The clowns perform

This weekend, the Republican Clown Bus came to a screeching halt so clowns could scramble off, horns honking, seltzer bottles spraying, and perform for their adoring audiences. And there are months more of this to come.

The Republican clowns candidates are currently fighting to see who can say the most outrageous thing to get attention from the media and to whip up the most frothing parts of the Republican Party base. All of which is why everyday Americans are raising their eyebrows and wondering what the hell has gotten into the Republican clowns candidates.

The Republicans aren’t talking to mainstream Americans at the moment—they don’t need to. Instead, they need media attention in order to have any hope of getting a seat in the Fox “News” candidate’s circus centre ring.

So, when Donald “I am the best human ever” Trump says outrageously racist things about Mexicans, he’s pandering to the frothing base of the Republican party who are racist and xenophobic. When he attacked John McCain’s military service, pundits declared he’d gone too far, and Lindsey Graham—currently second to last among the Republican clowns candidates—declared of Trump “You’re fired!” Ha, ha, ha, so very, very witty—and idiotic.

What none of the pundits or establishment Republican politicians seem to understand is that the frothing base of the Republican Party despises John McCain because they don’t think he’s conservative enough. Many of them call McCain a RINO, so when Trump, who got five deferments to make sure he didn’t have to go to Viet Nam, made fun of McCain’s service, the base will give at most a shrug. That base doesn’t think of McCain as a legitimate hero, which is how they justify tolerating attacks on an ex-military man when they normally would pretend they were about to beat up anyone who said a single unkind word about a military person.

Trump will continue to say outrageous things to fire up the frothing base he’s performing for, and the media will keep repeating it, ensuring the attention continues, thereby helping Trump all the more. Trump is a brilliant performer, and like all good actors, he knows how to give the audience what they want, and his poll ratings and amount of media attention show just how good a performer Trump is. The fact that there’s nothing more to him than his act is beside the point.

I did notice, however, how establishment Republicans and a few of his fellow clowns candidates were quick to dump on Trump for his McCain insult—yet responded slowly, if at all, to Trump’s blatant racism. Quite telling, really.

Of course Trump wasn’t the only clown performing this weekend. Ten of the Republican clowns candidates were at an event in Iowa hosted by some far-right religious extremists. Pandering to that crowd, each clown candidate was desperate to prove that he’s a bigger anti-gay bigot than the other clowns candidates by declaring that they’ll “fight” marriage equality! Well, somehow or other, you know, like with magic or something, and, like, um, hey! Did you know marriage equality is JUST LIKE slavery?! Well, sure, that sounds utterly absurd to normal people, but to the Republican clowns candidates pretending it’s the same gives them cover for so they can show their anti-gay bigotry all they want because, well, being against slavery proves they’re not bigots. Somehow. In the alternate universe that the USA’s radical anti-gay industry lives in.

Scott “Koch” Walker, meanwhile, said, golly gee, he has no idea whether being gay is a choice or not because, he assured the USA, “I don’t have an opinion on every single issue out there.” Whew! He also claimed he was “focused on representing all Americans, even ones who do not support his beliefs.” Just as long as they’re not gay and wanting to get married, of course. Or a worker who wants to join a union and bargain collectively. Or a poor person who thinks they ought to be able to get pasta sauce and spices with food stamps. Or—oh, heck, we should all just shut up and let Scott “Koch” Walker decide everything for us—even those issues he says he doesn’t have an opinion on!

Scott “Koch” Walker also tried to hide his anti-gay bigotry behind reasonable sounding words. He now says what he meant by opposing gay and bisexual adult leaders in the Boy Scouts of America is that “I just think it pulls scouting into a whole larger political and cultural debate.” Oh! We were wrong! He doesn’t hate gay people, he just hates the “politics” of people being gay! Quite how being gay is automatically “political” will mystify normal people, but the frothing Republican base understand the anti-gay wink-wink that Walker gave them. Besides, heterosexual religious extremists like Scott “Koch” Walker would never dream of forcing their politics on everyone else!

Rick “Oops!” Perry has no such reluctance. “I believe that scouting would be better off if they didn’t have openly gay Scout masters,” Rick said. He also said he stood by his 2008 declaration that “openly active gays, particularly advocates, present a problem. Because gay activism is central to their lives, it would unavoidably be a topic of conversation within a Scout troop.” Now, there are all sorts of ways that I could call Perry an idiot, though the fact that he’s an idiot is obvious, but if you take his statement and replace the word gay with Christian, you can see how Perry’s own words could be used to oppose him being a Scout leader, and it would be equally as stupid.

It’s hard to believe that it was just 2½ years ago that Bobby Jindal declared the Republican Party had to "stop being the stupid party". He and his fellow clowns have spent every waking moment trying to ensure THAT never happens, and this weekend was a great example of why they still are The Party Of Stupid™.

Oh well, at least some of the Republican clowns candidates will be gone by this time next month. That Republican Clown Bus has quite a few more stops to make before then, unfortunately.

Arthur Answers, Part 2: Freedom’s flavours

Today’s question is from my friend Andy, with whom I’ve had many interesting Facebook discussions. On the blog post announcing this series, Andy asked:

“You have experienced the American flavor of ‘Freedom’—which, in the Land of the Free, tends to be fairly overt; and you have experienced the New Zealand flavor of ‘Freedom’—which, in the Land of the Long White Cloud, tends to be implied and quite understated.

Which do you prefer, and why?”

When I first began this blog in 2006, that was the sort of question I didn’t want to answer. I had this idea that I shouldn’t criticise my homeland, mostly because of how notoriously tetchy Americans can get when their country is criticised, especially when it’s compared unfavourably with another country. Clearly, I no longer have any such reluctance!

I should say upfront that “freedom” is a very general term that can be interpreted in numerous ways. For this post, I’m using the term in relation to enumerated rights, that is, rights that people have guaranteed through their national constitution/government structure, and how that affects the way people (including me) feel about their level of freedom.

So, keeping that in mind, at a certain fundamental level, both the USA and New Zealand have very similar attitudes toward freedom: They both protect freedom of speech, and of belief, and of assembly, for example, and both countries also forbid unreasonable search or seizure, and also ban cruel punishment.

New Zealanders’ fundamental rights are laid out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the link goes to the NZ government website, where the entire BORA, as it’s called, can also be downloaded as a PDF; naturally, I’ve done that. Of course.). It’s also been further clarified in subsequent court rulings (the Wikipedia article on the BORA is pretty good).

Americans’ fundamental rights are spelled out in the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, but the most fundamental rights are listed in the first ten amendments, known collectively as the “Bill of Rights”. US Courts have also expanded and explained the rights held by citizens. The Wikipedia article on the Bill of Rights provides good, basic information on the history and meaning of the amendments.

I mention all that first because I think it’s important to understand that the citizens of both countries enjoy pretty much the same enumerated rights. There are, however, some significant differences in those enumerated rights: US citizens have the right to “keep and bear arms”, and New Zealanders do not. New Zealand’s BORA forbids discrimination on wide range of criteria as outlined in the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA), and these go FAR beyond the discrimination that the US Constitution forbids, even with NZ’s carve-outs and exclusions (the Wikipedia article on the HRA is a pretty good tl;dr description).

The USA’s Bill of Rights, however, can only be changed through Constitutional Amendment, a process that was deliberately made difficult and cumbersome—so much so, it seldom happens (it's described in Article V of the US Constitution, btw). In New Zealand, a simple majority of Parliament can amend the Bill of Rights Act at any time—or repeal it altogether.

The US Constitution is what’s called “entrenched”, that means, it’s supreme law and cannot be easily changed or abandoned. New Zealand’s constitution, on the other hand, is unwritten and made up of the laws passed by Parliament. An incomplete portion of that—generally the parts about the structure of government—were codified in The Constitution Act 1986. The Act was passed as the result of a constitutional crisis, but also established the final independence of the NZ Parliament from that of the UK (again, Wikipedia has a good, brief discussion).

All this talk about structure is important because I think it’s the reason for the fundamental difference in the way Americans and New Zealanders look at their rights. In the USA, with its difficult-to-change Constitution, there’s a culture of entitlement in which people think they have absolute rights that apply in all cases, even when they don’t—like, for example, that most Americans fundamentally misunderstand their rights under the First Amendment (the xkcd cartoon on free speech wonderfully illustrates—ahem!— what I’m talking about). This attitude leads to a lot of court action.

New Zealanders, on the other hand, have a culture of assumption, that is, they assume they have basic rights. Like their American cousins, NZers sometimes misunderstand free speech rights, but they otherwise don’t assume that their rights trump other people’s rights, as so many Americans clearly think. On this point, Kiwis clearly have the advantage. We don’t have a litigious culture, and our civil court proceedings aren’t about conflicting rights.

New Zealand’s more laid back attitude extends to government regulation, and Kiwis can pretty much just get on with their lives without a lot of government interference. For example, if a New Zealander wants to start a business, they just start: They don’t need to register with anyone (though they may have to register with Inland Revenue to pay Goods and Services Tax, but very small businesses don’t need to bother with that). In Chicago at the time I left, anyone wanting to start a business needed to get a license from the City of Chicago, register with the State of Illinois and Cook County (all of which charged fees for that, of course). In addition, at that time it was generally illegal to run a business out of one’s home in a residential area, even if no customers would ever visit and there was no “noxious” manufacturing (some of that has been eased since I left, and I realise that in other places it’s easier—or harder—than Chicago was then).

But it’s not just about constitutional structure or lack of unnecessary regulation: There are profound differences in the way that Americans and Kiwis approach their lives as part of a community. In general, NZers have an attitude that how other people live their lives is no one else’s business (unless they’re endangering other people or creating a nuisance for the people around them). Americans, on the other hand, have a long history of telling other people how they must live their lives. As a gay man, I never felt as free as I did when I arrived in New Zealand. Sure, the USA has caught up a bit in the past two decades, and New Zealand isn’t perfect (of course—no place is), but I feel freer as a gay man than I did in Chicago.

To sum up, then: Both the USA and New Zealand have the same basic enumerated rights, while differing in some areas, as well as how secure those rights are. The differences in how those rights are structured leads individuals in the two countries to have differences in expectations of what their rights mean for them personally. Added to the more relaxed NZ culture, and the more controlling US culture, this leads to New Zealand feeling more free to me than the USA did.

One final caveat: I left the USA nearly two decades ago, and things have changed a lot. The dark years of the Bush/Cheney regime aside, I think there has been a clear move toward greater freedom in general, but having been away so long, there’s no way I can possibly know how the USA’s freedom feels. So, my reactions are based on what my lived experience in the USA was and is in New Zealand.

Noting that caveat, and all the other qualifications and such in this post, in general, I personally prefer New Zealand’s flavour of freedom over the USA’s.

There’s still time to ask questions! Here’s how: First, you can leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are okay). 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?). And, for the first time, you can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page.

Freedom to Marry: Celebrating Victory

Freedom To Marry, the premier organisation fighting for marriage equality in the USA, is closing down, now that it’s particular work is done. As part of their swan song, they recently held a gala attended by Vice President Biden, and they're releasing a few last videos, like the one above.

From the YouTube description:

“On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the freedom to marry nationwide. This video sheds light on the incredible story of the movement that historic win possible.”

I thought the video is well done, though there were parts I couldn’t see well. I guess there must have been some dust blowing in through the closed window, because my eyes were watering.

The thing is, when I was an LGBT grassroots activist from the early 1980s to the early 1990s, I was working for a day in which 50-state marriage equality would be a reality. I didn’t expect to see it until I was very old, but it was nevertheless something I was working toward, even if it was usually only slightly related.

So, seeing marriage equality arrive is, first and foremost, a dream come true, because I did dream of a day in which legal equality would be a reality. There were bitter disappointments and defeats along the way. “What happens to a dream deferred,” I often recited to myself at such times, even as I wished it would explode*. Slow and steady, it turned out, won the race.

So now Freedom To Marry steps off the stage, leaving the last few battles to the groups who have been there throughout. It’s all a matter of mopping up the last cells of resistance, and time to move on to the last few tasks remaining.

One of those remaining tasks—banning employment discrimination MAY have become easier this past week. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on sexual orientation because “[A]llegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex.” Whether the EEOC is right will probably be determined, ultimately by the US Supreme Court, but, for now, it’s the rule.

Still, easy as it is to be unnecessarily distracted by the hard-core opponents of marriage equality, and by the work remaining to end discrimination against LGBT people, it’s perfectly okay to stop and reflect on how far we’ve come, how we got here, and how much it means to real, ordinary people. One commentator on YouTube put it well—and I don’t often say THAT! He said:

“I lost my lover of 27 years in 1996. We marched together in the first Gay Pride parade in NYC, and many, many more. We were never able to marry in his lifetime, but I am so happy to have lived long enough to see it possible for others. We were as married as two hearts, and souls could ever be. All we were missing was the ‘paper’. I can go to meet him with a smile on my face, and I can’t wait to see the smile on his.”

Congratulations Freedom To Marry—and thank you!

*This is a quote from and reference to "Harlem" by Langston Hughes, one of my favourite poets, and a big literary influence as I entered adulthood. "Harlem" is one of my favourites of his poems.

Preparing the circus’ center ring

The Washington Post graphic above shows who is currently in a position to be included in the Fox “News” debate of the Republican presidential candidates to be held on August 6. The Post explains how this will work:

You'll remember that Fox News decided to manage the ever-ballooning Republican field by allowing only the 10 candidates performing the best in the five most recent national polls. (In the event of a tie for 10th, the tied candidates get to participate as well.) Given the importance of the first debate, that top-10 status has become a key test for candidates. [Link in the original]

As of today, there’s a tie for ninth place, so there are only ten candidates; quite frankly, I can’t see any of the bottom six being included (one of whom, John Kasich, isn’t yet a declared candidate, though he’s expected to become one next week). If they’re not included, it almost certainly means their candidacies will struggle to survive, and may never even get the chance to face any actual voters; I’m not sure how I feel about that.

The Post plans on updating the graphic, and if that means the link updates, too (as it should), then anyone accessing this post after today may see something different than when I posted it. So, for their benefit, here are the candidates who make the cut, ranked by percentage of support as of today: Jeb (just don’t say) Bush: 17; Donald Trump: 10.8; Scott “Koch” Walker: 9.3; Marco Rubio: 7.8; Ben Carson: 7.6; Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee tied at 6.5; Ted Cruz: 5.1; Rick Perry and Chris Christie tied at 2.9.

Update - 18 July: I can now confirm that the graphic does update, as Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum has moved up, knocking Rick Perry out. Further rearranging is likely before the final cast list is announced.

Tip o’ the hat to Roger Green who sent me the link; I don’t check out the Post all that often due to the limit in the number of articles one can access for free in a month.

The most dangerous clown of all

This week, the 15th so-called “major” candidate scrambled aboard the Republican Clown Bus, ready to join the party’s Hunger Games selection process. This one combines all the worst elements of all the other clowns candidates, and piles on whole new levels of true awfulness. He’s so awful, in fact, that it’s taken me many, many drafts of this post to tone down my rhetoric, something that hasn’t happened with any other Republican clown.

Scott Kevin Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, announced his candidacy on Twitter (image above) and in a moneybeg email informing us that his running for president is “God’s plan for me”. His god did not publicly comment on that claim.

In his speech later that day, Scott laid out his brand of radical conservatism, throwing in a dog-whistle to the new far-right talking point of again making it impossible for government to make the lives of everyday American workers better. Of course he did: That’s what his employers want.

Scott Walker is in office because the billionaire Koch brothers paid to get him elected, then paid to keep him from being recalled, and then paid again to have him re-elected. They’ve also pledged to spend a billion dollars to get a suitably far-right Republican elected president. Who better than their employee, Scott “Koch” Walker? And where the Kochs lead, the other oligarchs and plutocrats will follow.

Jeb (just don’t say) Bush has long been considered the odds-on favourite to win the nomination, but he’s struggling in polls of Republican voters. This hasn’t been helped by an inept start to his campaign, and his propensity for opening his mouth to remove one foot just so he can insert the other one. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been deliberately stoking racist fires to get attention, and it’s worked: Trump’s been surging in polls of Republicans.

All of this matters because the proposed debate structure for the clowns candidates is that they will be selected based on averaging national polling. So, doing well in the early states—which used to make or break some campaigns—is now irrelevant: Getting national attention is all that matters. Jeb (just don’t say) Bush has name recognition (which is why we’re supposed to call him only “Jeb!”), and Trump has the patent on outrageous statements, so the rest, including newbie Scott “Koch” Walker, need to differentiate themselves.

So, Walker has ramped up his god and religion shtick in a blatant attempt to capture the far-right fundamentalist Christian vote, which makes up the strongest and most reliable part of the Republican base, the part that always turns out in party primary elections and caucuses. But all the Republican clowns candidates are opposed to marriage equality (and most want to enshrine in law the right to discriminate against LGBT people), and all but George Pataki oppose reproductive choice. So, how can Walker break through?

First and foremost, by doubling-down on the far-right’s “Christian” agenda. In that moneybeg, he bragged about signing into law new restrictions on access to abortion in Wisconsin, and he now declares he’ll somehow do the same if he becomes president. He’s actually long been opposed to reproductive choice, which has led him to all sorts of bizarre statements. He once said that doctors should lie to pregnant women to prevent abortions, and he famously declared that mandatory ultrasounds, such as the one in his anti-abortion bill, are "just a cool thing" for women.

Walker called the US Supreme Court’s decision establishing 50-state marriage equality a “grave mistake”, and immediately called for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. While talk of an amendment is merely pandering to the far-right, since it can’t happen, he’s also promised to nominate extreme rightwing Supreme Court justices, something that will be easy to do—and mandatory—if Republicans get a president elected and still control the US Senate.

Walker has talked proudly of his vote to enshrine marriage discrimination in the Wisconsin constitution, but his anti-LGBT animus is most obvious when, as governor, he tried to stop defending the state’s domestic partnership law that gave gay couples a handful of the rights and privileges of marriage, from which they were barred. The rights, few though they were, included hospital visitation, among other things, and were important to couples—but Walker thought they mustn’t be allowed. Wisconsin’s courts consistently disagreed with him, and federal rules mandate hospital visitation rights for LGBT people. But Walker’s enthusiasm for trying to ensure that same-gender couples had NO rights whatsoever show the depth of his anti-LGBT animus.

And he’s now also condemned the Boy Scouts of America for ending discrimination against gay adults because the discrimination “protected children”, he said. The anti-gay animus in that is so blatant there’s just no sugar-coating it, but ThinkProgress explained why Walker’s statement is so deeply offensive.

On just those two “social issues” alone, it’s obvious that Walker isn’t faking his far-right fundamentalist Christianity: He really is a religious extremist, and is not just playing one on TV.

Forcing his religious beliefs onto everyone else isn’t all Scott “Koch” Walker is about, of course: He’s also a radical conservative on economic issues, which makes sense, since he’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers, whose far-right agenda he’s gleefully promoted. From crushing unions (which he wants to do to the entire country), to gutting public education spending and so much more, Scott has proven himself a loyal employee of the Kochs. All of which is why, to everyday people, Walker’s been an utter disaster for Wisconsin (See also: “Scott Walker Wants To Run The Country. Here Is How He Ran Wisconsin.” from ThinkProgress).

The only area in which Walker disagrees with his masters is that Walker believes in “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” for even non-violent offenders convicted of minor crimes. His self-styled libertarian payroll masters, the Kochs, support sentencing reform. Pundits think Walker can’t adopt the Kochs’ position without being called a “flip-flopper”. Clearly, such pundits haven’t been paying attention: The Kochs can run ads everywhere praising their employee for what they’ll probably call his “courage” and maybe “maturity” in doing as they ordered him to do “evolving” on the issue. The Koch political machine has mastered manipulation of political messaging, so once they get into it, Scott’s abrupt shift will look like an angelic virtue, utterly beyond criticism.

On the other hand, if Walker sticks to his weird far-right views on criminal “justice”, the Kochs can spin that as being “proof” that Scott is “independent” of his paymasters. The point is, no matter what he does, Koch money will spin it and spin it and spin it until no one has any idea what the truth is any more—it’s what they do.

All of which assumes that the Kochs can buy the Republican nomination for their minion, and there they run into their biggest problem: Scott. He has so little charisma that they’ll have to bring industrial heaters to his rallies to keep the lack of warmth from freezing his audience, even in July and August. I kid, I kid—but not by much. Of course, the reality is that the Kochs' billions can fix even that, too, through ever more distraction and diversion.

But we just can’t get away from the other big metaphorical elephant in the rhetorical room (aside from his fealty to the Kochs): Walker’s theocratic bent and his determination to impose his particular brand of a subset of Christianity on the entire USA. In his moneybeg, he declared, “Our U.S. Constitution calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” and he couldn’t possibly be more wrong about that: Obviously freedom OF religion means absolutely nothing without freedom FROM religion—otherwise, all we have is a theocracy in which religion—specifically, Scott’s particular flavour of it—is mandatory. That should trouble all people, whether religious or not.

Scott “Koch” Walker is a dangerous man. He’s successfully rebranded his theocratic and plutocratic extremism as mere “conservatism”, though it’s nothing of the kind: It's merely extremism that co-opts the word conservative as a kinder, gentler marketing tool. To Scott, destroying the middle class to give more money to the oligarchs and plutocrats and forcing his personal religious views onto everyone else is mere “conservatism”. I know plenty of real conservatives who would strongly disagree with him on that.

Scott “Koch” Walker is the worst of the clowns candidates who might actually win the Republican nomination. If elected, he would be all the bad parts of all the worst of the other clowns candidates rolled into one, with a scoop of extra awfulness on top. None of the other creepy Republicans—Huckabee and Santorum in particular—could ever win the nomination. Most of the other completely awful clowns candidates don’t stand a chance, either. So, his real competition are the clowns candidates who are merely mostly awful.

But with billions and billions behind him, Scott “Koch” Walker has the chance to win the Republican nomination, and then the White House, and that’s something that should be enough to scare the shit out of anyone—including Republicans. I cannot stand the man and cannot say a single nice thing about him—obviously. And this is after I toned down what I was going to say!

So, given his truly awful record as governor, his far, FAR right extremist agenda, paid for by the billionaire Koch Brothers, and his determination to impose his religion on everyone in the USA, Scott “Koch” Walker, isn’t just another clown on the bus, he’s the most dangerous clown of all.

The basics: Scott “Koch” Walker is 47, replacing Chris Christie as the second-youngest Republican clown candidate so far (after Bobby Jindal, who is the youngest). On Inauguration Day, he’ll be 49 years, 80 days old. The oldest US President, Ronald Reagan, hallowed be his name, was 69 years, 349 days when he was sworn in.

As of today, there’s still 1 year, 3 months, 24 days until the US presidential election.

Arthur Answers, Part One: Who knew?

It’s time to start answering this round of “Ask Arthur” questions, and I thought I’d start with one that I actually received months ago. There’s still plenty of time to ask your own questions, too, by the way.

Today’s question is from Roger Green who asked last April:

“OK, that suggests an Ask Arthur Anything question: When you were growing up, what did you think of performers who were THOUGHT to be gay, but weren't out (because almost no one was out), such as Liberace and Paul Lynde?”

The simple answer is that it never occurred to me that people like Liberace and Lynde were gay. They said they weren’t, and I took them at their word. Mind you, I was quite young in the 1960s, and not fully grasping the realities of sexuality and identity.

By the 1970s, things were changing. Elton John said he was bisexual, and David Bowie more or less did, too. Even Daryl Hall & John Oates were in on the act, and Billboard magazine said of the cover of their 1975 album called, oddly enough, Daryl Hall & John Oates, that they were adopting a playful bisexual look, whatever that meant.

The thing is, it wasn’t until the 1980s that I ever heard of an openly gay recording artist (and for me, everything changed then). Up until that point, I can’t remember even thinking that a recording artist might be gay because I was so used to there being none.

The same is true for actors. It wasn’t just that I took performers at their word, but also that there were no openly gay actors when I was a kid or young adult, so I just assumed there was no such thing as a gay actor. I was also totally unaware that the campy performances of Lynde, Liberace, and others, were anything other than a performance style.

By the time I was a teenager, and more aware of the world, I used to sometimes wish some performers were gay, but I assumed none of them were (and, far more often than not, I was right). So, even then, I didn’t think any performers were secretly gay.

Even so, I do remember one actor who I thought was gay, and that was Nancy Kulp, who is most famous for playing Miss Jane Hathaway on the 1960s hit TV show, The Beverley Hillbillies. To this day, I have NO idea why I thought that: As a kid, I didn’t even know what the word “lesbian” meant, and her character was more or less an “old maid”, and I knew some of those in my dad’s church without ever thinking they might like the ladies. And yet, I had a sort of intuition about her that I can’t remember having about any other actor, male or female.

Now, because there was no such thing as an openly gay performer in the 1960s, and I’m not entirely sure I even understood what that would’ve meant, anyway, I just thought Nancy Kulp was funny. Many years later when I heard she was out, I did sort of think, “I knew it!”, but I didn’t hold her earlier closetedness against her.

But, then, I didn’t hold clostedness against any of the performers I saw growing up and didn’t, at the time, know were gay, finding out later that they were (like George Takei, Jim Nabors, Johnny Mathis, and, apparently, Barry Manilow, for example). Some of them I at least suspected were gay when I became an adult, but they’re all much older than me and I didn’t try and project my values onto them and others of their generation.

So, while I was growing up, there were no openly LGBT performers, so I didn’t know LGBT people could even be performers of any kind, so it never occurred to me that any of them could secretly be LGBT. I completely bought the narrative and beliefs of the dominant culture, and it wasn’t until later in my teens and early 20s that I realised I’d been lied to.

Things are WAY different now, and obviously for the better, with openly gay performers all over the place. I wonder, though, if young gay kids these days still imagine that cartoon characters are secretly boyfriends, like I hoped Jonny Quest and Hadji were. Do kids even need to imagine such things any more?

There’s still time to ask questions! Here’s how: First, you can leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are okay). 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?). And, for the first time, you can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page.

And now a book

A week ago today, I posted the last Marriage News Watch video by Matt Baume. Now, he’s back with his book based on his experiences in the fight for marriage equality in the USA (promotional video above).

The book, Defining Marriage: Voices from a Forty-Year Labor of Love, is available for free on Amazon for this week only, before it goes on sale.

I’ve only just started reading the book, but I can say already that it’s quite compelling. Matt has an easy-to-read, breezy style, as we saw in his videos, that almost reminds me of a friend sitting around telling you stories of what he’s seen—which is basically what the book is. I hope to post a bigger discussion of the book once I finish reading it.

According to the video, and the table of contents, I know that Matt tells the story of how we got to 50-state marriage equality, focusing on the stories some of the notable people who made it possible (some of whom we probably haven’t heard of), and also some of the lesser known stories of people who contributed, each in their own way, to the movement toward equality. He also shares his own story, which I think is an interesting dimension for a lot of reasons.

I know that e-books aren’t for everyone, but while it’s free, it’s the perfect e-book book to try. A reader does need an Amazon account, which is free, but the book itself can be read on a Kindle, of course, or by using the free Kindle App for smart phones, tablets, and desktop computers. I started reading the book on my iPad, but I’ll probably carry on using my Kindle, especially at night because it doesn’t have the light issues of electronic devices (my Kindle has no backlight and needs to be read with lamplight, just like a regular book).

I like what I’ve read so far, and I’m looking forward to learning about things I didn’t know about. While it’s free, it’s clearly a no-risk thing to do, too—unlike the tale it tells.

Cold mornings

We’ve had cold mornings for the past several days, and by cold, I mean, for Auckland, very cold. The cold snap is ending tomorrow, apparently.

The image at left (click to embiggen) is a screen grab of the MetService weather app for iPad, one of two weather apps I have on my mobile devices (the other is Accuweather’s app). I snapped it Saturday morning.

For the benefit of my American friends, 5.5 degrees is about 41.9 F, and the predicted high of 12 is 53.6F. As a native of the Chicago region in the USA (Chicagoland, as we call it), I don’t think that’s particularly cold. But it’s all relative, isn’t it? We become used to a place, and I now find Auckland colder in winter than I did when I first arrived.

Saturday morning, a friend in South Auckland posted a photo of the thermometer at his house at 7:30am: 1.5 outside and 8.4 inside (that’s 34.7F and 47.2 respectively). A friend in Hamilton—which is much colder in winter than Auckland is—said the temperature in his house at around 8am was 2 degrees (35.6F). This is because in the old days, houses were built without insulation. I talked about that way back in 2007 and again in 2012, in the context of talking about houses in general. I also talked about it (and Auckland winters) from an expat American’s perspective in 2008.

Fortunately, our house is better insulated even than many built around the same time (the turn of the last century) and has ducted heat pump central heating (central heating is still rare in New Zealand). So, we’re quite comfortable year round, although there can be a wee bit of a chill from draughts and also the cold air under the house. At the time I took the screenshot above, the inside temperature was 18, and we had the heating set for 19 (64.4F and 66.2, respectively). By midday, though, the inside temperature had risen to 21 (69.8F) because of the sun’s heat. The outside temperature had also risen, all the way up to a balmy 8.9 (48.02F).

When the temperatures were coldest, the outside unit of the heat pump system was grinding away, a bit like a truck idling outside our garage (though the garage is pretty much the only place we can hear it—another benefit of good insulation). But that became much quieter as the sun’s heat raised the inside temperature.

July in New Zealand is the equivalent of January in the Northern Hemisphere, so colder temperatures are to be expected. Snow has fallen in the Central Plateau and parts of the south of the South Island (actually, around Wellington, too). It doesn’t snow in Auckland, though there have been flurries from time to time when conditions are just right. I’ve never actually seen snow in New Zealand, except in the mountains, and from a distance.

Winter is my least favourite season, as I’ve said many times (many, many times…), and while Auckland’s winter is absolutely better than what I grew up with, it’s still winter.

It’s 50 days until Spring.

Footnote: I have the free version of the MetService app, which is ad supported. The traffic cameras displayed at the bottom are periodically replaced with ads (and there are 16 different traffic cameras available in Auckland). The paid version removes the ads.

That flag comes down

The video above is a raw video posted by the Associated Press, showing the Confederate Battle Flag being lowered for the last time on the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse. It was history, and the image will become iconic when the story of this era is told.

Below is a video from CGP Grey on why the battle flag was never actually the flag of the Confederacy. Most of us now know that by now, but when the video was posted at the end of June, that wasn’t necessarily the case, which is why I meant to post it at the time (I didn’t get to it because the marriage equality ruling was handed down at the same time the video was posted). The video is only about the historical accuracy of the claim it was "the Confederate flag", and nothing more.



Finally, the video below has a bit more of the history of the not-Confederate flag, specifically, how it came to be a symbol of racism. That video is from MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes, posted a few days before CGP Grey’s video (though I saw it for the first time today). It also has a discussion of the use of the battle flag in the Mississippi state flag, so the talk is about why the battle flag is offensive.



Every once in a while, needed change arrives suddenly. The events in South Carolina today show that the democratic process works. People can (and will) continue to argue about why it took so long, or, on the other side, why it shouldn’t have happened at all; that’s part of democracy, too. But I think we should celebrate the fact that democracy does work, and this was an example of that.

Well done, South Carolina

Here’s something I don’t say every day: Congratulations and well done, South Carolina! The South Carolina legislature voted to take down the “Confederate Battle Flag” from the grounds of the South Carolina State Capital, and the state’s Republican Governor, Nikki Haley, signed the bill into law (video above).

This was a long time coming, and overdue. It’s also true that this happened because of the murders in Charleston. That act of hate brought the inappropriateness of that flag being on the capital grounds into sharp focus. Common sense prevailed, and the flag comes down tomorrow.

Check out the moment at 6:40 in the video, because it’s pure class, and just the right touch.

Below is the speech that many credit with turning the tide in the South Carolina House. Republican State Representative Jenny Horne made an impassioned speech that caught the attention of people outside and inside the House (a transcript was included in the YouTube description by the person who posted the video).

Several other Republicans also made strong speeches on behalf of removing the flag. To be honest, I was surprised. Maybe times have changed, or maybe it was the power of an idea whose time had come, but, in either case, it was great to see.

Well done, South Carolina.

Happy Birthday NZ Labour Party

The New Zealand Labour Party is 99 years old today. It’s the oldest political party in New Zealand. The short video above was posted by the party, and gives its history from its own perspective. Even so, there’s nothing in the video that’s not true.

The video talks about some of the highlights of Labour’s terms in government, and deals head on with the excesses of Roger Douglas, who the modern Labour Party rejects, along with his neo-conservative ideology. It was probably the lowest point for any Labour Government.

I imagine our friends on the other side may quibble over how some matters are presented, but they wouldn’t be much use as political adversaries if they agreed on everything—including on how bad they’ve been in the past.

Still, there are plenty of New Zealanders—and not just Labour supporters—who think that the current National/Act government is pretty bad. I’m one of them, of course. In some ways, though, National these days absolutely is better than in the past (like not being as divisive as they were in Muldoon’s years).

There are no guarantees in politics, and today’s hero can be tomorrow’s zero. Labour will lead government again, and, in time, they’ll be replaced. It’s a never-ending cycle. The video above also shows that.

So, Happy Birthday, New Zealand Labour Party—and here’s to your 100th next year.

Final Marriage News Watch

The video above is the final Marriage News Watch, the weekly series of videos from Matt Baume, in association with the American Foundation for Equal Rights. It’s been a good, quick summation of what was going on in the fight for marriage equality in the USA, but with that right secured, the series is ending.

Matt began the series some four years ago, partnering with AFER a year or so later. During that time, he’s provided background information on what’s been happening, and as the legal victories started mounting, he kept a sense of perspective on what it all meant. It’s been a great resource, which is why I shared so many of the videos on this blog. I hope the videos are all archived somewhere for the invaluable resource they will be when the history of this time is written.

Marriage equality in the USA is now a fact, and no amount of wishing and foot-stomping by the radical right anti-gay industry is going to change that (and, by the way, “anti-gay industry” is a phrase I picked up from Matt). Obviously, the threat from the radical right hasn’t passed, but the focus has shifted: They’ll now focus on imposing their fundamentalist religious dogma on everyone else through enacting special rights in law so they can discriminate against LGBT people.

The irony in this is that before the radical right launched their crusade against marriage equality, the LGBT movement was focused solely on securing civil rights protections. We were diverted into the marriage fight the radical right started, and now we have 50-state marriage equality. Now, the same radical right anti-gay industry is determined to wipe out civil rights protections for LGBT people, so, given their track record, that means that 50-state protection of the civil and human rights of LGBT people is inevitable.

I’m being glib (though accurate, I bet), because the radicals will make life very difficult for some LGBT people in some places as they attempt to enshrine their anti-gay animus in law until we defeat them—just like the fight for marriage equality.

One day, this will all be over. Changing demographics, the increased visibility of everyday LGBT people just getting on with life, and the declining importance or organised religion to people all over the USA together mean that the viewpoint of the radical right anti-gay industry will sooner rather than later matter only within their churches. When this culture war is finally over, the radical right anti-gay folk will have exactly the same freedom and liberty as they had before they started the war, but everyone else will have freedom and liberty, too.

Someday, even most of our current adversaries will probably come to realise that’s a good thing, because expanded freedom and liberty is always a good thing.

Change has been delivered

Recently, we got a flyer in our letterbox. “The world is changing,” it declared, “so we’re changing too.” Above that, a smiling lady looks down happily at her packages—or is it the NZ Post logo? Apparently she welcomes the changes.

Starting this month, New Zealand Post is delivering ordinary post to street addresses in urban areas only three days a week: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, or else Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday (priority items will still be delivered every day). I had no idea which we are, but we had things in our letterbox on Saturday—did the changes take effect July 1 or the first full week in July (this week)?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that our delivery days are Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday because I looked it up online (of course I did!). As it happens, we’ve seldom received any mail on a Monday for many years.

Actually, we get virtually no mail at all on any day, so I really doubt we’ll notice the change. What we do get: Advertising flyers, local free newspapers, and the odd bit of real estate marketing, some of which is actually addressed to us, more or less, but none of that stuff is delivered by NZ Post. Instead, virtually all the stuff we used to get by post is now delivered electronically, and I can’t actually remember the last time I posted anything personally; it may have been my overseas ballot in 2012.

Apparently, we’re not alone in that.

“As New Zealanders do more online,” the flyer continues on the other side, “they’re sending fewer letters and more emails. Today our Posties deliver half the number of letters they used to.” Half since when, I wonder; it didn’t say.

But it’s clear NZ Post is trying to evolve. They recently started running ads on how “you can” use their services to conduct global business (I’m simplifying the message). The first of the “you can” ads is also the oddest—and not available for embedding (probably because it features actor Charles Dance, of Game of Thrones, among other things). The second two ads highlight real New Zealand business and how they integrate with NZ Post services, and how that can make things easier for us all.

“You can take your business anywhere”:



“You can get it to your online customers the same day”:



The fourth and most recent ad, “You can shop around the world with YouShop”, shows us how we can use NZ Post to shop in the USA (and certain other countries), even when the company doesn’t ship to New Zealand. That ad, oddly, also isn’t embeddable.

Taken together, the ads show a clear strategic direction for the company. Essentially, it seems to me, they’re positioning themselves as a modern-day logistics and fulfilment company (and printing, and…). Other videos on their YouTube Channel talk about what they can do for businesses.

I have no idea whether NZ Post will successfully transition to the new reality in which hardly anybody posts anything anymore, but in the short term, at least, I think they could do well. But with 3D printing technology, it’s entirely possible—probable, even—that the need to ship a great many things will continue to decline.

So, the changes aren’t over yet—indeed, they never are. This is just another concrete example of how things have changed as technology has changed. We’ll adapt—we always do.

The photo of the NZ Post flyer is my own (Credit: Arthur Schenck). [CC BY-NC-SA NZ 3.0].

Previously:
Soon with real snails (October 2013) – when the changes were announced
Postage due (January 2013) – when the changes were first mooted

Watching another meme being born

Back in April, I wrote about watching the birth of an Internet meme. It’s just happened again, but this time it’s even better, and with a really good message.

Today, one of my Facebook friends shared an image that had been shared by a page my friend follows. I traced backwards to the original, which was by attn.: and published on their page a number of hours earlier.

When I saw the share today, I wondered, as I put it last April, “…first, if the quote is genuine, and second, how old it is.” I wondered that, but didn’t feel like checking it out, as, in fact, I almost never do.

This evening I was catching up on some of my YouTube subscriptions, and I noticed in the sidebar a video from John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight, a segment on transgender rights (that video is below). So, I watched it, and that turned out to be the source of the Internet meme. I don’t know precisely when it aired originally, but the video was posted on June 28, which makes it pretty recent.

So, I went back to Facebook, found my friend’s share, then went to the page it was shared from, then searched Facebook for attn: to find the original posting.

I don’t usually bother checking out Internet memes, because of a lack of time, mostly, but this one kind of fell into my virtual lap. I wonder if this will be more common now, or was this just a coincidence?

In any event, Oliver’s video is brilliant, the best look at transgender rights I’ve ever seen in mainstream media (we’ll put aside the question of how “mainstream” HBO is). The point is, he said the sorts of things that broadcast media ought to say, or, at least, stop and think about. Everytime I’ve seen a mainstream journalist become fixated on a transgendered persons genitalia it’s creeped me out in exactly the way that Oliver suggests.

I also think he makes great points about people not really wanting to jump into anti-trans bigotry.

When I saw the meme earlier today, I thought the sentiment was great, and would like to have shared it, but there was the usual wondering about its age and accuracy. When I saw the video, it was all complete: Another Internet meme traced back to its original source, and a great message to share.

Celebrating the Fourth of July

Often one of the hardest things for expats to do is retain a sense of connection with their homeland, and national holidays are good example of that. Some expat communities have an easier time with all that than others, particularly if they have large numbers, but for me, it’s a bit different.

How much this is an issue for an expat depends on the person, how connected they feel to their homeland (or how much they want to remain connected), how they're received in their new country, and so on. I’ve been lucky: I’ve been able to make my own celebrations, something that’s become easier as the years have passed.

In my early years in New Zealand, it was difficult to celebrate American holidays in American ways. Thanksgiving is a good example, and I wrote about that way back in 2007, the second year of this blog. The biggest issue for me in New Zealand, though, has been that the seasons here are reversed, which matters for the two quintessentially American holidays, Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July.

Having a Fourth of July BBQ in the middle of winter isn’t very appealing, and neither is putting on a big roast dinner in the middle of spring. For Americans, it would be like celebrating Independence Day in January and Thanksgiving in May. Sound weird? Exactly.

This year, we decided to have some family and friends (well, they’re family, too, really) around for a BBQ on Friday the 3rd because it was most convenient for everyone. We had to stay inside because it was cold and a winter rainstorm was expected, but on the plus side, we had some pretty good American-style products, and actual American products, as I wrote about recently.

The photo up top is the decorations I put up for where the American snacks were served before dinner (Fritos, Crunchy Cheetos, NZ made potato chips and dip), and later, after dinner, various M&M flavours, and Reese’s Pieces). The pop-up banner thingee was made in China, as was the serving tray. The paper plates (leftovers in wrappers are in the photo) and the little flags were made in the USA.

It’s easier than ever to get American-style products in New Zealand, or ones that are close enough. For example, I bought Hellers American Style Frankfurters, and they tasted like the real deal (they were a little longer and thinner than I had in the USA). I also had Australian-made MasterFoods Mild American Mustard, something I always have on hand. I also got something totally new to me: Sun Harvest Gherkin Relish (which, oddly, doesn’t seem to have a website), the closest to American pickle relish I’ve ever found in NZ. We also had cooked onion, so the fully dressed hot dogs were a triumph.

Here’s something to remind me this is NOT the USA: The hotdogs came six to a packet—and so did the buns! The buns were also called “long bread rolls” and needed to be sliced. Typically, Kiwis slit them across the top, making vertical halves, which I like better than the US-style of slicing them to separate the top from the bottom. The Kiwi way tends to hold everything in better.

We served Al Brown & Co Prime Angus Patties (partly because it better suited Kiwi tastes). Interestingly, one of Al Brown's restaurants, Federal Deli (or The Fed) is Brown's take on a New York delicatessen, I've been there a couple times and I think it's nice, though only inspired by American delis, and not actually very American (which probably suits Kiwis better, to be honest).

I also drank Budweiser, the only American beer the supermarket had. Yes, I know that since it’s made by a London-based, Belgian-Brazilian company, it's technically no longer an American beer brand; but, then, neither was the mustard or the hotdogs, so clearly I’m not a purist.

Cold weather aside, it was a pleasant evening, and it reminded me enough of my homeland to give me the warm fuzzies (or maybe that was the beer…). And now, I’m thinking about maybe doing Thanksgiving this year, too.

We had hotdogs for lunch today, too. Tonight, we had steak done on the BBQ, and I put A1 Steak Sauce on mine (that came from Martha’s Backyard).

I love life in New Zealand, and for a lot of reasons. But I’ve also wanted to retain a sense of connection to my homeland because I think that to know where you’re going, you have to know where you’ve been, and also that it’s important to have a connection with one’s ancestors. I think it helps ground a person.

So, when Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July roll around, I get a little reflective. And, more often than not, I manage to pay homage to my heritage, even if only in small ways. This year, it was a very good celebration. I don't know if my experiences, and the products I found, will be of any use to my fellow Americans in New Zealand, or any other expats, for that matter, but sharing our journeys makes it easier for other expats to find their own way, I think.

Happy Fourth of July to my fellow Americans, wherever you may live in the world!

Update July 5, 2015: Our niece reminded me today that she also made us all s'mores for dessert—the first time either Nigel or I'd tried them. How on earth could I have left that out of the post?! They were very nice, made with American products from Martha's Backyard. I'm not really a fan of sweets any more, but at some point I'd like to have them again.

Previously
Fourth of July (2014)
Are you proud? (2013)
Fourth of July (2011)
Time, distance and home (2009)

One more Democrat

(Source: Democratic Party)

Yesterday, another longshot, James Henry “Jim” Webb, Jr., announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president. It seems to me that Webb, Lincoln Chaffee and Martin O’Malley, are actually angling for the nomination for Vice President, because they’re all not very likely to win the presidential nomination.

Webb, a decorated veteran of the US Navy, had a varied post-military career. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (1984-87) and then Secretary of the Navy for a little less that a year (1987-88), all in Ronald Reagan’s presidency. He was the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as the civilian head of the US Navy, but resigned because he refused to agree to reducing the size of the navy. Reagan wrote, "I don't think Navy was sorry to see him go."

After resigning, he wrote and made films (one of which won an Emmy), and commented on politics. In 2006, he defeated Republican incumbent Republican US Senator from Virginia, George Allen. He served one term in the US Senate, retiring in 2012. Among other things, Webb as Senator was a strong critic of George W. Bush.

Like all the Democratic candidates (and unlike ALL Republican candidates), Webb supports marriage equality, and like most of the Democrats, he evolved on the issue (see also: “4 Things You Should Know About The Democrat Who Just Added His Name To The 2016 Line Up”, and also, “Where They Stand: Webb on some issues of 2016 campaign”).

Webb is 69, which makes him the second-oldest among the Democratic candidates. On Inauguration Day, he’ll be 70 years, 347 days. Bernie Sanders is the oldest of all the candidates in either party. The oldest US President, Ronald Reagan, was 69 years, 349 days when he was sworn in.

My take on all this is that Webb and Chafee are probably the most conservative among the Democrats, but this is very relative: Compared to any of the Republicans, they’re liberals, but compared to Hillary Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley, he and Chafee are more conservative. That would appeal to certain segments of the Democratic base, but could be more important as running mates than as actual candidates. That’s because the eventual Democratic nominee will probably be running against a very conservative Republican, so the presidential candidate needs to be more centrist in order to have a difference, but may need a more conservative running mate for “balance”.

In any case, nothing has changed so far in what I think will happen: The Democratic nominee will be either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (and I still think it’ll be Hillary). The best O’Malley can hope for is that Democrats turn to him as an alternative to the top two candidates, but his best bet may be as a running mate—but that may also be unlikely since he’s centre-left, overall. Neither Chafee nor Webb can win the nomination, but if they can demonstrate some popularity among voters, they might have a shot at being nominated for vice president.

All of this could change in the weeks ahead. If Bernie continues to draw large crowds as he did the other day in Madison, Wisconsin, and does so in places that are not strongly left-of-centre, it could create the momentum—and campaign donations—he needs to move ahead. I just can’t see O’Malley, Chafee, or Webb pulling that off, but you never know: It’s still some seven months until the first primary votes are cast.

Finally, the image up top was used in an email sent by the Democratic Party to its supporters. They were trying to get donations to help the party campaign for Democrats in 2016. What struck me about the image, first, is that I wouldn’t choose to vote for any of the Republicans, and second, I’d vote for any of the Democrats. The sad thing about that is that I can’t imagine that changing in the foreseeable future.

Yesterday, there was still 1 year, 4 months, and 6 days until the US presidential election.

Sunny is seven

Sunny, taken by her fur cousin.

Today Sunny turned seven. As usual, she got some extra cuddles and kisses on her birthday, and a lot of attention. This year was different in one way, though: She refused to sit still for photos. Maybe she wanted to mix it up a bit.

Seriously, it’s not unusual for Jake to get annoyed at having to pose for photos, but Sunny usually goes with the flow—until today. Our niece took the photo at right, saying on Facebook it was of her “fur cousin”. I like that, naturally. But it was also the only photo of Sunny awake today that turned out (she moved during all the ones I took). The photo at the bottom of this post is one I took of her this morning, while she had her first nap.

In the past, I’ve talked about the presence of our furbabies, and what I mean by that is that I can sense their presence: I can feel when they’re in the room with me, or somewhere else in the house, or not in the house. Even so, sometimes I’m not sure where they are and I need (yes, actually need) to go find them. Then, balance restored, I can continue on with my day.

That’s true for all the furbabies, but the puppies especially, and Sunny probably most of all. She’s near me almost every moment, whether I’m awake or asleep. Sometimes it’s just in the room with me, other times, closer. For example, when I’m at my desk, she often sleeps under it, and I have to be careful not to kick her.

Jake and Bella are more content to do whatever they want, and sleep wherever they want. Sometimes that’s in the same room that I’m in (and Sunny is, too), but very often it’s not. That’s one way in which Sunny is very different from Jake or Bella.

I quite like that, actually.

So, happy seventh birthday, Sunny! We’re so glad you came to live with us some four and half years ago!

Sunny starts her day.

Related posts:
Sunny is six – Last year’s birthday post
Sunny is five
Sunny is four
Sunny is three – Her first birthday with us
Sunny has arrived – When Sunny came to live with us
All posts mentioning Sunny

Ask Arthur yet again

For several years now, I’ve done an “Ask Arthur” series of posts in which I answer readers' questions. This time, partly as an experiment, I’m going multi-media. Well, maybe. In any case, it’s your turn.

I’ve done one of these “Ask Arthur” series every December since 2012, but in 2013 I also did one in July. I decided to revive that this year.

The way it works is that folks as me questions about things they’re interested in knowing about—obviously things I can answer. In the past, I’ve had questions about me, about life in New Zealand, about being an expat, what I think about certain topics—lots of things. Any topic is okay, though if I have no idea how to answer a question, or can't for some reason, I’ll say so. I’ve never had a question that I wouldn’t answer (I clearly have few boundaries…), and pretty much can’t be offended, so there’s no prior restraint for questions asked.

As I’ve said before, this idea is stolen from inspired by Roger Green, who does “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts. He’s actually already provided me with two Ask Arthur questions.

This time, I’m open to the possibility of posting video answers on the AmeriNZ YouTube Channel (I’ve had questions in the past that would have benefited from pictures, and if that happens this time I may make videos to go with written answers here). I’ll solicit questions separately on YouTube, but if there’s something you’d like to see, let me know (they do need to be based in Auckland, and there are some things I can’t do, like go in a grocery store because they ban cameras). You can even send me a video question if you want to be included in my video answer.

This time, too, I’ll also ask AmeriNZ Podcast listeners to pose questions. Some of the answers may end up here, or in video form, too. Here again, if you want to, you can send me an audio file with your question, and I’ll include that in the podcast where I answer any question(s) I get for answering on the podcast.

The point in trying to use all three AmeriNZ channels is that I’ve said all these media channels are different facets of the same storytelling effort, and this is my first attempt to use all three together. It might be good fun—or, it might fail miserably and be a total disaster. We’ll see.

Here’s how to ask questions: First, you can leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are okay). 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?). And, for the first time, you can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page.

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

Your turn—again!

Previously:
What do you want to know? (December 2012)
Ask Arthur (July 2013) The only time I’ve done one of these outside December
Ask Arthur – Again (December 2013)
Ask Arthur Again, again (December 2014)

On Canada’s National Day

Today (July 1 in North America) is Canada Day. In past years, I’ve posted the ad “I am Canadian” ad for Molson Canadian beer because I think it’s such a great ad, and it’s very pro-Canada. The video above contains that ad (in between ads…).

I picked the version above because it’s the best quality version I’ve found so far, though the ads placed on either side of it are a little annoying. The actual ad starts 15 seconds in. The ads for Molson Canadian have won several awards over the years (actually, the beer has, too).

What I like so much about the ad is how over-the-top the actor gets—until the very end when he turns polite, saying thank you (the stereotype of polite Canadians has been the subject of other ads for Molson Canadian).

I also like two specific things in the script: “I can proudly sew my country’s flag on my backpack,” is the first. Until the current Canadian Government started getting embroiled in the USA’s wars, Canadians were pretty much exempt from the sort of abuse that Americans have sometimes received overseas (indeed, having their flag on display helped let people outside Canada know in advance that they’re not American). That advantage may have been eroded over the past decade or so, but it’s still probably true that the Canadian flag attracts less hostility in much of the world than the US flag does.

The other thing is just funny to me: “It IS pronounced zed, NOT zee, ZED!!” Because, well, it is!

Now, me being me, I needed to verify something that I thought was true but wasn’t sure of, namely, that Molson isn’t, strictly speaking, Canadian. It turns out that Molson Brewery was formed in Montreal in 1786, making it the second-oldest company in Canada (the legendary Hudson’s Bay Company was first). Huge respect to a country that has among its oldest still functioning companies a brewery!

In 2005, Molson merged with Colorado-based Coors. The new company, Molson Coors, is incorporated in the USA, but is traded on both countries’ stock exchanges and has dual headquarters in Denver and Toronto. Some members of the Molson family are still on the company’s Board of Directors.

In 2007, Molson Coors created a joint venture with SABMiller to combine operations in the USA and Puerto Rico, but not Canada, where Molson Coors is strongest. Molson Coors owns 42% of the joint venture, called Miller Coors, and SABMiller owns 58%, but they have equal voting power, which is, um, interesting.

SABMiller, meanwhile, is the London-based multinational company that owns former US brand Miller’s, former Australian brand Foster’s (except in UK and Europe, where it’s owned by Heineken), former Dutch brand Grolsch, and former Italian brand Peroni, among many brands. The company, the world's second largest brewer, is actively trying to grow through acquisitions and takeovers to guard itself from being taken over by Belgian-Brazilian company Anheuser-Busch InBe, which is the world’s largest brewing company. This is why the arrangement with Molson Coors is so interesting.

So, unlike SABMiller (or Anheuser-Busch InBe, for that matter), Molson Coors is still North American-based and at least partly Canadian—maybe a little bit more Canadian, given its particular strength in that country.

So, while Joe is Canadian, the company, if it was a person, would have to shout, “I am quite Canadian!”

Happy Canada Day!

Hold on a second…

At 11:59:59am today, the Leap Second arrived in New Zealand. I thought I’d make a video of it for fun, and then things went awry. The brief video above is the final result.

I went to get everything ready well in advance, only to find the battery for the main camera was dead and needed to be charged, something that would take more time than was available. So, I set up my phone to record it.

Next, I used timeanddate.com, which promoted the event, complete with countdown clocks and clocks of when the event arrived in various time zones. I was ready!

So, I started recording a few seconds early, watched and waited: 11:59:55, 11:59:56, 11:59:57, 11:59:58, 11:59:59—the next time should have read 11:59:60 (that’s the Leap Second). The video shows what happened.

Since I’d gone to all that trouble to film it, I went ahead with a very short video. Besides, I needed (and still need) editing practice.

On the bright side, I needed the main camera to shoot actual photos this evening, so I needed it charged, anyway. Turns out I had plenty of time for that.

The Jersey Bore

Chris Christie (Photo: Michael Vadon)

The latest passenger on the Republican Clown Bus is a bore, though some might call him a boar, others a (political) whore, and he leaves everyone wishing there was more. I doubt he’ll last far into the race.

Christopher James “Chris” Christie officially announced his candidacy at his old high school today. Unlike Jindal, he didn’t make a bizarre video with his kids, but it was funny that Christie was burnded by the interim superindent of the high school’s district, who said: "It is my personal opinion that the governor adopts policies that he believes will serve his political agenda regardless of whether or not they are good or necessary.” Ouch.

As governor, Christie has done—well, not much of anything, really. IN fact, plenty of people say he’s hurt New Jersey. At the very least, his extremely low approval ratings seem to suggest New Jersey voters don’t much like him.

There are two things I don’t like about Christie. First, he’s a bully. When I heard he was having his launch at his old high school, I really did laugh. It stuck me as funny because I think of him as being just like a high school bully: Full of arrogant swagger, condescension, aggression, and willingness to attack anyone he doesn’t like. That last thing the USA needs is a president that makes people think, “what an asshole!” every time he speaks to the press. This isn’t about mere disagreement, this about not even being able to stand listening to him and his arrogant swagger.

The other thing I don’t like about him is his “say anything to get power” approach to politics. When the New Jersey legislature enacted marriage equality, Christie vetoed it. Christie had long said the usual far-right claptrap about marriage being only for man/woman couples, and he wanted gay couples to settle for civil unions, which, he said, should be strengthened. He also wanted people to vote on whether gay couples should be allowed to have the same civil and human right to marriage as heterosexual couples.

A state court threw out his veto, and he asked the state supreme court for a stay so he could appeal, they declined, and three days later Christie dropped his appeal and New Jersey became a marriage equality state.

So: He frequently criticised marriage equality, he vetoed it when he had the chance, and called for having people vote. Then, he gave up and dropped an appeal of a court ruling against him, thereby brining marriage equality to New Jersey. He would argue this was pragmatism, but it seems more like trying to have things all ways.

On the other hand, Christie did say, correctly, that homosexuality is innate, and he signed a bill outlawing “ex gay” “conversion therapy” torture, making New Jersey the second state to do so.

On balance, my main problem with Christie is that he’s a bully, and after the fact, that he’s far more conservative than he likes to pretend he is, so I can’t trust him to actually believe anything he says. On that last point, he’s actually not so very different from the majority of Republican clowns candidates. These issues are also why voters on both ends of the spectrum dislike him.

And all of this is without even getting into the "Bridgegate" scandal, which has already seen convictions and has raised serious questions about Christie's honesty and integrity.

Chris Christie is 52, the second-youngest Republican clown candidate so far (after Bobby Jindal, who is the youngest). On Inauguration Day, he’ll be 53 years, 231 days old. The oldest US President, Ronald Reagan, hallowed be his name, was 69 years, 349 days when he was sworn in.

I don’t like Chris Christie. His bully-boy shtick is old, tiring and downright boring. I also have no idea what he actually believes about anything—assuming he actually has any firm convictions. Plenty of other voters share this low opinion of him.

There’s still 1 year, 4 months, and 9 days until the US presidential election.

Photo of Chris Christie by Michael Vadon (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.