15 Years a NZ citizen

Fifteen years ago today, June 10, 2002, I became a citizen of New Zealand. Life has mostly just ticked along since that day, as it tends to do, in very ordinary ways. In fact, this anniversary has been so behind-the-scenes all these years that I don’t remember it without prompting. This year? It seems a bit more important than previous years.

I became a New Zealand citizen, as I said the only time I talked in depth about this, back in 2014, because, basically, the country had taken a chance on me in 1995, and I felt I owed it to the country to make a commitment in return. It really wasn’t any more complicated than that. Besides, by then New Zealand was clearly home.

In 2002, George W. Bush was nearing the midpoint of his first term. I opposed Bush (and never voted for him), and I was deeply concerned about what his regime would do to the USA, but that was pretty much the extent of it. After all, in the years between when I took part in my first presidential campaign at age 17, the person I backed had won only twice out of seven elections. So, I was used to being opposed to whoever the president was.

In 2002, Helen Clark was in her first term as Prime Minister, and New Zealand voters were heading to the polls in just under seven weeks. They would hand the National Party and its leader, Bill English, their worst-ever defeat—only 21% of the vote—thereby giving Helen Clark and Labour their second term in government.

Things are a bit different 15 years later.

Obviously I never supported the guy who became the titular US president in January this year, but this time it’s not just about opposing him: Unlike any other time in my life, I have very grave concerns about what will/could happen to my native land if that man remains in office—and other, equally serious concerns about the man who would replace him if Don is forced out or resigns. For the first time in my life, I’m profoundly grateful that I have a second passport.

New Zealand voters are going to the polls on Saturday, September 23, and this time Bill English is Prime Minister, following the sudden, surprise resignation of John Key late last year. At the moment, English and National are polling well enough to win the election and a fourth term in government—though the election is a very long time from now by New Zealand standards, and things could change completely.

Other things have changed, too. Australia has changed the way it treats New Zealand citizens living in their country, so the benefits of being a NZ citizen living in Australia that I obtained when I became a citizen are now nearly all gone. Not that it matters for me personally, but it’s a major change nevertheless.

There’s one more difference between now and then: In 2002, my blog was more than four years away, and my podcast was the better part of five. I haven’t given up on either, despite lately sometimes feeling that I should, and in my head I keep planning on ways to do more.

The reality is that, overall, things are far less hopeful than they were 15 years ago, for both the countries of which I’m a citizen*. I’m not sure there are enough Republicans in the US Congress to join Democrats to do what needs to be done to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, as they’ve all sworn to do. I’m also not sure that New Zealand voters have the desire to turn away from the tired and complacent National Party government to embrace forward-looking change.

However, “less hopeful” is absolutely NOT the same thing as hopeless. In fact, hope is the thing that often matters most of all.

Looking at the world as it is today, and comparing it to the one 15 years ago, it would be easy to be despondent or resigned or fatalistic. That’s not me. No matter how bad things may seem most days now, I choose to believe that they can get better, that they will get better, despite everything.

Hope is a powerful force: It’s what brought me to this country in the first place, and it’s what makes me continue to believe—no matter what—that the future will be better, even if there are a few bumps in that road along the way that make progress seem unlikely. Having hope is a sort of armour against all the bad. In my opinion, hope is not optional.

Today, just like on June 10, 2002, I’m still filled with hope about the future. And, I hope that’s proven to be justified.

*I am what’s called a “dual national”, a citizen of both the USA and of New Zealand.

In the photo at the top of this post, George Wood, who at the time was the Mayor of the former North Shore City, shakes my hand to officially congratulate me on becoming a new New Zealand citizen. Waiting nearby was Diane Hale, who at the time was Deputy Mayor. I originally published the photo in the post in 2014 that I mentioned in this post.

Winter kitty

Winter kitty: This afternoon, Bella decided to sleep behind the heater (on low...), between it and the wall. At that point the sun was shining down the wall and onto her. I'm sure she was very warm and snugly. In his pic she's mid yawn. #goodkitty #furbaby #LifeInNZ #auckland

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on Jun 9, 2017 at 12:34am PDT

Today I spotted Bella sleeping in a particularly unusual—and warm—spot (photo above). We’ve had a bit of a cold snap the past few days (it was 6 degrees, about 42.8F, at around 7 this morning), but I’ve found her at that spot on warmer days, too. She likes to be warm.

This isn’t yet the coldest part of winter—ordinarily that’d probably be next month—but over the past couple days we’ve had the coldest temperatures we’ve experienced this winter, so I certainly notice the coldness. Bella, however, always finds the warmest spots to sleep—maybe I should just follow her around.

We might still have a mild winter. That’s happened some years, others have been very cold. Regardless, I’m sure I’ll see Bella in this or similar spots again.

She’s a good—and warm—kitty.

NOT speaking to the American people

There’s been a very noticeable talking point spouted by every one of Don’s apologists when they’re trying to defend the often unhinged Tweeting by the titular 45th president. They always say that “he’s speaking directly to the American people.” Oh, really? It’s an incredibly laughable and silly attempt at spin, and a pretty brazen lie. They know that, but it’s irrelevant to them and their goal.

Here’s why the claim is false: There are approximately 70 million frequent American users of Twitter, out of 328 million users worldwide. Pew Research found that in 2016 a mere 21% of Americans who used the Internet—not 21% of all Americans—were on Twitter.

Don has 31.8 million followers, which is a lot, absolutely, but he’s not even among the top 20 Twitter users as ranked by number of followers (former President Barack Obama is ranked third, behind Justin Bieber and Katy Perry). Don is ranked 33rd, placing him just above One Direction and behind BBC Breaking News.

So, Don isn’t all that popular in the larger picture, and he doesn’t even reach half of American Twitter users—who are fewer than 25% of Americans who use the Internet. So, that means that—being extremely generous—Don reaches at the very most far fewer than 10 percent of all Americans.

And yet Republicans and Don’s sycophants say Don uses Twitter to talk directly to the American people.

Let’s look at some more numbers. Don received 62,979,636 votes in the 2016 election, which was, of course, some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton did. So, Don’s Twitter followers are fewer than half than the number of people who voted for him alone—and fewer than a quarter of people who voted.

And yet, Republicans and Don’s sycophants say Don uses Twitter to talk directly to the American people.

Raw numbers aside, who follows Don? When I looked at Don’s followers, Twitter said that there were 162 followers I “might know”. Those people were all either journalists, political commentators, politicians, and/or political activists who absolutely do not support Don. What percentage of all his followers would fall into those categories? What percentage is even American? We have no idea.

So, if you deduct all the journalists, media types and activists throughout the world who follow Don, and also deduct the trolls, this means that the actual number of Americans that Don actually “speaks directly to” through Twitter is pretty insignificant.

And yet, Republicans and Don’s sycophants say Don uses Twitter to talk directly to the American people.

What all of this means is that most Americans who hear about Don’s Twitter tantrums probably hear about them only through newsmedia reports, most of which aren’t entirely favourable. If the newsmedia stopped reporting on Don’s Twitter tantrums, then the number of the American people that Don would be talking to would be very few indeed.

And yet, Republicans and Don’s sycophants would STILL say Don uses Twitter to talk directly to the American people.

As with so many things about Don’s regime, this isn’t about truth or facts, it’s about spin and propaganda. Republicans and Don’s sycophants know very well how few Americans Don is actually talking to, and how few of them actually care or agree with those Tweets. But they can still claim that he’s speaking “directly to the American people” because, in a sense, his is: Few Americans, maybe not the most engaged or sympathetic Americans, but they never actually claim otherwise.

The goal of Republicans and Don’s sycophants is to reinforce their narrative that journalists “lie” and newspapers and media companies are purveyors of “fake news”, and that only Don tells the truth, and he uses Twitter to bypass those “lying” purveyors of “fake news”. They want to undermine the news media and to sow distrust of truth and facts. They’re not really trying to defend Don’s often bizarre Tweets, they’re trying to sell a narrative.

And that’s why it’s important to debunk the incredibly laughable and silly attempt at spin by Republicans and Don’s sycophants. But as long as the newsmedia reports on Don’s Twitter tantrums, that won’t matter at all, and far too many people will accept the talking point.

Some voters are walking

Voters in the USA now back the Democratic Party more than the Republican Party by 7 points, according to the latest poll from Gallup (above). This the biggest lead Democrats have had in two years, leading Gallup to call it “an encouraging sign for the Democratic Party's election prospects in 2018.” Is it?

The poll shows that Democratic affiliation has not grown this year, but Republican affiliation has been dropping steadily. This is "The Trump Effect", because the drop off in Republican support came without an increase in support for Democrats. Clearly, that’s Don's fault: Republicans are running away from their embarrassing president, but they’re not flocking to the alternative.

When Gallup suggests that this is good news for Democrats' chances in 2018, they’re partly right, but it’s not a simple, direct path.

As always, Democrats must 1) get the 45% that supports them to the polls, 2) convince enough Independents to vote for Democratic candidates, and maybe even 3) convince at least some of those disaffected Republicans to punish their own party by voting Democratic.

Because of the drop in Republican affiliation without a corresponding rise in Democratic affiliation, at the moment the poll results show that Democrats best hope is that these disaffected Republicans will simply stay home in 2018. This would actually be a good thing: Because of gerrymandering, Republicans have a manufactured advantage in Congressional elections. If enough Republicans stay home, it could tip the balance in Congressional Districts that Republicans created to ensure they win.

A complicating factor here is that it’s notoriously difficult to get voters to go the polls in Midterm Elections in ordinary years. Without a presidential candidate to rally around, many Democratic affiliated voters stay home, and the lack of the clear focus that a presidential candidate offers may give Republicans no incentive to vote Democratic.

On the other hand, it’s still around 17 months until the 2018 elections, and if the chaos in Washington continues—and if Don remains in office, that’s a sure bet—then over time some of those disaffected Republicans may change party affiliation because of it. Meanwhile, more of them will certainly become disaffected. While some disaffected Republican voters will probably vote Democratic in reaction to the chaos, some will become even more likely to stay home on election day.

At the same time, while Democrats normally have trouble getting their supporters to the polls for a Midterm Election, it will probably be different in 2018 given the strength of the opposition to Don. At the moment, a higher-than-normal turnout of Democratic affiliated voters is probable in 2018, and with enough Independents joining them, they could retake Congress and state legislatures and stop Don in his tracks.

But 17 months is a VERY long time. Don will not go down without a fight, and Republicans will fight back with anything they can find. We can expect to see them try to scaremonger, as the party did successfully in 2002 and 2004, and less successfully 2006, as well as using the sort of propaganda-based distraction campaigns they ran in the run-up to the 2016 elections. If Don triggers a war or incites a major terrorist attack, which is possible, then all bets are off.

But barring a dramatic development or Don leaving office, the path forward is clear. Which is exactly why no one should expect it to remain that way.

Talking to the other side

The video above from Vox, though highly problematic, is nevertheless useful as a lesson in how to talk to conservatives about issues that we on the centre-left care about and what their support on—or, at least, their lack of opposition. There’s nothing new in the advice, nor its proven utility, but in light of the recent activity in Washington, DC, it’s especially good to take heed.

Vox originally posted the video on YouTube about a month ago, but this weekend they shared it on their Facebook Page, which I follow. I shared it on the AmeriNZ Facebook Page, where I said:

In politics, most successful messaging is a form of framing, which means, in its simplest form, it's not merely about WHAT we say, it's about HOW we say it. So, to win over rational conservatives, we need to talk about the aspects that matter to them. That's partly what this video is about (though it could have gone into more specifics).

I personally experienced this in the fight for marriage equality. Our side talked about rights and fairness and justice, but once we started talking about the issue in conservative terms, like responsibility and commitment, that was when the shift happened and more conservative and centre-right folks started to support marriage equality. I personally did that, and so did the professionals running the various campaigns. Sure, we still talked about fairness and justice and the like, but only part of the time, not exclusively, and not usually when more conservative folks were the intended or probable recipients of the message.

I think we need to do the same thing about the environment. The phrase "climate change" has become so hyper-politicised and hyper-partisan that it's now almost meaningless, and totally useless for political debate. CLEARLY it's not working, so why don't we try something else? That's really all this is about.

The personal experience I was referring to is something I talked about in some detail a couple years ago in a post about the book Defining Marriage. I said:

Toward the end of the book, Matt [Baume] talks about the profound change in strategy in 2012, a change that led to victory in four out of four states in which marriage equality was on the ballot. Like most people, I wasn’t aware any of that was going on, though I did notice that the ads seemed much better in 2012.

However, sometime later I saw an article about how to talk about marriage equality. Instead of “rights”, it said, talk about commitment and responsibility. Instead of justice or equality, talk about freedom, and, most especially, talk about love. I took that advice to heart.

I’ve never mentioned this before, but when New Zealand had its own battle for marriage equality, I shifted my own rhetoric based on that advice. For example, a typical way I phrased it was, “the government should allow loving same-gender couples to make the same legal and public commitment to each other as opposite-gender couples”.

I still used the term “marriage equality”, since it was by then already well established in the public discourse, but I also started using “freedom to marry”. But I always talked about love, commitment, responsibility—all the things the radical right claimed we were incapable of, but that the people we needed to win over valued.

So in that instance, we could actually see the shift happen as we changed our language from what we wanted to hear to what they wanted to hear, the people we wanted to win over. There’s no reason not to do the same thing with other issues, too. I do that all the time.

This is not about mere spin, though it may look like that. Instead, there’s a more subtle thing going on, emphasising the aspects of an issue that the intended audience can relate to, words and phrases that resonate with that audience. For example, I often talk about liberty and freedom instead of rights because that particular aspect of what civil and human rights are about resonates with rational people on the right. If I want them to listen to what I have to say, why not speak to them on their terms, using the language they connect with?

The rightwing has tried this, too, with little success. The best example I can think of is one that affects me personally: Attempts to market their agenda to LGBT people.

The Right tried to sell their islamophobia to LGBT people (and Liberals generally) by asking us why we’d support the Democrats and their attempts at diplomacy when radical islamists what to kill LGBT people. Similarly, in while trying to legalise anti-LGBT discrimination, which they frame as “religious liberty” or the simpler “religious freedom”, they ask why we oppose them when Islamic countries often put LGBT people to death, and they’d never do that.

The reason the right’s attempts to sell their policies to us failed is that they were so obviously insincere. We’re well aware that they’re not really concerned about radical islamist terrorists killing LGBT people, like in Orlando, for example (at the time, remember, most of them refused to even acknowledge that it even WAS an attack on LGBT people). We also know that they’re being dishonest in pointing out that some Islamic countries execute LGBT people because all know damn well that given the chance many of them would back the USA doing the same.

So, any attempt to use the language of one’s opponent to win them over is doomed to fail if those words are insincere, or pandering, or condescending, or simply inauthentic. Instead, this is about using words that are true, relevant, sincere, and authentic to both sides. That’s why it worked in the marriage equality debate—we obviously really meant the words we used.

So, when talking with conservatives who oppose action to stop climate change, it makes far more sense to talk about the issues where we can have agreement—like the need for clean air and water, for example—and to do using words they identify with. Same for reducing use of fossil fuels: It doesn’t have to be about reducing greenhouse gasses, it can be about national security, energy independence, reducing terrorism, the huge potential for economic growth and technological innovation by embracing clean, renewable energy. ALL of those things are true and matter to conservatives, so why not talk about them?

I’m well aware that some on the Leftward side of Left utterly reject this whole idea, and would rather fail completely and remain ideologically pure than win some (or even all…) of what they want simply because they refuse to change how they talk about the issues. As I’ve long said, I’m a pragmatist and would rather win part of what I want now while I work on the rest than lose everything just so to be able claim some sort of quixotic ideological purity.

Speaking of ideology, this video could have spent a little more time talking about specifics about how to talk to conservatives, and maybe a little less with ideological point scoring, but it's still a good pointer to a way forward.

And, finally, there’s also this: What we’ve been doing clearly hasn’t won them over, and we don’t yet have enough support to act without them. It’s time to try something different.

Weekend Diversion: Learning because of blogging

The thing about blogging is that to do a halfway decent job, it’s impossible to NOT learn new things. That could come as the result of wanting to know more about a topic, because of fact-checking oneself, or sort of accidentally while working on a post. All of them have happened to me many times, but today I learned something more or less by accident.

The title of my previous post, about where I think I might live if I ever returned to the USA, was a reference to a line in the song "Bali Ha'i" from the musical South Pacific. I wanted to fact-check that song, both for the spelling and to make sure that the line was actually in the song (I’ve learned from experience that these days I should trust but verify my memory).

I could have just looked up the lyrics, but instead I watched a couple YouTube videos of the scene from the 1958 film of the musical, and that’s when I learned something new.

The film—and scene—starred African American actress Juanita Hall reprising her Broadway role as Bloody Mary, which she’d performed some 900 times. However, apparently by the time the film was made, Hall’s voice had changed and she had trouble hitting the high notes. So, her singing was dubbed, replacing her vocal with Muriel Smith, who played Bloody Mary in the London production of the play. If I was into trivia about films or musicals, I might have known all that, but I’m not, so I didn’t.

The video up top is of the scene where Bloody Mary (Hall) performs the song, but the singing is actually Hall’s own (presumably taken from a Broadway cast recording). The YouTube Channel the video is from has other movie scenes with the actual actress’ voice instead of whoever was dubbed in.

Compare the version above with the original film version, using Smith’s voice:


Probably none of this is important—both actresses are long gone, after all—but I think it’s interesting, and even more so to hear what it might have sounded like if it wasn’t dubbed.

On a side note, when I was younger, I looked down on the old “warhorse” musicals like South Pacific, until I saw a stage production and realised it was really about racism, prejudice, and bigotry (I hadn’t yet seen the movie at that point). Showboat (1927), widely credited as the first modern play in Broadway musical theatre for taking on serious subjects, similarly dealt with racism and prejudice. It was actually because of being willing to look at those old shows with an open mind that I began to appreciate musical theatre in general.

But today I learned a new thing about the movie version of a Broadway show I’ve now seen produced several times, and it was all because I was writing a post about something entirely different and unrelated, really, and I needed to check a couple things.

This is a good thing about blogging, I think.

My own special island?

It’s not every day that we get the chance to work out an alternative future, or, at least, to realise the answer to a question about such a future. Recently, that’s what happened to me, and it was as obvious as it was irrelevant. Even so, I now know the answer to the most common question I’ve been asked since moving to New Zealand.

It took a few years, but eventually people—Americans and New Zealanders alike—started asking me if I thought I’d ever live in the USA again. I said I thought it was unlikely, but, since I never say "never", I couldn’t absolutely rule it out. A lot has changed since then.

Nowadays, the chances of me ever returning to the USA to live are pretty much non-existent. That has nothing to do with the USA, and it absolutely has nothing to do with the current regime in power there—that has never been a factor no matter who was president (bad ones didn’t keep me away, and good ones didn’t make me want to return).

What’s changed the answer is simple: Me. I’ve built a life here over the past 21+ years, and that life has included being around for various births, deaths, marriages, end of relationships, and more social and cultural change than I can remember without thinking about it. All of that has been first-hand only here in New Zealand: Similar events in the USA that I was connected to were, at best, second-hand for me.

So, the focus and centre of my life is now clearly in New Zealand, while at the same time all the sorts of things I’ve experienced here, including changes to society and culture and cities. The same things that happened in the USA did so without me.

As I’ve said many times, the USA I left no longer exists except in my memories, so returning to the USA now would be like moving to a foreign, if oddly familiar, country. In a way, it would be a bit like someone in the USA moving to Canada: Sure, there are some similarities, but also so many differences that would matter a lot.

All of which means that the question of “if” is now kind of irrelevant because it’s answered by “no” with 99% certainty. However, ask the question as “what if” and it becomes more interesting: What if I returned to the USA to live—where would I go?

Let’s put aside the reason/circumstance for the return because they matter a lot and could produce very different answers. Instead, I’ll simplify things by looking only at what I would want, ignoring all other variables.

The most obvious solution would be to return to Chicago. I have friends and family still living there, Democrats, if not always progressive ones, have a lot of control, it’s LGBT friendly, and it’s my native land. However, the city I knew has been replaced by a different one, and the people I knew there have aged like me, moved on, and some have died. It would not be anything like the place I left. But the main factor is that there’d be winters to deal with, and I hate the very idea of having to endure a Chicago winter. This would be the reason I’d reject Chicago.

There are more progressive places in the Northeast, but there’s also winter there, too. And, like Illinois, they do have too many hard conservatives. I have ancestral ties to Pennsylvania, but I’d have no desire to live there or to experience their winters.

I could never live anywhere in the South—too much hard right politics, racism, xenophobia, and religious “christian” extremism. The closest I could come would be Washington, DC, but it can have harsh winters AND summers. Plus, it’s really expensive, and at my age I can’t imagine trying to start a life there.

I’ve never been a fan of the Great Plains states (too flat and they can have harsh weather). The Southwest states have too many political conservatives. The Northwest has too many conservatives, too, but mainly the climate doesn’t appeal to me. Alaska would only be suggested as a joke, I’m sure.

California would be a possibility: Much of it has a mild climate, and despite pockets of hard right conservatism, most of the state is at least somewhat progressive, mostly thanks to the big cities, of course. The fact it’s geologically active doesn’t worry me—I live in a geologically active country now. But the state can be expensive to live in and has had problems adjusting to its multicultural reality.

It turns out that the best possible place for me might be Hawaii.

Sure, the state’s expensive, but the climate is mild. It's heavily Democratic, despite some problems with rightwingers like the vile Republican ex-governor Linda Lingle (who I was never kind to on this blog). The state does have problems with conservative religionists, mostly Catholic, fundamentalist protestant, and Mormon, who stridently opposed the civil and human rights of LGBT people and used Hawaii as a training ground for their anti-LGBT campaigns in other states, including California’s infamous anti-gay Proposition 8.

On the other hand, Hawaii is a Polynesian land with a long multicultural history—similar to New Zealand. Auckland is the world’s largest Polynesian city, with a slightly higher percentage of Māori than the smaller Honolulu has of native Hawaiian (Auckland is also home to peoples from various island nations, including Polynesians; about 71% of New Zealand’s total foreign-born population lives in the city). So, in terms of “fit” alone, Hawaii would probably be best for me.

All of this came about because I was half watching a show on HGTV called “Hawaii Life”, named after a real estate firm of the same name, and which is really just a Hawaii-specific version of any of the channel’s “house hunter” shows. The episode I saw featured an “empty nest” woman relocating to Hilo on the Big Island (Hawaii). I wasn’t interested in where she was looking, for a lot of reasons, but the multiculturalism and Polynesian influence was obvious—and appealing.

I’ve never been to Hawaii, so I can’t know whether I’d actually even like it. Despite that, Maui appeals to me most, I think. But, then, so do parts of California.

It’s virtually certain that I’ll never live in the USA again, but if I did for some reason my choices would probably be narrowed to Hawaii, possibly Maui, and California. And all of that is precisely because I’ve lived in New Zealand all this time. That being the case, why on earth would I want to leave what I already have?

I’ll be staying put. Never say “never”, sure, but that’s almost certainly not going to change.

The title of this post is taken from a line in the song "Bali Ha'i", which is from the musical South Pacific. Update: I've now published a post where I go into some of the back story about that song in the movie version.

Don’s latest folly

Today Don followed through on his threat to pull the USA out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. He made the USA one of only three countries to reject the Agreement, and displayed his usual mix of profound ignorance, utter stupidity, and cluelessness.

In his rambling remarks outside the White House, Don used a cute turn of phrase: "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," he said. Trouble is, he lost Pittsburgh bigly. He also lost Allegheny County, which includes the city, winning less than 40% of the vote. Just like he lost the nationwide popular vote, but since he’s deluded about that, he’s probably also deluded about his crushing defeat in Pittsburgh. Still, the Mayor of Pittsburgh told the media that he was outraged that Don would use Pittsburgh as a verbal prop.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Don doesn’t understand the Agreement and how it works because “he doesn’t get close enough to the [briefing] dossiers to fully understand them.” Ouch. He also said that they tried to explain to him several times that he can’t just leave the Agreement, that it would take three to four years for the USA to leave due to international law. With luck by then there will be a new US president.

Don also said he’d “re-negotiate” the accord. Uh huh—riiiight, okay then. The leaders of Germany, France and Italy issued a joint statement declaring: “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies." You’d think after his disastrous trip to Europe Don would have realised that European nations would refuse to play along with his games. More delusion on his part.

So, Don doesn’t understand what the Paris Agreement is or does, he doesn’t understand how it works or know that he can’t just “quit” the agreement, he cites a city that rejected him as some sort of bizarre reason to do what he did, and he’s even created an opportunity for China to replace the USA as Europe's partner on this issue. What an idiot.

Don is truly awful, but he and his minions are also clearly inept. The thing is, Mike Pence, who is biding his time before deposing Don, would be far worse. Yes, all rational people want Don gone, but right now that would mean getting far right religious authoritarian theocrat Mike as president. The best solution is to defeat Republicans running for Congress and state legislatures. If Democrats can retake Congress, they can stop Don’s agenda in its tracks and take away Mike’s opportunity to seize power. If they can take more state legislatures, they can draw the new electoral maps to restore fairness and equity, thereby shutting out Republicans, and they can also repeal Republicans’ voter suppression laws.

Then, in 2020 a Democratic President can take office with a Democratic Congress and finally get the country moving forward again. But it starts with defeating Republicans wherever possible. That’s the best way to stop Don right now.

The "Make Our Planet Great Again" graphic above was Tweeted by French President Emmanuel Macron who used the phrase in a speech. It was epic trolling by the head of a government formerly friendly with the USA—its first ally, in fact. The other two countries who aren't part of the Paris Agreement are war-torn Syria and also Nicaragua, which refused to sign because the agreement didn't go far enough.

Technologically bashful

Technology is a relative topic: How one relates to it and uses it is a function of all sorts of things, from the personal (education, interest) to the broad based (class, nationality). Talking about one’s technology, whether devices or how one uses them, is always potentially fraught with conflict over privilege, among other things. And yet, we all live in the lives we live in, and there’s no point in ignoring that simply because others may not share in it.

This is the conundrum I always face when talking about technology. On the one hand, it’s part of my life—central to it in many respects—while at the same time I have it so much better than most of the planet’s people. The first part makes me want to talk about talk about technology, how I used it, new bits and pieces I’ve acquired, etc. The second part makes me want to say little or nothing, especially about new technology I’ve acquired.

I talked about this a bit back in 2013 when I got my iPhone 5c, and how I was ambivalent about talking about that. That phone ended up serving me well for a couple years, but it became increasingly inadequate for a number of reasons.

Early last week, Nigel bought me a new iPhone 6, which was on special, quite possibly to make room for the newest iPhone which will be released soon. Here’s what I said about that on my personal facebook:

My old phone only had 16GB storage, which I was constantly using up, so I had to delete Apps, photos, and had no music on my phone (the iOS used most of the available space). I also had to update the few Apps I had one at a time because "Update All" always failed due to lack of space. There was always a queue of Apps to be updated—usually a long queue.

The new phone has 32GB, same as my iPad, which has lots of games and has never filled up. The new phone has an awesome camera and that beautiful high-res screen. The camera matters because I've been using my phone to take photos for Instagram, my blog, etc., and I really like the challenge of that. But I also wanted better quality photos. And video.

I don't upgrade technology very quickly, for a lot of reasons, but eventually I have to. How lucky am I to have a husband who sees that and fixes the problem and the aggravation the ageing technology was causing me? Actually, I'm lucky on all fronts.

I can’t begin to try to describe the lengthy process it took me to come up with that text. I was excited about the new phone (of course), but I also felt I needed to explain why I needed a new phone as opposed to just getting by with my old one. In simpler terms, I felt I needed to justify myself.

Some of this is just because I’m a centre-left person and I’m keenly aware of the advantages and privilege I have that others don’t. It’s not just that I feel bad for others, it’s also that I can feel guilty sometimes that I have those advantages and privilege in the first place. I’m very good at being a white, middle class liberal.

Even so, it’s true: I could have limped along with my old phone for a while yet: After all, I took a lot of photos with the old one, and they were all fine for online stuff like this blog. I have better cameras—actual cameras—if quality matters that much, and it seldom does. And, yes, the updating thing was annoying, but hardly fatal, right?

All true. But there was also the fact that Apple will soon stop updating the iOS on that model phone, and that will mean that over time Apps will no longer be updated and some won’t be available. The whole point of having a smartphone rather than a basic phone is for the other things it can do, and they require Apps.

So, my old phone was facing approaching obsolescence on top of the inconvenience. But here’s the thing about those inadequacies: Sure, I could have limped along, but why should I do that? If the whole point of technology is its utility, then having technology that better meets one’s needs becomes important on its own.

Clearly I’m fortunate to be able to buy such technology and to be able to use it freely. But that’s my reality just as it’s others’ to not have it. My eschewing newer, more appropriate technology won’t change either reality, but it will diminish mine. That, too, is clear.

So, I’m glad I have this new technology and how it will make it possible for me to do more creative stuff and better than before. But I’m also glad that I’m aware of how fortunate I am that this is the case, and that this awareness makes me stop and think so I don’t end up bragging or gloating.

One more thing I know: The next time I have a technology upgrade I’m excited about and want to talk about, I’ll go through all this again. I really am very good at being a white, middle class liberal, after all.

Internet Wading: Winter’s call

Today is the last day of May, and that means it’s the last day of Autumn today. Winter begins tomorrow, and since that’s my least favourite season—well, the less said the better, right?

After a few false starts, maybe now I can resume regular blogging? Yeah, well, healthy sceptism is a good idea in this case. No, this post isn’t “Navel-gazing about blogging”, as Roger Green put it recently about his own challenges. But I reserve the right to gaze in that way in the future. Of course.

Instead, this is a round-up of things I’ve seen on the Internet this past month, including some I might have blogged about if I was blogging regularly—not that I’m talking about that this time…

First up, something I saw by chance: The chart up top was originally published by Statista back in February, but they sent it out again by email when Grumpy Don was on his Rainbow Tour and moaning endlessly about how “bad” NATO is. Specifically, Don bleated on about how other NATO Countries aren’t pulling their weight, but, as usual, he’s not exactly correct. Pesky thing, those facts. Maybe he’ll just talk it out over his non-secure, easily tapped cellphone.

New Zealand joined the Space Age when Rocket Lab, the California-based, Kiwi-infused company, launched a rocket from the Mahia Peninsula last week. The New Zealand Herald talked about that and the company’s enthusiastic CEO, Peter Beck. He, the company, and the New Zealand government all think there’s a market for a company to provide frequent launches of small payloads blasting off from New Zealand, something big companies charge too much to do. Mostly New Zealanders are kind of pleased with the idea of space rockets launching from New Zealand.

Speaking of New Zealand, the current government has released its 2017 Budget. Reaction has been mostly subdued, with pundits suggesting that this budget is just a start at catching up on what National has fallen behind on over the past nine years in government. I have to agree: National looks tired and complacent, and this budget does nothing to change that perception. New Zealand’s next elections on September 23.

“The British and Irish Lions have landed in New Zealand”: That’s about rugby, not animals, and is a very big deal to those who care about such things—or does it only look that way because it’s been endlessly and breathlessly hyped by the New Zealand media? The media makes it sound like this a very rare thing, but they were last here 12 years ago, so “rare” is a relative term.

Speaking of over-hyped stories, the America’s Cup is under way again. New Zealand is doing well. So far.

Those are a few things that caught my eye this month, none of which were significant enough to get a blog post. Actually, few things were, of course. But, then, I’m not talking about that. Not right now, anyway.

Internet wisdom fails label gunk

Once again, I turned to the wisdom of the Internet to solve a problem. I always try to keep an open mind when I try a method I learned on the Internet, even if I’m sceptical, but this time it turned out my scepticism was well-placed.

Recently, I emptied a plastic—what’s the word? Jar? Container?—that used to hold fish oil capsules (photo at right). It’s reasonably tall and has a screw-on lid, so I realised it would be perfect for storing things in the garage, like nails or screws or something like that. I know that it’s always a good idea to first try using what’s already around rather than buying new when organising things—the Internet didn’t teach me that, it’s just common sense (though I see it repeated all the time on Pinterest).

To reuse this particular container, I wanted to remove the label and a sticker on the lid (promoting the fact it was an “economy” size). I wanted to do that in order to put on another label later, or maybe to just write on it. The original label was in the way.

First, as I usually do, I soaked it in hot water with dishsoap, and that allowed me to remove the outermost layer only: A mushy papery layer was still stuck to it with the glue underneath. The label on the lid wasn’t moved at all.

So, I turned to the Internet, and found many places that suggested rubbing it with a mix of equal parts baking soda and cooking oil (any variety). First, I soaked the container again, as before, then I tried rubbing the mixture on the container and rubbed it some more. It did nothing. I used the oily mix with a scouring sponge. It still did nothing.

Next, I took one of those plastic tags used to close the bag a loaf of bread comes in and used that to gently scrape the papery residue off. Basically, this is in place of using my fingernails: It’s stronger, has a square edge, and doesn’t let gunk get under my nails—a win all around. Once I had the papery stuff removed, then I tried the oil mixture again to remove the adhesive residue, and it still didn’t do anything to the adhesive gunk. I grabbed a scouring sponge and again tried the oily stuff with that: Still nothing.

Finally, I washed the oily stuff off with dishsoap, then got out rubbing alcohol and used it to remove the adhesive, using a scouring sponge in particularly bad areas. Then, I washed it all with dishsoap again. It’s now label-less and not sticky—ready to re-use, in other words.

The lid was much more difficult to clean (the label was an entirely different sort—more like a really strong sticker. Even so, the procedure was exactly the same, with two differences: Using the bread bag closer to scrape off the label was much harder to do, and even after all those treatments there’s still a little adhesive residue on the lid, something I noticed only after I’d washed it and it had tried. I’ll have another go with rubbing alcohol later.

So, I’d rate the cooking oil and baking soda method an utter failure. I think that baking soda with undiluted dishsoap would have had exactly the same effect (little to none, on other words), because the baking soda is a mild abrasive and the dishsoap, like the oil, could help make it easier to rub the container than, say, plain water would have. But, in the end, it just didn’t work.

I may try another, different method in the future, but I know that soaking off what I can of a label, using a bread bag closer to scrape residue off, and following that with rubbing alcohol to clean off the remaining adhesive gunk is an effective method most of the time.

Sometimes, clearly, the Internet does not know best.

Non-odoriferous

The Internet can teach us many things. While some of them are merely entertaining, like how to play a game, some are particularly useful, like how to remove odours, for example. Recently, a technique I tried before came back to help me again.

Back in February, I wrote about using a technique I’d read about on the Internet, specifically, using white vinegar to try to remove the fake coconut oil stench of sunscreen from clothes. It worked, and I decided to try it again.

The first task was the most urgent. I discovered that Bella had peed on a mat in the bathroom (Not entirely her fault: She was locked inside all day, and since she doesn’t have a litter box, she was caught short). So, I put the mat in a bucket of hot water and white vinegar, as might be expected, the resulting smell was, um, unique.

I drained the water, gave the mat a little rinse, and then washed it as usual. Being heavy, it took forever to air dry, but the smell was gone. I vaguely remember doing something like that years ago, with a different cat, but forgot all about it until recently (partly because Bella doesn't usually do that).

A week or so later, I had two t-shirts that smelled sour, like a kitchen cloth or sponge left too long without washing and disinfecting. I’m not entirely sure what happened, but it could be I washed them during one of our many rainstorms and then hung them up to dry in the airing rack in the house. That could have meant they were damp for too long. In any event, merely washing them wasn’t removing the smell.

So, I soaked them, too, in a bucket of hot water with white vinegar and then washed them like usual. They came out smelling fresh and clean.

I know that I might find something that this method doesn’t work with, but I haven’t yet, which is the main thing. But the other thing is that this gave me a passing thought that I ought to try more of these things the Internet told me about, and report back on what happened.

I actually thought that after I’d already tried something completely different that wasn’t as successful.

Something I found through Pinterest told me that a soft cloth with rubbing alcohol (isopropyl alcohol) would remove water spots from stainless steel. We have a stainless steel water pitcher that, I think, had been washed in the dishwasher and ended up with water spots. I’d washed it and re-washed it by hand several times, but the spots remained. So I tried the alcohol method, and it helped—didn’t completely fix it, but it’s much improved. Sadly, I didn’t think to take a “before” photo, so an “after” photo was kind of pointless (and in that way, a topic for a blog post was lost…).

The larger point here is that as long as the Internet advice isn’t clearly dangerous—like combining household chemicals that must never be combined—there’s often no reason to NOT try methods, even if they seem unconventional. I will, and I'll continue to share what I learn.

Right now, though, I can affirm that soaking clothes in white vinegar does indeed remove most unpleasant odours.

I wonder what would happen if there was a white vinegar rainstorm over the White House…

Related posts:

Weekend Diversion: Learning stuff (2010) – The first post, I think, where I shared a technique I learned on the Internet. I still use this technique.
Weekend Diversion: How to fold a shirt (2013) – I still use this technique, too.

#CultureOfLove spreads a great message

The United Nations’ Free & Equal project has launched a mini-campaign exploring the role that culture and tradition play in the lives of lesbian, gay, bi, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people around the world. The #CultureOfLove campaign features three short videos that show what it looks like when culture and tradition are opened to LGBTI people. I think they’re awesome: Anyone who is LGBTI—or loves someone who is—should watch them.

In Tradition (above), as the Free & Equal project put it in an email, “a young man in Mumbai brings his boyfriend to a family celebration of the Festival of Holi”. One of the end title cards (shared with all three videos) says, “Culture and tradition should bring us together, not tear us apart”. No one with a heart could possibly disagree with that.

The second video I watched was Culture, though it was actually the third posted to their YouTube Channel (where, as usual, all these videos are available in a variety of languages). In this video, “a genderqueer youngster in Britain joins their father at a soccer match and basks in the camaraderie that goes with supporting the local team”:



Finally, in Family, “Chinese parents shake off their initial hesitation and include their daughter’s same sex partner in their traditional Lunar New Year celebrations”:


What all three videos have in common is that they show very traditional cultures that are traditionally more or less anti-LGBTQI, and how people letting go of the chains of traditional culture and embracing love of family can make the world a better place.

All of this is based on Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community”. In the website for the campaign, they say:

Culture and tradition are profound parts of our lives. They allow us to come together to mark life’s milestones, and celebrate our heritage and the people we love. For many, they provide a sense of home, of history and identity.

Culture and tradition belong to everyone. Each of us gets to interpret, adapt and practice the beliefs, customs and rituals that are meaningful to us as individuals. These are basic cultural rights – guaranteed to everyone without discrimination.

Sadly, some people see the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bi, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people as a threat to their cultural values. They may try, wrongly, to rationalize violence and discrimination as a way of protecting their beliefs in the name of culture and tradition. No matter how diverse people’s beliefs and values, culture and tradition are not a license to discriminate or an excuse for violence.

Culture and tradition are not fixed: they change over time and are viewed and interpreted differently within societies. There are traditions of hate and repression, just as there are traditions of equality and justice. It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves which ones to carry on. You decide.

This is the heart—literally and figuratively—of this. In Western societies we’ve seen rapid progress for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people, even as we see growing repression of, and hatred directed toward, Trans people. LGB people have won, for now, the right to marry and be treated as any other citizen in most Western countries, but Trans people are still left to wonder when their time will come, when they, too, will be welcomed as free and equal people.

To be sure, the West has no room to gloat or to puff out its chest: Homophobia and Transphobia are rife throughout our societies, and even the hard-fought right to marry for same-gender couples could be taken away in an instant if we become the same object of hatred that Trans people are now, or as we were in the past.

But even where legal protections exist, so, too, does violence, hatred, and discrimination. There are many reasons for that, but culture and tradition are often used as justifications for it (as for example to justify the creation of concentration camps for and torture of LGBT people in Chechnya), and it is always wrong and unjustifiable.

My personal belief is that if one’s culture or tradition tells one to use violence and discrimination against LGBTI people, there’s something wrong with that culture or tradition, not the object of their enmity. Love and family must always come before culture and tradition, and when it does, change happens and cultures grow and form new, inclusive traditions.

Still, it’s impossible to wave a magic wand and transform a culture or to make long-held traditions adapt. Instead, WE do that, and it begins with a simple and clear determination to put love and family first. This is the way forward, I think.

The UN’s Free & Equal Campaign has put out some great videos over the years (see also below), and this series continues that. They’re doing good work toward making this world a better, safer, more peaceful place, and they should be commended. I hope they succeed in changing hearts and minds. I hope they help us all become Free & Equal.

Previously on this blog:

Suggested realities (2013) – My post where I first mentioned the Free & Equal Campaign
Free and Equal (2013) – From later the same day as the first post in this list, it was where I first shared a video, The Riddle.
Free & Equal – ‘The Welcome’ (2014)
UN Fighting to make LGBT people Free & Equal (2015) – A post with five videos from Free & Equal
This is my fight song (2016) – With the video Why We Fight featuring the song “Fight Song” by Rachel Platten, the first time I’d ever heard that song.

Issue storytelling done by a storyteller

Political messaging comes in many forms, from overt advertising, viral videos, pop songs, TV satire, and so much more. When it’s done right, it can influence opinion and voting behaviour. The best issue messages come from proven storytellers, and the video above is an excellent example of that.

The video is called “UNLOCKED”, and was made in support of Planned Parenthood by “screenwriter, film and television director, film and television producer, comic book author, and composer” Joss Whedon. He clearly knows what he’s doing.

Over three minutes, Whedon masterfully shows two entirely different realities for three women: One in which rightwingers succeed in their campaign to close down Planned Parenthood, and the other in which the organisation can continue providing the important health services they provide, ending with the direct question: “What world do you want?”

The answer to that question really is about politics, sure, but even more it’s about simple humanity and human decency. While it is inflammatory to say so, it’s nevertheless true that rightwingers who want to end Planned Parenthood are okay with a world in which women die or suffer needlessly. Those who support Planned Parenthood are not.

Rabid anti-abortion people want to “de-fund” Planned Parenthood because, they say, giving the organisation money for women’s health services frees up other, non-government money to be used for providing abortions. Only about 4%, more or less, of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are related to abortion, but to fervent anti-abortion activists, the women who benefit from the 96% of the services related to women’s health should suffer.

It seems to me that Planned Parenthood’s rightwing opponents can be broadly divided into two categories. The first are the True Believers, who are almost always religiously activist conservative Christians (Protestant and Catholic) who are fervently opposed to abortion, and often contraception, too. There’s no reasoning with this crowd, and no compromise is even remotely possible.

The other, possibly bigger, group is made up of Opportunistic Opponents, mainly politicians who exploit the crusade against Planned Parenthood for personal political gain: They feel that they can tap into the rightwing crusade as a way of fooling True Believers into thinking they’re as anti-abortion as they are.

It’s entirely possible that among the Opportunistic Opponents are people who really do oppose abortion on “moral grounds” possibly for reasons not based on regurgitated religious doctrine. But here’s the thing: In the roughly 40 years I’ve been paying close attention to politics, often participating in it, I have never—ever—met anyone who is “pro-abortion”, despite the defamatory rhetoric used by the rightwing. Not once.

Instead, mainstream people, regardless of party, believe, as President Clinton used to put it, abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”. Supporting the right to choose and access to abortion is not the same as supporting abortion itself.

Instead, mainstream people support age-appropriate sex education to help prevent teenagers from creating unintended pregnancies, as well as life skills education to teach young people how to deal with societal pressure to have sex, that “no means no”, and so on. We also support the right to full access to birth control, and that it be free for those who can’t afford it. But if all that fails, we still believe that the choice is between a woman and her doctor, end of story.

Planned Parenthood is involved in that sort of education, as well as providing birth control and related advice, education, and services. Abortion services are a minor part of what they do.

But aside from all that, they also provide the only healthcare that some women—poor women in particular—can get, especially for services like cancer screening. That clearly has nothing to do with abortion.

Personally, I have zero sympathy for those who want to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. Sure, their little fantasy world in which cutting of government funding for Planned Parenthood is morally justifiable must help ease their consciences, but in the real world it would mean that women die. Since no government money can be spent on abortion services (which is stupid in my opinion, but a different topic), then their ability to provide such services is entirely dependent upon being able to raise the money privately. If people didn’t support those abortion services, they wouldn’t give money to Planned Parenthood, and the government funding has nothing to do with that decision—but women’s lives will be sacrificed because of the—let’s be honest here—batshit crazy fantasy of anti-abortion extremists.

No matter how much it drives some rightwingers into a frothing rage, abortion IS legal in the United States. Until and unless that changes, the zealous rightwingers are really demanding that government money provided for vital healthcare be cut off to stop private people from donating money to support a perfectly legal medical procedure. That’s just nuts.

The video above won’t change any rightwingers’ minds, and it doesn’t need to change the minds of those in the Centre or and the Left who support Planned Parenthood. But it could help the huge number of people who really don’t understand what’s really at stake here, and how very, VERY wrong the rightwing is.

And, if I haven’t been abundantly clear already, “I Stand With Planned Parenthood”. I know what world I want, and Planned Parenthood is part of it.

In any case, this video is very well done.

2Political Podcast 123 is available

Episode 123 of the 2Political Podcast is now available from the podcast website. There, you can listen, download or subscribe to the podcast, or leave comments on the episode. The five most recent episodes are also listed with links in the right sidebar of this blog.

The wind began to switch

There was a storm on Tuesday night. There’s nothing unusual about that, apart from the fact we had no idea it was coming. The wind was fierce, often driving a hard rain. It was bad enough that I talked about it on Facebook:

Well, THAT was wild weather last night!! It started raining in the evening, and got more steady and often heavier as the night went on. After midnight (I don't know what time, because I was asleep), the winds began—house rattling and moving winds, "someone's going to lose a roof tonight" winds, even "are we safe?" winds.

The wind woke us up about 4am, and it was too loud -- and, frankly, too scary -- to sleep. We got up about 4:15, and saw the next door neighbours were up, too. Sometime after 5, I went back to bed and managed to sleep.

The wind and rain continued into the morning, then around 10, it all just stopped—no gradual dying down, more like someone threw a switch.

I had a quick look around, and there doesn't seem to be any damage, and no real surface flooding. I wouldn't have guessed that because it SOUNDED so much worse than the weather bomb or ex tropical cyclones we've been hit by over the last few weeks.

Last night, I was really annoyed that the App that's supposed to warn of hazards (including storms) never did. Maybe that's because it was all sound and fury amounting to nothing? No, the new "Hazard" App is terrible, and nowhere near as good as the old Civil Defence App it replaced. There SHOULD have been a warning about damaging winds.

It was the not knowing that kept us from being able to go back to sleep. That, and all the noise from the wild weather last night.

A friend later pointed out on Facebook that there have been other storms that hit with no warning. That’s true, and when combined with the number of times they’ve predicted bad storms that never happened (or weren’t as bad as predicted), it’s little wonder that most Kiwis take weather predictions with a grain of salt.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for them. Being an island nation, the weather for New Zealand is notoriously hard to predict. Even so, it would have been nice to have advance warning or, if that wasn’t possible, at least a warning through the Hazard App.

Yesterday was pretty quiet, really, but this morning the winds picked up again and were sometimes incredibly strong, though not as bad as they were on Tuesday night. Or, did the daylight just make it seem better?

As my mother always used to say, “Whether it rains, or whether is snows, we shall have weather, whether or no.”

Midweek Diversion: Ozzy v. Earth, Wind & Fire

If there was a list of best mash-ups ever, this would have to be near the top—it’s truly inspired. The video above is itself a mash-up of video footage of the two performances, and it somehow works, just like the “song”.

This was made by a guy called DJ Cummerbund [YouTube Channel] did a mash-up of Ozzy Osbourne’s Crazy Train and Earth, Wind, & Fire’s September. To me, it sounds like an actual song, something that isn’t always the case with mash-ups. It also sounds like it could have been a hit back in the day.

Still, the meshing of Ozzy and EW&F is so out there, so beyond normal human thought, that the result just begs to be shared. So, since I saw it shared all over the place today, I decided to do a “Midweek Diversion” post, something that’s so rare I don’t even have a Label (aka tag) for them, and that I haven’t done since October, 2014. Which is not to say this is going to be even almost as frequent as my Weekend Diversion posts, but it does mean that maybe I should think about a label/tag for these posts. Maybe I’ll wait for the next one.

Health and sickness

Yesterday I finally had a consultation that should have happened months ago, and the results were all good. But getting to that point made me feel really quite unwell, and that was despite the fact that I wasn’t, in fact, unwell. It was all because of a weird coincidence of events.

The appointment at the cardiology department at the hospital yesterday was supposed to have happened last October but, for some reason, it didn’t. It was about the time of the junior doctors’ strikes, so maybe that affected things. And, there was weird confusion about it, as I mentioned in the last update.

In the week or two leading up to the appointment, I began to get more anxious about it: What if they found something was wrong? What if I was getting bad again? I think this is the reason I had trouble sleeping the couple nights before that, which I mentioned on Monday.

The particular reason I got worked up about it was some coincidences: First, at the end of that day I had a meeting—a meeting for the same group that was meeting the first day I was in hospital, and I had to send my apologies because I obviously couldn’t attend the meeting that night in August. If the two events hadn’t both been yesterday, I may not have had the very real reminder of what it felt like nine months ago.

But in the months since then, particularly after I was able to stop taking the Clopidogrel (blood thinner), I began to wonder, how would I know if things were getting bad again? I didn’t know it was happening the first time. I worried about that, sometimes too much, and always forgetting that I see my doctor every three months, so it’s not like I’m going unmonitored.

It turned out, there was probably no need for worry. The first thing they did when I got to the hospital yesterday is do an ECG, and the results were normal. It was a bad ECG that sent me to the hospital last August, so this was both significant and a major relief.

After meeting with the staff, it turns out that I’m mostly doing very well. In my last update, I also mentioned my blood test results, and we went over those yesterday. Turns out I was right: My cholesterol levels are really good (I’m supposed to have considerably lower levels than a person who hasn’t had my problem). My low “good” cholesterol is a problem, but it turns out there are a lot of reasons why that could be happening, and they seemed less concerned about that than I am.

However, they want to increase the dosage on my blood pressure medication again. My blood pressure is in a range that would be acceptable for a man my age who hasn’t had my health issue. The dosage was last raised in March, and it has come down, but not enough. So, I’ll soon start a higher dosage, then, if I tolerate it and it doesn’t lower my blood pressure too much, I’ll get blood tests ten days after starting to make sure I don’t have signs of kidney damage from the higher dosage.

So, things are going well, really, and once my blood pressure stabilises it means I’ll actually be better than an unaffected man my age: I’ll have lower cholesterol levels and lower blood pressure. That’s kind of ironic.

All of this was true despite my worry, something I intellectually knew would be the case, but feared would not be. But now that I’ve finally had the consultation, and knowing that I see the doctor every three months, I know that I’m still fine, and that’s ultimately what matters. Well, that and keeping it that way.

Finally, today is nine months since my hospital adventure, something I was also aware of leading up to yesterday, as well as th efact that yesterday was nine months since I found out I was getting a stent, the day after I arrived at the hospital in the back of an ambulance. It all added another layer of coincidence to yesterday. But there was one more thing about yesterday that was good: I left the hospital with no bill. Just like always.

Today’s dilemma

Just now. Sunny came running to me from where she'd been sleeping, lay down and went right to sleep. Deeply, snoring, even. This put me in a dilemma: Should I stand still and quiet, or should I move and risk waking her? I moved, then she moved, and then she went back to sleep. I wish I could do that. #furbaby

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on May 14, 2017 at 7:39pm PDT

The caption for the photo above pretty much describes what it’s about. When I sat to write the caption so I could post it, I really just wanted to tell the tale sparely. When I was done, the last line just sort of popped into my head, sort of haiku-like.

For many years, I never took naps. That was because I wore contact lenses and had to take them out and disinfect them, a pain in itself, and the disinfection process was a time consuming one that often took longer than a nap would be.

After my Lasik eye surgery, I could nap again, and I have main times in the years since. However, I envy the dogs’ ability to just lay down anywhere and go to sleep. It always takes me longer to fall asleep, and usually the conditions have to be just right.

Last night, for some reason, I was wide awake until quite late. I drank a cup of chamomile tea to make me sleepy, something that doesn’t always work, and when it doesn’t I have a second. I had a second cup last night. Then a third. And still I wasn’t sleepy.

I went to bed anyway, and it took me the better part of an hour to fall asleep, though I’d dozed lightly a bit before then. I have no idea what that was about, since nothing like it has ever happened to me, as far as I can remember. Still, once I was asleep, I slept really well.

So, today when I saw Sunny just fall asleep so quickly and easily, I probably envied that a bit more than I would normally.

A dog’s life, eh?

So, Mother’s Day

Among the last photos I took of my mother, ca. 1980. 

Today is Mother’s Day, which, unlike Father’s Day, falls on the same date in both New Zealand and the United States. In both countries it’s very commercialised, with promotions to buy cards, gifts, and for taking mother out for a meal. Despite all that, the day is meant to be—and still largely is—a day to honour one’s own mother. But those of us who’ve lost our mothers are included—whether we like it or not.

Every year there are outpourings of love and gratitude for one’s mother, living or dead, and many of those are shared on social media. In my own Facebook feed today I saw post after post along those lines. I think it’s touching.

I do wonder sometimes, though, how all this public focusing on mothers affects people who have recently lost their mother, or, worse, perhaps never knew theirs, or, worse still, ended up estranged from their mothers. Does the saturation coverage—well, saturation marketing—bother them?

As someone whose mother is long gone, I’m at a place where I can appreciate the reminder. And, I like seeing people acknowledge their mothers. I especially love seeing posts from people who have the chance to express their love and appreciation for their mother who is still alive, because I can no longer do that, of course.

Those who find the mother-focus to be too much, for whatever reason, can mostly get away from it, more or less, if they really want to. But even I was given pause by a game I play that gave me a “badge” when I’d accumulated enough points. “I ❤️ Mom”, it said. I do, even now, but would others mind that badge being added to their profile picture without being asked?

Like always, I try to be sensitive to how others feel, that some people may have entirely different feelings about their mothers or Mother’s Day than I do. But, of course, that doesn’t stop me from liking the day or remembering my mother (or thinking about my awesome mother-in-law, and making sure Nigel rings her, though he always does without my prompting). To me, this is one of those things where people must “live and let live”, that we may not all experience, think about, or react to the day (or our mothers) in the same way, and that’s fine.

Me, I remember my mother every Mother’s Day, and I wish I still had the chance to do so personally. Instead, I can just be happy for those who can, and a good dose of “the feels” never does anyone any harm.

Footnote: Today I puzzled about spelling. I thought maybe it should be “Mothers’ Day”, a day belonging to all mothers, or maybe “Mothers Day” the say of mothers. But it turns out that it really is “Mother’s Day” because the founder, Anna Jarvis, wanted it that way. She wanted people to celebrate and honour their own mothers—but without all the commercialisation. The day began in 1905, and by the 1920s the commercialisation had well and truly set in, and Anna was NOT happy about it. She’d probably be pleased that so many people still share her feeling. The fact it was only today that I looked it up is probably an indication of how little a role the day actually plays in my life nowadays.

High crimes and misdemeanours

Where do we even start? No, seriously! WHERE do we even start? The US has a dangerous unhinged autocrat in the White House, and no one seems to know what to do, or even what the hell is going on. I don’t either, but we all have some thoughts on this whole mess. Here are a few of mine.

Did Don fire Comey to try and avoid prosecution?

It sure looks like Don fired FBI Director Comey because he was investigating the links between Don’s campaign—maybe even Don himself—and the Russian government’s attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 US elections. After all, Don fired two others who were investigating him, so, where there’s smoke there’s fire, right?

That may be, but it’s also possible that it was the people most likely to be investigated (indicted?) told Don to fire Comey, and he did. And, as we all know, Don is way too narcissistic to believe that he’ll ever face prosecution for anything.

It’s also possible that Don just got his knickers in a twist, probably because Comey was getting far more media attention than Don was, and Don hates that. That coverage not only made Don look bad, Comey also had the temerity to say publicly that Don’s lies about President Obama “bugging” Trump Tower had no basis in fact. So, it’s equally plausible that Don just got pissed off for purely personal, petty, egotistical reasons. Supporting evidence includes the fact that there was clearly no plan, no probable successor, no media talking points ready to go, and the letter firing Comey was delivered to FBI Headquarters—not where Comey actually was at the time—by Don’s personal bodyguard, not a government official. It all seemed so impulsive and without any critical thought, like a live-action version of one of Don’s Tweets.

What we know for sure is that their stated reason for the firing is utter nonsense: Don spent months attacking Hillary Clinton over her emails, so to expect us to now believe he NOW thinks Comey was too hard on Hillary is laughable: That’s NOT why Comey was fired, and we’re not stupid enough to believe that steaming pile of male bovine excrement.

But Don’s second paragraph in his letter firing Comey speaks volumes about his motivation, and may be his undoing:

While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

What the F…?! “Under investigation” for what, precisely? Collusion with Russia to influence the election outcome? Engaging in corrupt business practices overseas in violation of US law? Violating the emoluments clause of the US Constitution? Don doesn't say, but it sounds an awful lot like Richard Nixon declaring, “I am not a crook”, and that didn’t turn out too well for Nixon. In any case, it’s a totally irrelevant insertion into the letter and actually increases the likelihood that Don fired Comey in an attempt to stop the Russia investigation (among others). It’s the focus of what Comey was investigating, and that paragraph makes it look like Don was desperate to make himself sound blameless. At the very least, it certainly increases the appearance that it was the motive for the firing.

This really is similar to Watergate.

The comparisons to Watergate have been flying everywhere, and that makes perfect sense: It’s the closest thing we have to this situation. In that case, the president fired a special prosecutor who was investigating his administration, and, it turned out, the president was a crook. In 2017, the titular president fired the man investigating his campaign for criminal and possibly treasonous collusion with a hostile foreign government to steer the results of a US election. Then, the questions were, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” Now, the questions are exactly the same, and, also just like back then, there’s the strong probability of criminal activity by people close to the sitting president.

Firing the special prosecutor was one of the actions that led directly to the probability that Nixon would be impeached and removed from office, so Nixon resigned instead. Will that history repeat, too?

Don will almost certainly not be impeached.

For impeachment to happen, Republicans would have to agree to do it, since they control both houses of Congress. There is simply no way that Republicans—who always put the interests of their party ahead of the needs of the country—would ever agree to bring articles of impeachment to a vote in the US House. Hell, they’ll never allow the House Judiciary Committee to consider articles. We know this because of the unholy alliance of the radical-right extremists known as the “House Freedom [sic] Caucus” and ordinary self-serving politicians who are terrified of losing their elective office and the money-train that gives them.

However, if Don’s situation becomes absolutely untenable, and the House did the unthinkable and actually voted to impeach, then the situation changes.

The US Senate is no less partisan than is the US House, however, it isn’t under the stranglehold of the radical right. That means that should Don be impeached, then there is the very real possibility that the Senate would convict him and remove him from office.

But the House will almost certainly never allow impeachment to proceed unless there’s an equivalent of Nixon’s Oval Office tapes lurking somewhere—or something worse. Then, they’d have no choice.

There are things that can happen.

First, Mike Pence, Don’s Vice President, and a majority of the cabinet could certify that Don is unable to execute the duties of the office of president, and Mike would become acting president. This is the bloodless coup allowed by the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. What’s unclear is, why couldn’t Don just then send his own letter saying Mike's wrong and he’s fine? And if that happened, what next?

Second, Democrats could re-take control of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. They could then impeach Don and remove him from office. Or, they could just do to Don what Republicans did to President Obama with such great success: Refuse to go along with anything that Don wants. That has the benefit of not putting Mike, a religious extremist, in the Oval Office.

Third, Don could just resign. As I said recently, Don may have already been hinting that he’ll resign. But to encourage him to do so, Mike would no doubt have to promise to give Don a pardon, much like the one Nixon got. Mike would definitely use that as precedent, though there’s no evidence that President Ford ever promised in advance to pardon Nixon.

This is not normal.

Nothing about Don, his behaviour or anything related to his regime, is normal, and this situation isn't normal, either. But because it's all so abnormal, none of us has any idea how this story will end, or when. There will be inevitable leaks about Don and/or his people, and there will be a lot of attempts at distraction and diversion—it's what Don always does, after all. I'm not convinced it will work anymore.

But, then, nothing is normal about all of this. So, who knows?!