’m offering my opinions, not expertise.

That said, what you describe is a quite common thing—in fact, when I Googled the topic I got 5.7 billion results, though I wasn’t actually surprised by that. It made me wonder, though: Since this is such a common thing, why aren’t we talking about it more? I suppose I would think that, since I obviously believe in the importance of open and honest communication. I also think this gets to the heart of your issue.

The most obvious thing to say is the thing you already know: It’s okay to say no, and to prioritise your own needs and those of your immediate family. However, you say that “just say no” doesn’t work for you, and you don’t want to change who you are, all of which is completely valid. So many people don’t know who they are at their core, and you do, and that’s something to celebrate.

However, being overwhelmed as the primary helper—or maybe “rescuer” is sometimes a better word?—doesn’t automatically mean saying no. There are another ways, including one I think is more sustainable for everyone, especially you, and it starts with setting boundaries and limits. The difficulty here is that it requires open and honest discussion, and maybe even negotiation, and not all people or all families do those things well. How do we make the transition to a more sustainable way of doing things?

It sounds to me as if you feel you haven’t had control over the level, frequency, and intensity of your involvement, which leads me to think that others might not be aware that, in fact, you have limits just like everyone else does. So maybe a place to start would be with something small, like instead of doing the thing at the time/place/and manner they request, you offer an alternative, and I think there’s a sort of a procedure.

First, it’s probable that some or even most of the folks you’re helping are completely unaware of the toll they’re taking on you. There absolutely are people who always take with no concern, and they know they’re doing it. Then there are people who take because the other person doesn’t ever say no. Finally, there are the people who are utterly unaware they’re asking so much/too much. I think it’s always best to assume someone is in the last category (until/unless they make clear they’re not).

The next step is to begin by affirming. When someone asks you to do a thing that’s not urgent, begin by saying something like, “sure, I’d be happy to help you with that…” and then you begin trying to set boundaries. All tasks can be broken down into smaller ones (more about that in a minute), so you can try asking, “which one of those things is most urgent?”, part of the goal there is to get them to see that all tasks take time to complete, and all can be ranked by urgency, etc. If it’s not a list of things, but a one-off, maybe the negotiation would be something like, “I have a lot to get through over the next few days—could we make it Thursday?” The goal there is to get them to grasp that they’re taking your time from you, while still making it clear you’re willing to help. It’s possible, especially the first time you try something like that, that if they’re not coping well, they may feel like just giving up, and you may feel like backing down and doing what they want when they want it. That’s valid—and you’ve set the stage for trying again to set boundaries the next time they ask.

The next stage is to shift more of the responsibility back onto the person seeking the help. People who ask too much and/or too often sometimes have trouble setting goals. Faced with a big task, especially if they feel they’re in crisis, they might not be able to see that big tasks can always be broken down into smaller ones. If you help them to do that, and to prioritise tasks, you’re training them to do more themselves, as well as setting some boundaries: “How about you work on item X and Y while I do Z?” That approach is less overwhelming or intimidating for them than doing the whole big task alone, and it lets you avoid doing it all, too.

I suspect—but obviously don’t know—that at least some of the folks depending on you have no idea the burden they’re creating for you. My advice here is to try and tell them that—when they’re not asking for help. Reinforce how important those people and their well-being are to you, and that you want to help when you can, but doing so is taking a toll. Some people find such honest conversation too hard to start or too hear. So, one tactic could be to let them think you’re talking about someone else, because they should be able to think about how their own behaviour is causing the same problems.

You didn’t mention this specifically, but it could be that the problem isn’t just people asking too much, but also that others who could help may not be doing enough. That’s particularly difficult to deal with because different people have different—and often many—reasons for not helping.

There’s no way to make someone help if it’s not in their nature, but there’s no harm in expressing to them the extent you’re overwhelmed. You don’t have to be blunt and tell them “you’re not doing enough!” but, instead, you could be honest about how overwhelmed you are and how you need more help. Moat people will get the message, and those who don’t are unlikly to have been of any any help, anyway.

To be honest, I don’t know that any of this will help at all. People are unique and unpredictable, and what works with one person may fail utterly with someone else. The point is to try a few subtle ways of setting limits and putting the word out that you need support. Good people will absolutely rally around—and maybe those who don’t deserve a bit of distance? Only you can be an advocate for you, hard as that is. You’re of course welcome to continue the conversation, either through the comments or privately, and others are welcome to speak up in the comments, too—many hands make light the work, which is my real message in this answer.

Thanks to Anonymous for today’s question! Next time, the final answer in this series,something completely different again.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff”

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff

Politics has always been a part of this series, and this year is no different. This makes sense: Time was I wrote about politics a lot, but now I hardly ever say anything. Things have changed in so very many ways.

Nevertheless, I still have my lifelong interest in politics, even if I don’t say much about it. After studying it formally in university, and informally ever since, and with hands-on experience in two countries, it’s fair to say that I have some opinions about political stuff.

Today’s post is about a series of related questions from Roger Green, and I’ve numbered my answers to make them easier to follow. Here are the questions:

Here are a few softballs for you about the US 2024 election cycle:
1. Who will be the Republican presidential candidate? Who should be?
2. Who will be the Democratic presidential candidate? Who should be?
3. Will djt have a lock on the GOP nom after Super Tuesday in early March?
4. Will there be a viable third-party candidate, and will Joe Manchin be on the ticket?
5. While we're at it, who will win the House and Senate?
6. Finally, if djt is elected, are we doomed?

1. “Who will be the Republican presidential candidate? Who should be?” I don’t see any Republican capable of preventing the party’s Dear Leader from winning the nomination, much as sane people would hope there could be. He has a stranglehold on the his base, and every Republican candidate is a distant also-ran because they’re trying to be just like their Dear Leader, which raises two questions: If they’re so busy praising him, why are they even running? And second, why on earth would cultists choose an imitation when they can stick with the real thing? The only candidate not running with his lips pressed to the orange posterior is Chris Christie, which is precisely why he’ll just be a footnote in the history of the 2024 campaign.

Who “should” the nominee? Who cares? All Republican politicians are now vassals of their Dear Leader, or hypocritical cowards too frightened to be honest about the existential threat their Dear Leader truly is to the USA. The party as a whole is fast sliding downhill into full-blown fascism, so does it really matter who they nominate? Nobody else could possibly win the nomination.

2. “Who will be the Democratic presidential candidate? Who should be?” The Democratic candidate will be President Joe Biden. I have no opinion about who “should” be the party’s nominee, mostly because it’s academic: The decision is made. Also, without credible opposition in the primaries, no candidates are being vetted, so there’s no realistic way to evaluate and compare non-existent rivals. It’s worth nothing that Joe wasn’t my first choice, and he probably wouldn’t be right now, were he not president, and that doesn’t matter: He wasn’t my first choice, but he’s my only choice.

3. “Will djt have a lock on the GOP nom after Super Tuesday in early March?” I haven’t looked at the Republican nomination process for 2024—mostly because the end result is all but over before it begins—however, it’s certain that the party’s Dear Leader will have the nomination locked up very early on. Having said that, I’m sceptical it’ll be officially over by March. It’s entirely possible, though unlikely, that Haley could gain enough votes in early states to drag the process out a bit more.

4. “Will there be a viable third-party candidate, and will Joe Manchin be on the ticket?” The first part is easy: No, there won’t be any viable third-party candidates. That’s because the system is set-up to ensure only a Republican or Democrat can possibly win enough Electoral College votes. If “viable” is used to mean syphoning off enough votes to deny either the Republican or Democratic candidate enough votes to have an Electoral College majority, then, sure, that could happen.

There’s an important point here: A third-party candidate who’s viable in this sense is most likely to take votes from the Republican nominee because the people who have the most desperate need for a third party candidate are Republicans who cannot bring themselves to vote for any Democrat, but don’t want to vote for their party’s nominee. Also, most of the expected third-party candidates so far skew Right, at least in some important ways. Disaffected Democrats, on the other hand, skew Left, and if they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for President Biden, they’d be most likely to stay home or throw their vote away as a protest vote for the Green candidate. However, I don’t see that happening.

Democrats outperformed expectations in 2018, 2020, and 2022, precisely because the same voters the newsmedia claims are disaffected now voted Democratic to stop the fascistic tendencies and agenda of the Republican Party and its Dear Leader. Those voters aren’t stupid, and they know the huge uphill battle that still remains to preserve US democracy and the Constitution, and they’re not going to throw up their hands because of Republican propaganda or shallow and lazy newsmedia commentary.

5. “While we're at it, who will win the House and Senate?” Democrats will re-take the US House, and will retain the US Senate. The reason for the House is that Republicans' gerrymandered maps are being thrown out all over the country, and 2024 will have a much fairer district boundaries, and fair maps always help Democrats—and democracy itself, for that matter. The Senate will be because of the same over-performance by Democrats that we saw in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The stakes are too high, and voters understand that Republicans persistently refuse to stand up for democracy and the rule of law, and the few policy ideas they promote—like a total nationwide ban on all abortions—are opposed by a massive majority of voters. And, of course, Senate races can’t be gerrymandered like House races, all of which which puts Republicans at a disadvantage.

6. “Finally, if djt is elected, are we doomed?” Absolutely. 100%. No doubt whatsoever. He has taken off his mask (hood?) and shown everyone the actual fascist beneath it, and the Republican Party that is now his personality cult is absolutely okay with him becoming a dictator. People often say, “the Supreme Court will stop him.” Yeah, right. It’s not just that the Court is itself under far-right Republican control, it’s that he’s made clear he plans to act unilaterally and outside the Constitution. If the Court rules against him, he’ll just ignore it and do what he wants: The Supreme Court has absolutely no means to enforce its rulings and depends entirely on the Executive Branch for enforcement. With the Executive Branch controlled by a fascistic dictator, there’ll be no one to enforce their orders. Congress could impeach him again and this time convict him—and he’d ignore it. Who would stop him? Who could stop him? Secession and civil war could then be a possibility, but his ego would probably have him nuke Los Angeles or some other major city run by Democrats.

That’s the nightmare scenario, obviously, but I think it’s also the unlikely outcome. As I’ve said, it’s more likely than not that he loses yet again, and he’d be left to spend the rest of his life, or at least until his dementia gets even worse, railing about—well, everything he’s been railing about for the past three years.

Rather than ending this post with such a dark subject, here’s one more question from Roger that’s—well, not lighter, exactly, but far less dire:

Suppose you are an American university president testifying before Congress, answering questions about antisemitism. How would you answer the committee's questions?

Perhaps by definition, university presidents are terrible at anything but marketing. They spend so much time selling their university to big donors and corporate sponsors that they don’t really know how to give a straight answer to any question. Having said that, Republicans in Congress almost never ask a question in good faith: They intend every question as an attack and an opportunity for a gotcha. The university presidents should have had some coaching before their appearance to prepare them to deal with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans pretending to question them.

That said, how hard could it be to answer directly, rather than talking about violations of university policy? There’s no conflict between condemning hate speech, or speech veering close to it, and upholding people’s right to say offensive things. I have no idea how I’d answer the questions because I didn’t watch them being delivered, but that’s pretty much the point I’d try to make. I have no illusions that there’d be anything whatsoever that anyone could say that would satisfy the grandstanding Republican politicians—who miraculously!—only just started caring about anti-semitism when they saw an opportunity to attack others. Sure, they might have wanted to first look at some of the anti-Semitic things their own party caucus mates have said, were they honest in their outrage. It also might have been entertaining to see a university president point that hypocrisy out to them, but it would’ve made the politicians’ already frenzied performative outrage rise to an even higher level of intensity—and stupidity.

The bottom line, though, is that whole charade was nothing but political theatre, and there was absolutely no answer the presidents could’ve given that would have stopped the Republican attack, no matter how good and on point their response was. But those folks clearly really needed coaching.

Thanks to Roger for today’s questions! Next time, something completely different, though Roger will return later in the series.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”