No voice. No democracy. No chance to fight for basic rights.
It sounds like something out of the Middle East wouldn't you say?
Unfortunately it's not. It's the reality for 600,000 hard working NZ citizens in Australia trying to make the place home.
Now imagine this scenario.
It's Monday, you're at work, you're doing your thing and then next thing you know, the economy's suffering and you're made redundant.
In normal circumstances you'd have savings, but employers haven't increased wages since 2008 so effectively, in real terms you've taken several pay cuts.
Compound this with being right before Christmas and being an NZ citizen thrown into the mix.
What you have here is a situation where you just can't win.
New Zealand citizens who arrived in Australia after 2001 do NOT qualify for any Centrelink assistance. You could have been here 50 years, you could have been here for five years. You could have paid taxes from the day you got here and you're given the finger.
Now imagine you have been contributing to your superannuation fund. In normal circumstances that would be an option. You'd withdraw your funds under severe hardship after providing evidence to support that.
But you see, that's not an option.
You see, before you apply for access to your superannuation on severe financial hardship grounds you have to apply for Centrelink. Not only this, you have to be receiving Centrelink payments. But because you're a New Zealand citizen you don't qualify for Centrelink.
If you are not receiving Centrelink payments you do not qualify for early release of your superannuation funds. If you applied for Centrelink and were receiving Centrelink until you found a permanent full time job then I'll bet you wouldn't be applying for early release of your Superannuation funds.
Imagine another scenario.
You're a New Zealand citizen and because you're a New Zealand citizen you have to prove that you're leaving Australia permanently when your funds are transferred to Kiwisaver. In order to do this you must already hold Kiwisaver, and it's assumed that you're leaving Australia permanently when your funds are transferred to Kiwisaver.
What if you're not though?
What if you only need to withdraw a portion of what you've got in your Australian super scheme due to severe hardship? What then?
The real kicker is that if you were from any other country you would be able to withdraw all your funds from your Australian super scheme without any issues whatsoever.
Why isn't it an OPTION to transfer to Kiwisaver? Why is it MANDATORY? And why oh why are NZ citizens experiencing hardship effectively spat on and given the finger by both the NZ and the Australian governments?
Why must people be forced to apply for benefits rather than seeking THEIR OWN MONEY and trying to live independently? It doesn't make an atom of sense the way NZ citizens are treated in Australia.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Monday, November 30, 2015
How to cope with redundancy
Everywhere you look it is doom and gloom with comments cropping up everywhere that (insert whatever percentage you want) will be made redundant within 20 years.
It's enough to make you panic don't you think? Oh no, what ever will I do if I'm made redundant?
There are really only a few things you can do when you're made redundant.
Firstly, regardless of whatever day of the week it is that you're made redundant, try to deal with the shock as fast as possible. It's never going to be nice being made redundant but sitting around in shock isn't going to help you now. Doing nothing because of the shock will only make things worse because you won't be productive.
Instead what you need to do is plan your next move.
If you had a lot of money you wouldn't be working so it goes without saying that you need to pick up a job YESTERDAY, BEFORE you were made redundant, but it's not an ideal world so that didn't of course happen.
Instead you were made redundant and now you're probably worried about money.
Look at your skills. What can you do? What are you good at? What are your strengths?
Try and generate an income based on what those skills are. If you love the field you were in and would still be in the job you were in then try and get a replacement job ASAP.
If you're in an industry that's suffering look at if you can transfer those skills to another field for example, if you're in Journalism then look at Public Relations. Look at your options. Look at what you can offer employers.
Of course, employment and recruitment can take at least four weeks.
If you feel like it was a blessing in disguise look at freelancing. See what casual, short term or contract work there is available. Look to use your network. Take it as an opportunity. Many newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald report that people are actually ditching the 9-5 and opting to freelance instead. That may be your best bet and then you have the flexibility to write about whatever you want. You could one day be covering a hot new suburb and the next covering a rugby or cricket match or even a concert. The world is your oyster if you're a writer/journalist.
When many people are made redundant they decide that the field they were in isn't actually what they're truly passionate about, so if you have some room to move financially take some time out and don't make any hasty decisions. Consider what it is that you want to do and pursue that. You have nothing holding you back and nothing to lose so why not do what you've always wanted to do? Why not pursue your dreams?
Being made redundant sucks and it's been reported that the average Australian will be made redundant at least once in their life.
Although redundancy isn't always avoidable, and does sometimes come as a shock you can certainly prepare for it in the future. When you have another job you can start saving money. If you have any inlking that the company you work for is in trouble, take out redundancy insurance as most insurance policies will only pay out once you have had the policy for six months. You can take our redundancy insurance either own its own or as an add on of income protection insurance policies.
Redundancy doesn't have to be doom and gloom and it really can be an opportunity to do what you really love.
It's enough to make you panic don't you think? Oh no, what ever will I do if I'm made redundant?
There are really only a few things you can do when you're made redundant.
Firstly, regardless of whatever day of the week it is that you're made redundant, try to deal with the shock as fast as possible. It's never going to be nice being made redundant but sitting around in shock isn't going to help you now. Doing nothing because of the shock will only make things worse because you won't be productive.
Instead what you need to do is plan your next move.
If you had a lot of money you wouldn't be working so it goes without saying that you need to pick up a job YESTERDAY, BEFORE you were made redundant, but it's not an ideal world so that didn't of course happen.
Instead you were made redundant and now you're probably worried about money.
Look at your skills. What can you do? What are you good at? What are your strengths?
Try and generate an income based on what those skills are. If you love the field you were in and would still be in the job you were in then try and get a replacement job ASAP.
If you're in an industry that's suffering look at if you can transfer those skills to another field for example, if you're in Journalism then look at Public Relations. Look at your options. Look at what you can offer employers.
Of course, employment and recruitment can take at least four weeks.
If you feel like it was a blessing in disguise look at freelancing. See what casual, short term or contract work there is available. Look to use your network. Take it as an opportunity. Many newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald report that people are actually ditching the 9-5 and opting to freelance instead. That may be your best bet and then you have the flexibility to write about whatever you want. You could one day be covering a hot new suburb and the next covering a rugby or cricket match or even a concert. The world is your oyster if you're a writer/journalist.
When many people are made redundant they decide that the field they were in isn't actually what they're truly passionate about, so if you have some room to move financially take some time out and don't make any hasty decisions. Consider what it is that you want to do and pursue that. You have nothing holding you back and nothing to lose so why not do what you've always wanted to do? Why not pursue your dreams?
Being made redundant sucks and it's been reported that the average Australian will be made redundant at least once in their life.
Although redundancy isn't always avoidable, and does sometimes come as a shock you can certainly prepare for it in the future. When you have another job you can start saving money. If you have any inlking that the company you work for is in trouble, take out redundancy insurance as most insurance policies will only pay out once you have had the policy for six months. You can take our redundancy insurance either own its own or as an add on of income protection insurance policies.
Redundancy doesn't have to be doom and gloom and it really can be an opportunity to do what you really love.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Taylor Swift has earned her title as Queen of Pop 2015 4.75/5 - Sydney 28th November 2015
Being the opening artist at any concert is tough, but 27 year old Australian, Vance Joy pulled it off with great success when he opened for Taylor Swift's 1989 World Tour Sydney show.
He started with a song about going back to Melbourne to someone he cared about and despite everyone being at the show to see pop Queen Taylor Swift, he drew excitement from the crowd, even those such as myself who were not originally fans.
Joy had only his guitar on stage and pulled off a brilliant rendition of Mess is mine before concluding his set with his 2013 hit, Riptide, which propelled him from oblivion into the public arena, and being of a calibre worthy of supporting Ms Taylor Swift.
Given he's a genuine performer it's hard for even the harshest critic not to fall in love with him or his supporting band members, like his drummer.
There was half an hour between Vance Joy's set and Ms Swift's.
The stage was prepared so that Taylor would enter the stage through curtains in the shape of an old stereo. She drew squeals from the mostly, high school aged crowd when the started with Welcome to New York.
As she moved through her set list there were videos interspersed from her friends such as Lena Dunham and Selena Gomez between songs and vamping.
When Ms Swift vamped between songs she really thanked the audience for choosing to spend the night with her when they could have been "doing a million other things" in Sydney and that it was special that people had memorised her lyrics, when she "writes a lot of them".
She moved quickly through the first part of the set with I knew your trouble, I wish you would and All you had to do was stay just to name a few.
The pace changed with love ballad, You are in love. Swift returned to stage with just her accoustic guitar and asked for crowd participation on the chorus. This was a truly beautiful moment.
Swift is no stranger to criticisms from the media, so while she was introducing her next song she talked about how people should not be afraid of who they are and that people should ignore negative comments. She was impressed that people were singing as if they truly didn't care who was around, and then launched into Clean, which it turns out has a different meaning to what I'd originally thought.
I had originally thought it was about a break up or friendship end but it's actually about being clean from what people think of you and moving on.
We are never getting back together started with a bang, and when the crowd realised what song it was being introduced by pyrotechnics they gave due applause and sung along the entire way through.
All shows have back up dancers, and as mentioned Swift made use of videos from her friends, she also made use of videos during the songs, and in the case of Out of the woods the video was set in the woods while she sung in a golf glitter full length jumpsuit.
There was a short break of less than a minute and then Taylor launched into her final track, Shake it off. Lyrics appeared on the screens and fireworks concluded the show. Her trademark outfit of the moment is skirts and crop tops, and that was her outfit of choice during Shake it off. Instead of going for the usual four minutes, it went for seven months and she thanked her fans once again.
The set suddenly felt like it had been very quick, but the song was drawn out so Swift could adequately satisfy her fans, thank her dancers and back up singers, and just like Katy Perry has done before her, Swift ended the show with confetti and fireworks.
The best parts of the show were her little comments between songs.
Her show is arranged down to the last detail however despite this she comes across as extremely genuine and it's easy to see why she is the world's Queen of Pop in 2015.
If she does get bored of singing or decide she wants to take a break from it, then based on her looks to camera and movements she could easily be an actress or model.
All in all it was a brilliant show and it is easy to see why 76,000 people attended the sold out concert.
He started with a song about going back to Melbourne to someone he cared about and despite everyone being at the show to see pop Queen Taylor Swift, he drew excitement from the crowd, even those such as myself who were not originally fans.
Joy had only his guitar on stage and pulled off a brilliant rendition of Mess is mine before concluding his set with his 2013 hit, Riptide, which propelled him from oblivion into the public arena, and being of a calibre worthy of supporting Ms Taylor Swift.
Given he's a genuine performer it's hard for even the harshest critic not to fall in love with him or his supporting band members, like his drummer.
There was half an hour between Vance Joy's set and Ms Swift's.
The stage was prepared so that Taylor would enter the stage through curtains in the shape of an old stereo. She drew squeals from the mostly, high school aged crowd when the started with Welcome to New York.
As she moved through her set list there were videos interspersed from her friends such as Lena Dunham and Selena Gomez between songs and vamping.
When Ms Swift vamped between songs she really thanked the audience for choosing to spend the night with her when they could have been "doing a million other things" in Sydney and that it was special that people had memorised her lyrics, when she "writes a lot of them".
She moved quickly through the first part of the set with I knew your trouble, I wish you would and All you had to do was stay just to name a few.
The pace changed with love ballad, You are in love. Swift returned to stage with just her accoustic guitar and asked for crowd participation on the chorus. This was a truly beautiful moment.
Swift is no stranger to criticisms from the media, so while she was introducing her next song she talked about how people should not be afraid of who they are and that people should ignore negative comments. She was impressed that people were singing as if they truly didn't care who was around, and then launched into Clean, which it turns out has a different meaning to what I'd originally thought.
I had originally thought it was about a break up or friendship end but it's actually about being clean from what people think of you and moving on.
We are never getting back together started with a bang, and when the crowd realised what song it was being introduced by pyrotechnics they gave due applause and sung along the entire way through.
All shows have back up dancers, and as mentioned Swift made use of videos from her friends, she also made use of videos during the songs, and in the case of Out of the woods the video was set in the woods while she sung in a golf glitter full length jumpsuit.
There was a short break of less than a minute and then Taylor launched into her final track, Shake it off. Lyrics appeared on the screens and fireworks concluded the show. Her trademark outfit of the moment is skirts and crop tops, and that was her outfit of choice during Shake it off. Instead of going for the usual four minutes, it went for seven months and she thanked her fans once again.
The set suddenly felt like it had been very quick, but the song was drawn out so Swift could adequately satisfy her fans, thank her dancers and back up singers, and just like Katy Perry has done before her, Swift ended the show with confetti and fireworks.
The best parts of the show were her little comments between songs.
Her show is arranged down to the last detail however despite this she comes across as extremely genuine and it's easy to see why she is the world's Queen of Pop in 2015.
If she does get bored of singing or decide she wants to take a break from it, then based on her looks to camera and movements she could easily be an actress or model.
All in all it was a brilliant show and it is easy to see why 76,000 people attended the sold out concert.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Rights of NZ citizens in Australia - the reality makes Australia's human rights record look appalling
"Every
State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and
sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences
of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made."
This quote was made famous by Pope Benedict XVI.
It seems as if Australia doesn't know what rights are.
Now, some might say the nation must protect its citizens first, but what if, imagine for a moment that the people being denied rights effectively have no voice. Imagine that for a moment.
Can you imagine living in a country where you have no rights, no voice, nobody listens, nobody cares? Can you imagine being in a situation where your rights are taken away from you and because you have no voice there is nothing you can do?
Can you imagine that?
Well for the 600,000 New Zealand citizens living in Australia who arrived after 2001 that's the reality.
These people didn't arrive to go on welfare. They didn't uproot their entire lives just to have things thrown in their face when things got tough. They didn't pay taxes and set up new lives just to have that taken away if things got tough.
They moved, like all the other people did in 1788 when the first fleet arrived, for a better life. They moved for opportunities that their home country, in this case, New Zealand, may not provide.
They moved for a new beginning like all immigrants do.
These people didn't arrive to go on welfare. They didn't uproot their entire lives just to have things thrown in their face when things got tough. They didn't pay taxes and set up new lives just to have that taken away if things got tough.
They moved, like all the other people did in 1788 when the first fleet arrived, for a better life. They moved for opportunities that their home country, in this case, New Zealand, may not provide.
They moved for a new beginning like all immigrants do.
So what happens when someone moves for a better life and they have no back up? They have to get on a plane and go back to a place that not only they may not want to go to, but a place that may be bad for them.
Ignoring the plight of these people defies United Nations conventions and it baffles belief that a country can have a population of 600,000, many, hard working, people and turf them out, yet will keep terrorists who are citizens and will keep supporting people who are not truly after a better life and who take Australia for granted.
Why should people be forced to uproot just because of a bad circumstance? Why does the Australian government think it is acceptable to effectively kick out 600,000 people who have made this country home?
Ignoring the plight of these people defies United Nations conventions and it baffles belief that a country can have a population of 600,000, many, hard working, people and turf them out, yet will keep terrorists who are citizens and will keep supporting people who are not truly after a better life and who take Australia for granted.
Why should people be forced to uproot just because of a bad circumstance? Why does the Australian government think it is acceptable to effectively kick out 600,000 people who have made this country home?
It's not okay that people who are paying taxes and contributing to society have no rights, but this is the kicker.
These people can't vote. It's not like they can say to the Government, "if you don't improve the situation you've lost my vote," because they can't vote. They don't have a say on issues of national significance.
These people can't vote. It's not like they can say to the Government, "if you don't improve the situation you've lost my vote," because they can't vote. They don't have a say on issues of national significance.
And it stinks, it really stinks that a country, a supposedly Western country, can think it's okay to deny 600,000 people, that's 5% of the population basic rights to shelter, food, water, air and democracy.
But the Australian Government seems to think that treating the 600,000 NZ citizens living in Australia like garbage is okay rather than realising that for many, they don't want to go back to New Zealand, that their life is in Australia.
There are pathways for citizenship, but let's be clear, why would a company pay a sponsorship fee when the person is already working for them? What do they possibly have to gain? Why would they hand over their financials and operational information when the person is already working for them?
But the Australian Government seems to think that treating the 600,000 NZ citizens living in Australia like garbage is okay rather than realising that for many, they don't want to go back to New Zealand, that their life is in Australia.
There are pathways for citizenship, but let's be clear, why would a company pay a sponsorship fee when the person is already working for them? What do they possibly have to gain? Why would they hand over their financials and operational information when the person is already working for them?
Wages aren't the best in certain sectors at the moment and rents, especially if you're in Sydney where the jobs are, are extremely expensive, so based on low wages and based on permanent residency costs of $6000, how can NZ citizens living in Australia gain permanent residency and subsequently citizenship?
And with zero employment security and casualisation of the workforce, how can the skilled NZ citizens get sponsorship from their employer when they already work for them?
NZ citizens are part of Australia's population and as Pope Benedict XVI said, a nation has a duty to protect its population.
NZ citizens are part of Australia's population and as Pope Benedict XVI said, a nation has a duty to protect its population.
What's happened to rights in Australia? Why does the government think it is okay to spit on those who are trying to make this place home? Why does the Australian government think it's okay to not give NZ citizens temporary protection when times aren't good?
Why people should vote seriously in the NZ Flag referendum
The majority of New Zealanders have an opinion on the flag referendum presently being held and running until the 11th of December.
According to a 3 News/Reid Research poll 69% of New Zealanders do not wish to change the flag, 25% do and the remaining 6% are undecided.
Since the voting commenced on the 20th of November people have been posting photos of defaced referendum forms on their social media pages.
Rather than waiting to until the second referendum to voice that they do not want the flag to change they're effectively throwing their democratic right away.
New Zealand soldiers did not fight in World War 1 and World War 2 so that people could throw away their right to vote, and women didn't fight for the right to vote just so MPs such as Claire Curran could throw that right away.
By all means disagree with changing the flag but it would not hurt to vote seriously in the first referendum and then vote NO to change in the second referendum.
All the defacing of forms does is undermine the importance of democracy which not everyone in the world has.
It's actually a luxury afforded to so few and shouldn't be taken for granted.
Change doesn't occur by sitting back and doing nothing. It occurs when people stand up and use their democratic right in a mature and responsible manner.
According to a 3 News/Reid Research poll 69% of New Zealanders do not wish to change the flag, 25% do and the remaining 6% are undecided.
Since the voting commenced on the 20th of November people have been posting photos of defaced referendum forms on their social media pages.
Rather than waiting to until the second referendum to voice that they do not want the flag to change they're effectively throwing their democratic right away.
New Zealand soldiers did not fight in World War 1 and World War 2 so that people could throw away their right to vote, and women didn't fight for the right to vote just so MPs such as Claire Curran could throw that right away.
By all means disagree with changing the flag but it would not hurt to vote seriously in the first referendum and then vote NO to change in the second referendum.
All the defacing of forms does is undermine the importance of democracy which not everyone in the world has.
It's actually a luxury afforded to so few and shouldn't be taken for granted.
Change doesn't occur by sitting back and doing nothing. It occurs when people stand up and use their democratic right in a mature and responsible manner.
The mainstream media has a duty to report facts not post questionable images for click bait (you will not see said image here)
It's been a while since I've written an article here, however yesterday the inspiration struck me while I was reading the mainstream media.
I don't want to go into too many details here, but 30 year old rugby player, Sonny Bill Williams posted a graphic photo of him undergoing the cupping medical treatment on social media.
The image was picked up by the mainstream media (which you can find if you do a Google search but as I don't find the image to be in good taste I am not going to link to it).
There is a line between reporting the facts:
- Sonny Bill Williams likes the cupping treatment.
- The cupping treatment is a medical treatment whereby people have their blood "sucked" in cups to rid it off the toxins.
- How long the cupping technique has been around.
- What the effects of it are.
And oversharing/crossing the line into indecency.
The mainstream media crossed that line by posting the image on their homepages (Daily Mail, News.com.au, NZ Herald). It had no place there as it didn't give the reader the choice as to whether or not they would view an image they may find offensive and it did not add to the story.
It is the mainstream media's job to report the facts, but it is not their job to cross boundaries and report disgusting facts just to get click bait.
That is not what news is about.
News isn't sexy and it isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to be informative.
Sadly that view isn't widely held, with News Corp announcing 55 editorial positions to be axed this across Australia.
Cost cutting may be essential because companies aren't spending in advertising but have the managers ever wondered why that is? Why would companies spend money on advertising when people aren't reading the news as much? And why would people read the news when the quality is on the constant decline? In order to deliver quality organisations have to have quality staff, and that won't always mean sexy stories about the latest medical fad or posting questionable images that people have no desire to see.
Posting questionable images and cutting editorial staff is the fastest way to kill journalism and lose your advertisers.
I don't want to go into too many details here, but 30 year old rugby player, Sonny Bill Williams posted a graphic photo of him undergoing the cupping medical treatment on social media.
The image was picked up by the mainstream media (which you can find if you do a Google search but as I don't find the image to be in good taste I am not going to link to it).
There is a line between reporting the facts:
- Sonny Bill Williams likes the cupping treatment.
- The cupping treatment is a medical treatment whereby people have their blood "sucked" in cups to rid it off the toxins.
- How long the cupping technique has been around.
- What the effects of it are.
And oversharing/crossing the line into indecency.
The mainstream media crossed that line by posting the image on their homepages (Daily Mail, News.com.au, NZ Herald). It had no place there as it didn't give the reader the choice as to whether or not they would view an image they may find offensive and it did not add to the story.
It is the mainstream media's job to report the facts, but it is not their job to cross boundaries and report disgusting facts just to get click bait.
That is not what news is about.
News isn't sexy and it isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to be informative.
Sadly that view isn't widely held, with News Corp announcing 55 editorial positions to be axed this across Australia.
Cost cutting may be essential because companies aren't spending in advertising but have the managers ever wondered why that is? Why would companies spend money on advertising when people aren't reading the news as much? And why would people read the news when the quality is on the constant decline? In order to deliver quality organisations have to have quality staff, and that won't always mean sexy stories about the latest medical fad or posting questionable images that people have no desire to see.
Posting questionable images and cutting editorial staff is the fastest way to kill journalism and lose your advertisers.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
The real issue with the ABC is self censorship from right wingers
When I was studying my Bachelor of Arts with a major in Politics a minor in Film, TV and Media Studies I mostly took political papers that crossed over with media. One of these papers was the Political Content of Television. While I can't recall all the paper's material I remember that we talked about media gatekeepers and how they influence what is published or broadcast. This is what's known as Noam Chomsky's Propaganda Model.
For those not familiar with the model there are five parts and five filters:
1 - Ownership
2 - Advertisers
3 - Readers/Flak
4 - Sourcing
5 - Anti Communism
Let's explore each of these filters starting with ownership. Media ownership determines the content that will be published/broadcast. Private networks such as Murdoch's News Ltd can have a right wing bias because they are effectively answerable to nobody other than themselves and their investors. Government owned networks have to be more careful because they're answerable to the public and the Government of the day, so if you have a right wing government it is likely the views will be right wing and the reverse for a left wing government. Networks will endeavour to keep governments happy as they're the ones paying the bills.
The second gatekeeper are the advertisers. More often than not when a host on a network says something highly controversial the advertisers will pull their money so the network will bow to pressure to keep their advertisers happy. Advertisers tend to advertise on networks or in papers/websites with similar views to the company.
Readers and flak are the third gatekeeper and if they don't like what is being broadcast they'll make that very clear using social media or direct complaints to the network. These complaints could be in the form of writing letters or simply switching off in which case the network would have to make adjustments to keep the readers happy.
Probably the biggest one for journalists is sourcing. When you're a journalist you try to get opinions from a number of different sources however that isn't always possible, especially when the people you want to talk to won't talk to you. If you're a network trying to air views from both sides then you can't do that if only one side is willing to talk to you. It becomes rather difficult so naturally you end up with a right or left wing bias.
The final filter is anti communism. People are very wary of networks which preach communism. Many would argue that is all networks.
The Propaganda Model is related to what's going on in Australia right now with publicly owned broadcaster, the ABC. Right wingers in particular have taken to Twitter to vent their frustrations at their left wing bias. They conveniently ignore the fact that Prime Minister Tony Abbott, leader of the Liberal Party has issued a ban of front benchers appearing on Q and A. The only frontbencher to buck this trend is the controversial Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull who will appear on the program on the 13th of July. Now it would be well and good to criticise the ABC for their bias if they refused to have right wing panelists on the show but that's not the case at all. Right wingers are refusing to go on the show which makes it a difficult situation given that the right is effectively closing themselves off from the public and not letting the public hear their views.
It's rather a contradiction that the right complains their views aren't being heard on the ABC and then they effectively self censor.
For those not familiar with the model there are five parts and five filters:
1 - Ownership
2 - Advertisers
3 - Readers/Flak
4 - Sourcing
5 - Anti Communism
Let's explore each of these filters starting with ownership. Media ownership determines the content that will be published/broadcast. Private networks such as Murdoch's News Ltd can have a right wing bias because they are effectively answerable to nobody other than themselves and their investors. Government owned networks have to be more careful because they're answerable to the public and the Government of the day, so if you have a right wing government it is likely the views will be right wing and the reverse for a left wing government. Networks will endeavour to keep governments happy as they're the ones paying the bills.
The second gatekeeper are the advertisers. More often than not when a host on a network says something highly controversial the advertisers will pull their money so the network will bow to pressure to keep their advertisers happy. Advertisers tend to advertise on networks or in papers/websites with similar views to the company.
Readers and flak are the third gatekeeper and if they don't like what is being broadcast they'll make that very clear using social media or direct complaints to the network. These complaints could be in the form of writing letters or simply switching off in which case the network would have to make adjustments to keep the readers happy.
Probably the biggest one for journalists is sourcing. When you're a journalist you try to get opinions from a number of different sources however that isn't always possible, especially when the people you want to talk to won't talk to you. If you're a network trying to air views from both sides then you can't do that if only one side is willing to talk to you. It becomes rather difficult so naturally you end up with a right or left wing bias.
The final filter is anti communism. People are very wary of networks which preach communism. Many would argue that is all networks.
The Propaganda Model is related to what's going on in Australia right now with publicly owned broadcaster, the ABC. Right wingers in particular have taken to Twitter to vent their frustrations at their left wing bias. They conveniently ignore the fact that Prime Minister Tony Abbott, leader of the Liberal Party has issued a ban of front benchers appearing on Q and A. The only frontbencher to buck this trend is the controversial Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull who will appear on the program on the 13th of July. Now it would be well and good to criticise the ABC for their bias if they refused to have right wing panelists on the show but that's not the case at all. Right wingers are refusing to go on the show which makes it a difficult situation given that the right is effectively closing themselves off from the public and not letting the public hear their views.
It's rather a contradiction that the right complains their views aren't being heard on the ABC and then they effectively self censor.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Was the reaction to Pebbles Hooper's tweet symptomatic of NZ's cyber bullying issue?
I try to steer clear of celebrity gossip but Pebbles Hooper's resignation from the NZ Herald is worthy of a blog post.
For those who haven't been following the story, Pebbles tweeted that the deaths of three Ashburton children and their mother was natural selection. The mother had left the car running to keep the battery ticking over. They ended up dying as a result of the carbon monoxide fumes.
Hooper came under fire and drew many criticisms on Twitter with people calling her a bunch of nasty names. She swiftly apologised for any offence caused saying that parents have a duty of care and on that point, she is right, however she could have been more tactful. Over the coming days she deleted her Twitter account and then today the news broke that she'd resigned from her NZ Herald column effective immediately.
In media, when you're in the public eye people will want you to fail, they'll harass you and berate you for having opinions however when you resign you just let the bullies win. Now we don't know if she was pushed or if she jumped voluntarily but in media you need a very thick skin if you're ever to survive.
It should be noted that Hooper's harassment comes just days after Fairfax's Stuff.co.nz published a story on NZ having the worst rate of bullying in the OECD and the same day The Guardian publishes a story about opinionated women being abused online.
Regardless of how we feel about Hooper's comments, which we can all acknowledge were stupid the question has to be asked, was Hooper's subsequent abuse symptomatic of NZ's cyber bullying issue?
Surely an apology and deleting social media accounts would've been enough.
The etiguette of job hunting - the dos and don'ts.
For whatever reason your existing job isn't satisfying you anymore, and like a romantic relationship it is time to move on. Of course in this economy it would be silly to move on without another job to go to. This brings up the question of job search etiquette, when should you apply? When should you schedule interviews? When should you take phone calls?
I've had many discussions with friends about this topic lately so I thought I'd lay out a few ground rules when you are job hunting so that you leave your current employer on good terms and possibly with the ability to get a reference once you've left.
When should you apply?
If you don't like your job anymore then naturally you're going to want to get out of there as soon as possible but what should you do when you apply? When should you apply? Should you use your work computer? There are certain behaviours that are acceptable and ones that are not. You should absolutely not even think of using your work computer to apply for jobs. Although it would be ideal for you to apply for jobs outside of work hours that is not always possible, so if you must apply during the day then use your smartphone. In today's age you can save your CV to job sites and apply from your phone by entering some text. The bonus of applying using your smartphone is that there is no record that anyone can trace, so long as it is your personal smartphone and it is subtle. This means that until you hand in your notice nobody at your current job will even know you're looking. Some people don't mind their current employer knowing that they're planning to move on but for most people it would be awkward so it's best to keep it quiet.
When should you schedule interviews?
This is a really tricky one. Even if you don't like your current employer a part of you still wants to do the right thing by them otherwise you wouldn't be there at all. If you can then schedule interviews in the morning before work, or after work, just make sure you allow for travel time. If the places are close to your current work then you may be able to wrangle an interview in your lunch break. Now, if you work in a casual job then you'll need a change of clothes. If you're like me and you go to the gym then to keep the hunt discrete you can put your change of clothes in your gym bag and change at the gym or using the public toilets at the train station. Even though you're not doing anything wrong by wanting to improve your future it feels like you're cheating on your employer by looking around for something better so be discrete. If you must schedule interviews during work hours try to schedule them first thing in the morning or late in the afternoon so you can start late or finish early under the guise of a doctor's appointment or some other urgent appointment. Of course, the level of the excuse you'll need to make will depend on the style of employer you currently have. The more laid back the employer, the smaller the excuse you'll have to make as to why you're late or have to leave early.
Do not pull sickies.
Look. Your job hunt probably has two phases. In the first phase you're sussing out the market and seeing what's out there. You're probably flicking off your CV to a number of businesses and not being worried about what happens. You haven't completely checked out of your current job. In the second phase of the job hunt you're starting to get impatient and want a new job. Everything about your current job annoys you from the way the office is laid out to the location to the people you work with, even if you used to like them. As tempting as it is do not pull sickies. If of course you're really hating your job then chances are that you'll end up getting sick anyway. Do not take off more time than you need to. It just won't do you any favours. As tempting as it is, until you find another job you are still an employee and must still show some loyalty to your employer, even if on the inside you don't want to.
Do not breach company policy
When you're job hunting, or even once you've found another job and given your notice it could be tempting to skive off, though the chances are you've been doing a bit of that anyway because you've been so unhappy in your job in the first place, but still try and get some work done. The company is paying you after all. It may be tempting to tell your friends all that is wrong with the company, but don't. Again, even if you're changing industries the world is a very small place and you want to leave on good terms. You may have no intentions of ever going back but you have no idea who knows whom or when you'll need a reference from them, so try and get work done. Try and be friendly to the other staff and though you've mentally checked out try to do the job to the best of your ability.
Do not burn bridges
This is similar to the other one but when you do find a new job it could be tempting to go to your employer and tell them to take their job and shove it, but don't because it will leave a really bad impression. Don't just quit on the spot either. No employer will forgive you for doing that. Instead, if your notice period is one month but you want to leave in two weeks then simply be straight up with your employer and ask them if that's okay. The chances are that because you've been unhappy in the job you haven't been working to the best of your ability and that being the case, although it will be an inconvenience your employer will actually be happy to see you go. Plus a month is a really long time. Two weeks is more manageable when someone doesn't want to be there.
There are so many things to consider when job hunting but these are just a few of the key points. And the main one, to summarise is, try to be considerate to your current employer and colleagues when you are job hunting and seeing out your notice. In the long run it will yield better results.
I've had many discussions with friends about this topic lately so I thought I'd lay out a few ground rules when you are job hunting so that you leave your current employer on good terms and possibly with the ability to get a reference once you've left.
When should you apply?
If you don't like your job anymore then naturally you're going to want to get out of there as soon as possible but what should you do when you apply? When should you apply? Should you use your work computer? There are certain behaviours that are acceptable and ones that are not. You should absolutely not even think of using your work computer to apply for jobs. Although it would be ideal for you to apply for jobs outside of work hours that is not always possible, so if you must apply during the day then use your smartphone. In today's age you can save your CV to job sites and apply from your phone by entering some text. The bonus of applying using your smartphone is that there is no record that anyone can trace, so long as it is your personal smartphone and it is subtle. This means that until you hand in your notice nobody at your current job will even know you're looking. Some people don't mind their current employer knowing that they're planning to move on but for most people it would be awkward so it's best to keep it quiet.
When should you schedule interviews?
This is a really tricky one. Even if you don't like your current employer a part of you still wants to do the right thing by them otherwise you wouldn't be there at all. If you can then schedule interviews in the morning before work, or after work, just make sure you allow for travel time. If the places are close to your current work then you may be able to wrangle an interview in your lunch break. Now, if you work in a casual job then you'll need a change of clothes. If you're like me and you go to the gym then to keep the hunt discrete you can put your change of clothes in your gym bag and change at the gym or using the public toilets at the train station. Even though you're not doing anything wrong by wanting to improve your future it feels like you're cheating on your employer by looking around for something better so be discrete. If you must schedule interviews during work hours try to schedule them first thing in the morning or late in the afternoon so you can start late or finish early under the guise of a doctor's appointment or some other urgent appointment. Of course, the level of the excuse you'll need to make will depend on the style of employer you currently have. The more laid back the employer, the smaller the excuse you'll have to make as to why you're late or have to leave early.
Do not pull sickies.
Look. Your job hunt probably has two phases. In the first phase you're sussing out the market and seeing what's out there. You're probably flicking off your CV to a number of businesses and not being worried about what happens. You haven't completely checked out of your current job. In the second phase of the job hunt you're starting to get impatient and want a new job. Everything about your current job annoys you from the way the office is laid out to the location to the people you work with, even if you used to like them. As tempting as it is do not pull sickies. If of course you're really hating your job then chances are that you'll end up getting sick anyway. Do not take off more time than you need to. It just won't do you any favours. As tempting as it is, until you find another job you are still an employee and must still show some loyalty to your employer, even if on the inside you don't want to.
Do not breach company policy
When you're job hunting, or even once you've found another job and given your notice it could be tempting to skive off, though the chances are you've been doing a bit of that anyway because you've been so unhappy in your job in the first place, but still try and get some work done. The company is paying you after all. It may be tempting to tell your friends all that is wrong with the company, but don't. Again, even if you're changing industries the world is a very small place and you want to leave on good terms. You may have no intentions of ever going back but you have no idea who knows whom or when you'll need a reference from them, so try and get work done. Try and be friendly to the other staff and though you've mentally checked out try to do the job to the best of your ability.
Do not burn bridges
This is similar to the other one but when you do find a new job it could be tempting to go to your employer and tell them to take their job and shove it, but don't because it will leave a really bad impression. Don't just quit on the spot either. No employer will forgive you for doing that. Instead, if your notice period is one month but you want to leave in two weeks then simply be straight up with your employer and ask them if that's okay. The chances are that because you've been unhappy in the job you haven't been working to the best of your ability and that being the case, although it will be an inconvenience your employer will actually be happy to see you go. Plus a month is a really long time. Two weeks is more manageable when someone doesn't want to be there.
There are so many things to consider when job hunting but these are just a few of the key points. And the main one, to summarise is, try to be considerate to your current employer and colleagues when you are job hunting and seeing out your notice. In the long run it will yield better results.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis Allan replacing John Campbell on TV3
A couple of months ago there was major controversy in New Zealand after it was announced that Campbell Live was being reviewed. Whenever someone says something is up for review you know instantly that it is going to be axed. Fans formed a union in their masses to support host John Campbell who had been with Mediaworks for 24 years and worked his way up within the company.
After six weeks of campaigning it came to a head and John Campbell decided to resign before the final decision was announced. Following his decision it was revealed that the show was going to be cut to four nights with another co host joining him.
Obviously that couldn't happen so Mediaworks management communicated with the public that they would be searching for new hosts to replace Campbell.
Two weeks ago it was reported that RadioLive talkback host Duncan Garner and TVNZ political reporter and Herald on Sunday columnist Heather Du Plessis Allan on a new show to air at 7pm Monday - Thursday in place of Campbell Live, Story.
The reaction to the appointments has been mixed with some still wanting John Campbell on TV3, however times change and media changes. Forgetting that John Campbell came to speak to one of my journalism classes in year two at the University of Auckland, (which Duncan Garner did at the Auckland University of Technology - a private lecture out of class hours) the time was right for him to move on. Up until his last six weeks the show was becoming stale with him obsessing about particular stories and with fluff stories at the end of the shows. The quality just wasn't there so it's no wonder the ratings dipped from around 300,000 a night to just over 100,000. That was not sustainable for advertisers who want to get bang for their buck.
Choosing Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis Allan to host the new program is the right choice for Mediaworks. Garner has a strong history in political journalism, as does du Plessis Allan. Together they'll be a great mix. Unlike on TV One, with the exception of Nadine Chalmers Ross and Pippa Wetzell, TV One has a poor record with picking women to go with the strong male hosts like Mike Hosking. It seems as if TV3 management has finally struck the right balance between a strong male and a strong female. The woman will no longer play second fiddle or the supporting act and this is good to see.
A review of the first show will be written once it has aired but I'm feeling pretty confident that Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis Allan are the right fit. It has been a long time coming for the two.
After six weeks of campaigning it came to a head and John Campbell decided to resign before the final decision was announced. Following his decision it was revealed that the show was going to be cut to four nights with another co host joining him.
Obviously that couldn't happen so Mediaworks management communicated with the public that they would be searching for new hosts to replace Campbell.
Two weeks ago it was reported that RadioLive talkback host Duncan Garner and TVNZ political reporter and Herald on Sunday columnist Heather Du Plessis Allan on a new show to air at 7pm Monday - Thursday in place of Campbell Live, Story.
The reaction to the appointments has been mixed with some still wanting John Campbell on TV3, however times change and media changes. Forgetting that John Campbell came to speak to one of my journalism classes in year two at the University of Auckland, (which Duncan Garner did at the Auckland University of Technology - a private lecture out of class hours) the time was right for him to move on. Up until his last six weeks the show was becoming stale with him obsessing about particular stories and with fluff stories at the end of the shows. The quality just wasn't there so it's no wonder the ratings dipped from around 300,000 a night to just over 100,000. That was not sustainable for advertisers who want to get bang for their buck.
Choosing Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis Allan to host the new program is the right choice for Mediaworks. Garner has a strong history in political journalism, as does du Plessis Allan. Together they'll be a great mix. Unlike on TV One, with the exception of Nadine Chalmers Ross and Pippa Wetzell, TV One has a poor record with picking women to go with the strong male hosts like Mike Hosking. It seems as if TV3 management has finally struck the right balance between a strong male and a strong female. The woman will no longer play second fiddle or the supporting act and this is good to see.
A review of the first show will be written once it has aired but I'm feeling pretty confident that Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis Allan are the right fit. It has been a long time coming for the two.
The role of schools and parents in children's education
A few days ago a 15 year old in New Zealand's Hawkes Bay region was tasked with an assignment where she had to write on something she felt passionate about. Her essay ended up getting her in trouble because her chosen topic was the failings of the education system in NZ. She said that rather than people learning Maths and English they should learn how to apply for jobs and how to manage their finances.
There are a few fundamental problems with her argument.
Finance can be incorporated into Maths and writing a legible CV can be incorporated into English. If people can't construct basic sentences, how can they get a job like the 15 year old Hawke's Bay student said? If they can't calculate basic equations then how can they manage their money? You'd be surprised how often basic secondary school mathematics comes up in every day life. I don't know about you but I use it doing my budget, as do governments. I use English every day when writing emails and speaking to people. These are basic skills and the reality is that without English and Maths (basic) you won't get very far in life.
Understandably there has been some controversy saying the term is misguided, which she is, however commentators are wrong about one thing - it is possible to know what you want to do from a small age. I decided what I wanted to do when I was six years old so as a result I never focused on maths or science as they aren't required in writing and journalism. I then studied media and politics at university where maths and science were not at all needed but as I mention, maths is needed on a day to day basis, more than you'd think.
Then there's the other question, what role do schools have and what should be done by parents? Isn't the purpose of schools to teach children the basics so that they can get into university, TAFE or get a job straight after school? Shouldn't CV writing and budgeting be taught by parents? It seems as if some people are expecting more from schools than is necessary when their job is simply to get people educated so they can get jobs or go onto further study.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
What to do when you're in the wrong job
Every day we read stories about people who dislike their jobs and their bosses. In these stories we read about people struggling to get through the daily grind of doing work in a field they do not care about. In fact more often than not people are so disgruntled in their jobs that some believe you're lucky if you enjoy your job.
Anyway if you despise your job and it's not a short term thing that will go away there are steps you can take to make it less painful.
Talk to your boss: if you have an approachable boss the first step is to talk to your boss about why you're frustrated and try and reach a solution both parties are happy with. If that means less responsibility or more responsibility then ask for that.
Weigh up the pros and cons: is it the job you hate or the company? If it's one or the other there are ways around that. You can focus on the positive attributes of the job or the company. Focus on what you do like to make things more pleasant for you.
Money is a big issue for loads of people. If you have issues with the money then talk to your employer about a pay increase. However, if not even money will make you happy then it's a definite sign you're in the wrong job and need to find something more suitable.
In this economy you'd be a fool to resign from a job without somewhere else to go so if you really hate your job and your manager then start looking for a better job. You shouldn't dread going to work everyday and it is much better to leave while you are still on good terms before you completely lose the plot and quit without notice.
If you know what you want to do then that passion will show and sooner rather than later you will find the right job, one that uses your skills. The fact is if you don't feel appreciated or valued in your job you're best to find something else. Nobody would suggest you should love every aspect of your job but if it's causing you anger, frustration and affecting your personal life you need to move on fast to somewhere that utilises your skills and will move you forward in the direction in which you want to go.
Happy job hunting, and if you really dislike your job and have a passion outside of that job focus on making your passion your employment. When you have passion you'll perform better and that will translate to more money in the long run.
Monday, June 22, 2015
The best way to beat the property market is to buy in developing towns and laugh your way to the bank
Every so often the mainstream media gets a bee in their bonnet. They're like a dog with a bone. Unlike Demi Lovato they don't know how to let things go. Day after day after day they focus on stories about house prices and how young people can't get into the property market. They act like spoiled little children who aren't getting what they want. They fabricate the extent of the property bubble. Now don't get me wrong folks, property prices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland are nuts but this is all the mainstream media tells you.
I have a few friends who, like me, are obsessed with property prices and follow it like we follow the stocks, which is pretty much every day. Anyway, we look at the prices on a regular basis and I have to say I noticed something last night while I was perusing property listings, they actually aren't so bad so long as you don't expect to buy in Sydney or Auckland. You can get a large block of land in a country town for a very reasonable price. By reasonable I mean anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000. You probably wonder what towns I'm talking about here. I'm not going to tell you that, I don't want those prices to go up and property to be unaffordable everywhere.
The sensible thing to do where property is concerned is to buy a cheap piece of land in a growing region, or a region that people aren't immediately aware of where there is possibility of development whether it be agriculture or hospitality related industries. Once you've got the piece of land you can then decide what to do with it. You can either sit on it, leaving it dormant waiting for regional growth or you could build a nice house on it and then when you are of retirement age you'll have a property to live in and a holiday home.
The cool aspect of buying a cheap plot of land is that you could potentially buy it freehold without any debt, and that's super cool because in the long run you can only profit from your purchase.
It's not smart to buy in a city like Sydney or Auckland. Sure it's what everyone wants to do but the prices are so overvalued for what you get. It's better to rent in Sydney or Auckland and buy elsewhere by the time you take into account mortgage fees like interest, the actual fees of obtaining the loan in the first place and the associated legal costs. You only stand to lose when you think about it.
Then there's the property bubble that everyone is talking about. What happens when property prices go down? Well my friends that's when you lose it all. Buy where nobody wants to buy and you stand to gain in the long term and isn't that what property and housing is supposed to be about, a long term investment? It's hardly an investment if you're paying too much for something that isn't actually worth the price you pay.
I have a few friends who, like me, are obsessed with property prices and follow it like we follow the stocks, which is pretty much every day. Anyway, we look at the prices on a regular basis and I have to say I noticed something last night while I was perusing property listings, they actually aren't so bad so long as you don't expect to buy in Sydney or Auckland. You can get a large block of land in a country town for a very reasonable price. By reasonable I mean anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000. You probably wonder what towns I'm talking about here. I'm not going to tell you that, I don't want those prices to go up and property to be unaffordable everywhere.
The sensible thing to do where property is concerned is to buy a cheap piece of land in a growing region, or a region that people aren't immediately aware of where there is possibility of development whether it be agriculture or hospitality related industries. Once you've got the piece of land you can then decide what to do with it. You can either sit on it, leaving it dormant waiting for regional growth or you could build a nice house on it and then when you are of retirement age you'll have a property to live in and a holiday home.
The cool aspect of buying a cheap plot of land is that you could potentially buy it freehold without any debt, and that's super cool because in the long run you can only profit from your purchase.
It's not smart to buy in a city like Sydney or Auckland. Sure it's what everyone wants to do but the prices are so overvalued for what you get. It's better to rent in Sydney or Auckland and buy elsewhere by the time you take into account mortgage fees like interest, the actual fees of obtaining the loan in the first place and the associated legal costs. You only stand to lose when you think about it.
Then there's the property bubble that everyone is talking about. What happens when property prices go down? Well my friends that's when you lose it all. Buy where nobody wants to buy and you stand to gain in the long term and isn't that what property and housing is supposed to be about, a long term investment? It's hardly an investment if you're paying too much for something that isn't actually worth the price you pay.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Why Zoo shouldn't be taken off the shelves
Over the last few months there has been much discussion in Australia about men's magazine, Zoo. People have been calling for it to be removed from supermarket shelves. The common theme amongst complainants is that Zoo exploits young women. I haven't myself read Zoo magazine but to my knowledge it features a whole bunch of bikini clad women with articles about how to get a woman to do what you want and how to take advantage of drunk women. The latter has been getting people including the staff of women's lifestyle network MamaMia up in arms.
They have been up in arms because they are worried about the exposure young children in supermarkets will have to the magazine. They're worried that men are being taught to treat women poorly and disrespect them.
The problem is that the anti Zoo brigade have missed a key point which is actually that women's magazines are just as bad when it comes to the treatment of young women and teen girls.
Let's look at Cosmopolitan shall we?! Cosmo is a magazine targeted at teenagers and young women. The magazine features women in the most fashionable clothing around. Cosmo also features stories on how to give your man the best sex he's ever had. Are these magazines really any better than Zoo? They very rarely have intelligent articles and like Zoo they often reduce women to sex objects who are only there for men's enjoyment and the enjoyment/envy of other women. They lead women to believe that a woman's self worth only comes from how she looks.
It starts younger though with Dolly and Girlfriend. Dolly and Girlfriend are tamer version of Cosmopolitan and Cleo. They often feature sex stories and encourage teenage girls to wear make up and that they will not be complete or accepted if they don't. they then have a number of articles on how to be popular and what you should be wearing. The bottom line is that these magazines also feed on the notion that a woman's worth is tied up in her looks.
Men's magazines have a difference audience and so naturally they approach things differently but we also need to realise that often the women who feature in these magzines as centrefolds or other pin ups are paid models who are just doing a job. Nobody forces the women to appear in the magazines. they do so by choice.
Another belief is that the magazines were created by men for men, and the fact of the matter is that those perceptions already had to be in the minds of the readers for them to exist and be published. So is it that Zoo is leading to the sexualisation and objectification of women or is it that the magazine is a symptom of society's long held belief which is that women are there for the pleasure of men and nothing more? Before Zoo the most popular men's mags were FHM and Ralph, both of which closed due to low readership. That should actually indicate that men are turned off by the magazines.
With the advent of pornography on the internet these men's magazines, just like all other magazines and printed media are going out of fashion so eventually Zoo many end up being taken off the shelves. Even if it was though that would not deal with the issue of the objectification of women and no doubt something else would take its place.
The bottom line is that Zoo is a magazine targeted at a specific market, men, and that women's magazines are really no better in their treatment of women. People do not have to buy the magazine if they do not wish to, but we live in a nation which has freedom of the press and that means being able to publish content which may or may not offend. So, in conclusion, if you don't like Zoo, don't buy it, but don't stop others who like it buying it. It's a personal choice.
They have been up in arms because they are worried about the exposure young children in supermarkets will have to the magazine. They're worried that men are being taught to treat women poorly and disrespect them.
The problem is that the anti Zoo brigade have missed a key point which is actually that women's magazines are just as bad when it comes to the treatment of young women and teen girls.
Let's look at Cosmopolitan shall we?! Cosmo is a magazine targeted at teenagers and young women. The magazine features women in the most fashionable clothing around. Cosmo also features stories on how to give your man the best sex he's ever had. Are these magazines really any better than Zoo? They very rarely have intelligent articles and like Zoo they often reduce women to sex objects who are only there for men's enjoyment and the enjoyment/envy of other women. They lead women to believe that a woman's self worth only comes from how she looks.
It starts younger though with Dolly and Girlfriend. Dolly and Girlfriend are tamer version of Cosmopolitan and Cleo. They often feature sex stories and encourage teenage girls to wear make up and that they will not be complete or accepted if they don't. they then have a number of articles on how to be popular and what you should be wearing. The bottom line is that these magazines also feed on the notion that a woman's worth is tied up in her looks.
Men's magazines have a difference audience and so naturally they approach things differently but we also need to realise that often the women who feature in these magzines as centrefolds or other pin ups are paid models who are just doing a job. Nobody forces the women to appear in the magazines. they do so by choice.
Another belief is that the magazines were created by men for men, and the fact of the matter is that those perceptions already had to be in the minds of the readers for them to exist and be published. So is it that Zoo is leading to the sexualisation and objectification of women or is it that the magazine is a symptom of society's long held belief which is that women are there for the pleasure of men and nothing more? Before Zoo the most popular men's mags were FHM and Ralph, both of which closed due to low readership. That should actually indicate that men are turned off by the magazines.
With the advent of pornography on the internet these men's magazines, just like all other magazines and printed media are going out of fashion so eventually Zoo many end up being taken off the shelves. Even if it was though that would not deal with the issue of the objectification of women and no doubt something else would take its place.
The bottom line is that Zoo is a magazine targeted at a specific market, men, and that women's magazines are really no better in their treatment of women. People do not have to buy the magazine if they do not wish to, but we live in a nation which has freedom of the press and that means being able to publish content which may or may not offend. So, in conclusion, if you don't like Zoo, don't buy it, but don't stop others who like it buying it. It's a personal choice.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
How dare Joe Hockey tell people to work for a house, how dare he say such a prepostorous thing.
Work for a living.
How dare someone suggest such a thing. People shouldn't have to work for a better life. They should have everything handed to them on a silver platter and have their hand held along the way. Everyone should be given a house for life when they're born and live in that house forever. They shouldn't work hard or aspire to more.
I am of course being sarcastic in that last paragraph but felt the need to write about the outrage at Treasurer Joe Hockey telling people that if they want a home they should get a better job or work harder.
As usual, the left has taken offense to being told to work for a better life.
It makes me sad to think we live in a country where being told to work harder for a better life is frowned upon. It shows you how much damage Labor did while they were in office. What happened to working for a better life? What happened to aspiration? What happened to the satisfaction you get when you know you worked hard for something and earned it?
Once upon a time it was a sign that you'd done well to be able to buy a home. It was a sign you'd done well to be able to buy nice things, but Labor's two parliamentary terms took away that mentality and people decided they were entitled to nice things with no work.
If everyone has nice things they lose their value. Just look at degrees. Just about everyone these days has some type of university qualification and they're losing their value as a result which is seeing quotas introduced for certain universities and in some cases, like at the University of Sydney degrees are being scrapped. What happens when everyone has a degree and eventually a PHD? The answer is, we create another level.
I'm not saying home ownership is easy because it's not but if you scour the markets then it is affordable. Nobody can expect their first home to be in the suburb they want to live in, so why not invest money while you're working for a few years to get up a deposit and then buy a house in a cheaper location and rent it out or live in a less desirable suburb for a while?
Some of you will say that home ownership is a right, but it isn't. Having shelter and a roof over your head is a right. Owning that roof isn't. It's time people remembered that, and actually appreciated the value of hard work.
If you want a better life then the simple answer is to increase your income. Getting your first property has always been tough so if people want to achieve that goal make sacrifices whether it be going without the latest gadget or getting a second job. It is not up to the government to give million dollar homes to everyone.
How dare someone suggest such a thing. People shouldn't have to work for a better life. They should have everything handed to them on a silver platter and have their hand held along the way. Everyone should be given a house for life when they're born and live in that house forever. They shouldn't work hard or aspire to more.
I am of course being sarcastic in that last paragraph but felt the need to write about the outrage at Treasurer Joe Hockey telling people that if they want a home they should get a better job or work harder.
As usual, the left has taken offense to being told to work for a better life.
It makes me sad to think we live in a country where being told to work harder for a better life is frowned upon. It shows you how much damage Labor did while they were in office. What happened to working for a better life? What happened to aspiration? What happened to the satisfaction you get when you know you worked hard for something and earned it?
Once upon a time it was a sign that you'd done well to be able to buy a home. It was a sign you'd done well to be able to buy nice things, but Labor's two parliamentary terms took away that mentality and people decided they were entitled to nice things with no work.
If everyone has nice things they lose their value. Just look at degrees. Just about everyone these days has some type of university qualification and they're losing their value as a result which is seeing quotas introduced for certain universities and in some cases, like at the University of Sydney degrees are being scrapped. What happens when everyone has a degree and eventually a PHD? The answer is, we create another level.
I'm not saying home ownership is easy because it's not but if you scour the markets then it is affordable. Nobody can expect their first home to be in the suburb they want to live in, so why not invest money while you're working for a few years to get up a deposit and then buy a house in a cheaper location and rent it out or live in a less desirable suburb for a while?
Some of you will say that home ownership is a right, but it isn't. Having shelter and a roof over your head is a right. Owning that roof isn't. It's time people remembered that, and actually appreciated the value of hard work.
If you want a better life then the simple answer is to increase your income. Getting your first property has always been tough so if people want to achieve that goal make sacrifices whether it be going without the latest gadget or getting a second job. It is not up to the government to give million dollar homes to everyone.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Why are people living in poverty? Or is it a budgeting problem?
Every week when we switch on the news we see yet another story about some struggling family. There will be some family in Western Sydney or South Auckland who can't heat their homes and who can't give their kids new shoes. We hear about families who can't put food on the table and we hear about parents who can't heat their house. Then we hear about those who can't buy a home. In this piece I won't be talking about the latter because home ownership is something which should be earned and not necessarily a given or taken for granted.
The first group however is considerably high. If you believe the statistics that are released every few months with great reactions then you'd believe that 14% of people in Australia are living in poverty. Poverty is defined as being half of the median income, or $400 a week in Australia for a single person, and $841 a week for a family of four
If you were a single person living in Sydney then $400 a week would be tight but you would get the following:
Rent $200 for a cheap boarding house in a terrible suburb with power included.
Transport $50 assuming you have a job or studies to travel to.
Phone $15
Food $70
That would still leave $65 to put into savings for a rainy day or for clothing. One could argue that we have a distorted view on what poverty is in Australia because our wages and living standards are so high.
Now suppose you're a family of four living in Sydney, the poverty line is $841, so what could you get for that amount of money?
Rent $350 - $400 for a house with three bedrooms in Western Sydney.
Transport $100
Food $150
Power $50
Phone $40
That leaves $60 to put away for a rainy day or savings for the doctor although the doctor is free. In other words, if you budget carefully then you can survive if you live below the official poverty line. Yes things would be tight and you would have to watch the pennies but you could still save.
This actually brings me to my next point, do we have a poverty problem or do we have a budgeting problem? If you are bringing in $800 a week as a family and you still can't make ends meet then you have a budgeting problem, you also have an employment problem. if you have just relocated to a new area then it makes sense that your income would be low as you would need to find a job, however if that's not the case then you need to ask yourself the question of why your income is so low and what you can do to increase it. Do you have skills that employers want? Are you educated enough? Do you have motivation? Do you want to improve your situation in life? Those who are proactive and want a better life will do everything in their power to get ahead and will not be on the low income for long (think less than two years) while those who are on that long term have other issues that need addressing.
Given Australia, depending on where you live, is a land of opportunity people should have no issues finding jobs and increasing their income. It is the same situation for the young. We hear about youth unemployment day after day and how it's awful but instead of asking why, the mainstream media just says it's happening. I don't support activism journalism, though one could argue that is what I do in my independent blog, however surely it's the mainstream media's job to look at what is actually causing long term unemployment.
Nobody is saying it is easy to solve long term unemployment or the cycle of poverty however imagine this, if you only grow up surrounded by poor people with low education you don't know anything else, just as the well off don't know what poverty is. Is it time that schools in well off areas had a quota of say 10% for those out of zone from the poorer areas? And with private schools is it time we looked at increasing the number of scholarships offered? It seems that the current system is failing people and handouts and benefits are not the answer. Not everyone can reach the top and nor should they, but it seems like some parents, teachers and kids themselves are ensuring they never improve their lot in life.
Parents play a big part in their kids' future and education. Without good parents investing in your education you won't have opportunities and may end up stuck in poverty, so the question is, why are parents having kids that they don't want to help achieve? And the bigger question, how can parents live with themselves if they don't give their kids opportunities? Are they dumb? Or do they just not care?
Rather than just giving endless handouts, what can be done to truly help those living in poverty get out of it? Why didn't they get the qualifications and skills when they were younger?
The first group however is considerably high. If you believe the statistics that are released every few months with great reactions then you'd believe that 14% of people in Australia are living in poverty. Poverty is defined as being half of the median income, or $400 a week in Australia for a single person, and $841 a week for a family of four
If you were a single person living in Sydney then $400 a week would be tight but you would get the following:
Rent $200 for a cheap boarding house in a terrible suburb with power included.
Transport $50 assuming you have a job or studies to travel to.
Phone $15
Food $70
That would still leave $65 to put into savings for a rainy day or for clothing. One could argue that we have a distorted view on what poverty is in Australia because our wages and living standards are so high.
Now suppose you're a family of four living in Sydney, the poverty line is $841, so what could you get for that amount of money?
Rent $350 - $400 for a house with three bedrooms in Western Sydney.
Transport $100
Food $150
Power $50
Phone $40
That leaves $60 to put away for a rainy day or savings for the doctor although the doctor is free. In other words, if you budget carefully then you can survive if you live below the official poverty line. Yes things would be tight and you would have to watch the pennies but you could still save.
This actually brings me to my next point, do we have a poverty problem or do we have a budgeting problem? If you are bringing in $800 a week as a family and you still can't make ends meet then you have a budgeting problem, you also have an employment problem. if you have just relocated to a new area then it makes sense that your income would be low as you would need to find a job, however if that's not the case then you need to ask yourself the question of why your income is so low and what you can do to increase it. Do you have skills that employers want? Are you educated enough? Do you have motivation? Do you want to improve your situation in life? Those who are proactive and want a better life will do everything in their power to get ahead and will not be on the low income for long (think less than two years) while those who are on that long term have other issues that need addressing.
Given Australia, depending on where you live, is a land of opportunity people should have no issues finding jobs and increasing their income. It is the same situation for the young. We hear about youth unemployment day after day and how it's awful but instead of asking why, the mainstream media just says it's happening. I don't support activism journalism, though one could argue that is what I do in my independent blog, however surely it's the mainstream media's job to look at what is actually causing long term unemployment.
Nobody is saying it is easy to solve long term unemployment or the cycle of poverty however imagine this, if you only grow up surrounded by poor people with low education you don't know anything else, just as the well off don't know what poverty is. Is it time that schools in well off areas had a quota of say 10% for those out of zone from the poorer areas? And with private schools is it time we looked at increasing the number of scholarships offered? It seems that the current system is failing people and handouts and benefits are not the answer. Not everyone can reach the top and nor should they, but it seems like some parents, teachers and kids themselves are ensuring they never improve their lot in life.
Parents play a big part in their kids' future and education. Without good parents investing in your education you won't have opportunities and may end up stuck in poverty, so the question is, why are parents having kids that they don't want to help achieve? And the bigger question, how can parents live with themselves if they don't give their kids opportunities? Are they dumb? Or do they just not care?
Rather than just giving endless handouts, what can be done to truly help those living in poverty get out of it? Why didn't they get the qualifications and skills when they were younger?
Monday, June 1, 2015
The same sex marriage debate
Unless you've been living under a rock then you'd know that for the last few weeks same sex marriage has been debated widely amongst the Australian parliamentarians and the Twittersphere. As you'd expect the public and MPs are divided 50/50 on the matter. Of course, those who support same sex marriage say that same sex couples should have the same legal right to marry that heterosexual couples have. They say that it is discrimination and that the Government is disapproving of their lifestyles and treating them as second rate citizens.
Supporters of same sex marriage hold the belief that opponents are homophobic and have an issue with gay people.
Those in homosexual relationships who support same sex marriage say they are being denied basic rights that heterosexual couples have and they want legal recognition in the case that their partner should die, or simple to be next of kin in case of emergency.
Firstly, nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot be together. Nobody is saying they should be stoned like in countries with Sharia Law. All opponents are saying is that marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way. Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children because more often than one of the partners does have children from a previous relationship. The main difference being that if one partner dies, the other may not be recognised as a legal guardian by the state.
Supporters of same sex marriage hold the belief that opponents are homophobic and have an issue with gay people.
Those in homosexual relationships who support same sex marriage say they are being denied basic rights that heterosexual couples have and they want legal recognition in the case that their partner should die, or simple to be next of kin in case of emergency.
Firstly, nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot be together. Nobody is saying they should be stoned like in countries with Sharia Law. All opponents are saying is that marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way. Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children because more often than one of the partners does have children from a previous relationship. The main difference being that if one partner dies, the other may not be recognised as a legal guardian by the state.
That's fair but why require and be obsessed with marriage? Why not just have a case by case family law system?
These days if you're getting married for legal rights then you're marrying for the wrong reason. You can still be with the person you love. The other aspect is religion is dying so why do people even need to get married in the first place? Of all the things you can spend money on it seems like an exorbitant waste of both time and money.
Same sex couples are not being discriminated against and marriage should, as it currently is, remain between a man and a woman not two women or two men.
Friday, May 29, 2015
With unfactual Campbell Live reports its no wonder the show was canned (specific reference to the Kiwis in Aus story)
Last night the second to last ever Campbell Live show decided to look at Kiwis living in Australia, more specifically they looked at and analysed the fact that Kiwis do not qualify for welfare. The report was a whinge fest that took the vey worst Kiwis they could possibly find who were living on the street on the Gold Coast, had no education and we're basically dero bogans (derelict bogans who had no education).
The report was factually incorrect for several reasons and was incredibly narrow in its scope. The only thing the report actually did right was inspiring this opinion article.
The reporter talked to a few Maori Kiwi youths who were on the Gold Coast. They clearly had no education. The report ignored the educated, or even non educated hard working NZ citizens who come to Australia and make a positive contribution. One can assume they were at work and that's why they weren't interviewed.
The Maori people they interviewed for the report were the very bottom of the socio economic ladder. They were what one would call no hopers and the types that in NZ would not do well either. It is no wonder they were on the street.
At the end of the report they talked to a young man, Oscar who said he hated Australia.
So what did they not focus on? What was left out of the report? If the reporters on Campbell Live had bothered to do their job (and it's funny because as of tonight some, including Campbell himself are out of jobs, with unfactual reports its no wonder) they'd have seen that NZ citizens, myself included, come over for work opportunities we wouldn't otherwise have in NZ. The report ignored that many Kiwis are actually very hard working. I can name several, myself, my brother. When I was working three casual jobs last year I was staying in unpleasant accommodation and there were two Kiwis there. They may not have been the sharpest knives in the drawer but they were hard workers and were loyal to Australia to the death, just like me, and just like my brother.
The report portrayed Kiwi migrants as ungrateful and that we just want to take from the Australian government. I know other people in Australia who are so grateful for the lives they have here and like me, can't wait to become Australian citizens.
And on that point Campbell Live left out the most important thing. Kiwis have no voice in Australia. I have written to numerous MPs and when I get a reply they fob me off to the other country's government. That's when I even get a reply. I've only had one reply. So if Kiwis want to maintain our democratic voice it means travelling to a country where we don't pay taxes, where we don't live and a country that isn't our current country. Why does the mainstream media keep on leaving out this very important issue?
The reports like on Campbell Live which are blatant lies and a small minority do not help the NZ citizens like myself who always back Australia, know the anthem, support the country and just want to legally call Australia home and have the right to vote in elections.
Given Campbell Live and his reporters lie about the reality of Kiwis in Australia it is a damn good thing the show has been axed.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Tinder guys to say no to
This week I wrote an article about dating etiquette. I'd like to expand on that and some tweets with some comments about what guys should not do when they're using dating sites. These may or may not be based on real life experiences, however just like Carrie Bradshaw I will always protect the identities of these guys. I've compiled a list of guys to watch out for on dating sites.
1 - The controlling guys. This, this is a topic really close to home for me right now because recently I had a complicated relationship with a guy from Tinder and he was controlling and as friends have described him, a psychopath. I wouldn't go that far but he certainly had issues. The controlling ones will somehow reel you in. These are the ones who are so subtle you don't even realise it's happening. They're the intense guys who ask questions they shouldn't be asking and tell you how to dress or that your fashion sense is whack. That type of thing is okay coming from friends but it's not okay coming from guys. Then there are the ones who try to control you in the bedroom. Run a mile if they do this. They aren't worth the time or effort. And if they tell you you shouldn't smoke when you've been talking for five minutes they'd never respect you so quickly unmatch them.
2 - The guys who don't reciprocate. These are the guys who don't seem to realise that relationships are a two way street and that means give and take. The guys who don't reciprocate won't make an effort on dates or in the bedroom. With the guys who don't reciprocate they could also be known as the selfish guys. In some cases they don't mean to be selfish but in other cases they are just jerks with no respect for you and they aren't worth your time. Guys should be interested in who you are as a person and try to get to know you.
3 - The negative Neils. Apologies to guys named Neil. These are the guys for whom the glass is always half empty. They're never happy and you're never good enough for them. They make excuses for why things aren't better for them and why they get treated badly or dumped. It's because of their insecurities and these guys shouldn't be inflicting themselves on the women of the world.
4 - The one night stand guys. These guys are worse than the negative Neils. They'll invite you over and shower you with compliments but honey you're never seeing them again. They simply aren't interested in anyone. What they really want is a free hooker and women on their terms. They have no respect for women.
5 - The guys who won't date you. These guys are suave and smooth talking. The most you'll get out of them is a drink at some pub but you're more likely to end up hanging out at their place. Save yourself some time and don't go down this road. If they won't show you respect in the beginning they'll never show you respect.
These are just some of the guys you should be wary of. There are so many decent guys out there, but they're, as someone said to me when I was 18 in first year uni, they're the guys who want to get to know you. They're the ones who want to talk to you about politics and what's going on in your life. Unfortunately you do have to go through a lot of psychos to find the catch. A good catch is someone who will spend time getting to know you and make an effort all the way. A good catch is neither too slow nor too fast and they will take their time because they want things to work.
Friday, May 22, 2015
The politics of dating and effort
I often write about politics and fitness but today I started thinking like Carrie Bradshaw about the politics of dating. You see I've been internet dating since I was 14 I believe. I used to go into chat rooms. As times moved on I started to meet guys on Internet forums/discussion boards. It would start with a few messages and then you'd end up meeting for a drink. Some guys these days like to go for coffee though. I prefer going for a casual drink or two myself. At about 20 I started using dating sites. I have met a few decent guys from them but they're mostly weirdos so really, this column is going to ask a few questions and make a few statements about my experiences and the politics of dating. Things have changed significantly over the last ten years.
Let's start with the first point though, the picture. Look, the first picture is so important. I'm not saying you need to have a professional head shot taken because let's be honest, who can be bothered with that for a dating site/app, but please, I don't want to see you shirtless. It makes you look like a tool. Nor do I want to see with some bimbo or looking scruffy with a beard or a gut. If you can't make an effort with your picture what does it say about who you are as a person? And if you can't make an effort when trying to win someone over how much more will you let yourself go?
That brings me to my next point. When I was 18 guys would make effort, loads of effort, now they don't. Where's the nice date? I'm not saying you have to wear a suit but inviting me over for drinks may be cool and lead to more it actually shows instant disrespect. How about starting as you mean to go on? Casual is cool but at least make effort. That doesn't mean you need to text all the time or take me to some fancy place but seeing someone once a month and not doing the proper dating thing is dumb. When you're 18 that type of thing is okay but in your late 20s or over 30 you should know better.
The effort extends to messages. We all know men love food, but asking a woman about food when she's said she's an exercise and fitness addict is just asking for trouble or to be unmatched as happened this morning. People should be able to read cues. Now I do know that men sometimes need to be whacked over the head with a big neon sign but still, reading people and reading between the lines isn't a puzzle, or at least it shouldn't be.
Some people have baggage by the time they're in their 30s but it doesn't mean you should shut someone out. No two people are the same, or as Ross from Friends once said, it only has to happen once. Joey, in episode one said to him to grab a spoon. It's obviously a metaphor for opening up. Everyone has had negative experiences but why hold onto them? I'm glad all my exes are exes because as I said over drinks a few weeks back, I no know what I don't want. People need to be more willing to take chances and be open.
I could start to ask questions about work, age and money but these are topics for a whole new blog and I don't yet actually have the answers to those questions. There are so many things to consider when dating but the big take away from today's article is, please make effort and consider the other person.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Review of Australian and NZ budgets
Every year around mid to late May both the Australian and New Zealand Governments announce the budget for the next 12 months. It's always a question of who will be the winners and losers and becomes a bit of a lolly scramble. Being the politico that I am I always tune in for the announcements.
I must say I am very disappointed with the budgets.
Nobody disputes that people are "doing it tough" especially families but both countries have a deficit - $40 billion in Australia and $800 million in NZ. The last thing we, and by we, I mean both governments, should be doing is increasing welfare for families. You can dress it up as tax credits all you like but come on, let's call a spade a spade. Instead of further handouts, why not promote independence and why not give people real tools to help them? As one of my Twitter followers suggested, why not promote fruit and vegetable growing in schools and local communities? This would help families be more self sufficient, reduce the need for welfare increases and curb obesity therefore helping people to be healthier in the long run.
Nobody doubts that housing is unsustainable at current prices but it's not the governments' role to hold people's hands into home ownership. Home ownership is not a right. We do have a right to shelter and food but nowhere in our Bill of Rights does it say that people have a right to own their own home. What about other investments like in business? People make choices and we need to remember that.
I'm disappointed that there are no actual personal individual income tax cuts in both countries. Bracket creep is a major problem in Australia and I have written about this in the past. I'm concerned that the MSM says people are better off in NZ when the reality is a different story all together and finally, I'm disappointed that students and grads aren't being given a break. Just because the majority of grads are SINKS doesn't mean we have money to burn. New just have a different set of expenses. Families may be the majority but it's time to start thinking about SINKS and DINKS as well, personal income tax cuts help everyone.
The Australian budget was marginally better than the NZ one with a hand up for small business.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Why you should exercise
Every day there are so many things to blog about from transport to politics to asylum seekers and everything in between. Today however I'll be writing about the advantages to exercise because everywhere you turn people make excuses for why they can't exercise and they fabricate nonsense on why they should remain unfit. Let's move away from the visual benefits to exercise and gravitate towards the health benefits.
1 - Exercise releases happy endorphins. I'm not a scientist. I'm a journalist so I don't know if it's the fact that if you're angry and you exercise you end up exercising away excess energy and can't be angry anymore or if it's because physical movement releases happy endorphins. Whatever it is there are health benefits to exercise.
2 - Do you ever wonder why some people never get sick? It is a well documented fact that exercise helps fight off colds, the flu and even some cancers and diabetes. Basically by maintaining an active life you're prolonging your good health and improving your immune system.
3 - Exercise is satisfying for beating personal records. Some people love the feeling of being lazy and inactive but the feeling you get when you beat a personal record tops that a thousand times over. The fitter you are the more you can do. Physical limits can be helped with and increase mental strength and stamina.
4 - You will have more energy. Ever noticed how some people never have energy and they say they're too tired to exercise? That's actually untrue because exercise is energising and gives you a natural energy while burning calories so you'll need less coffee. More energy means you're a better person to be around and that you are "always on" and some of my friends say.
5 - A surprising benefit of exercise is that your mental wellbeing will be improved. I'm not talking about reducing your stress though that is a big advantage and reason to exercise. I'm talking about alertness, memory and general mental well being.
The bottom line is there are so many benefits to exercise and you'd be crazy to choose the television over the gym, especially when most gyms now have televisions attached to the machines.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Why obesity isn't good for you (stating obvious but some people still don't listen)
Like Kate Hopkins I'm on an anti obesity crusade. For full disclosure I was a skinny kid then I ate junk for a few years and was obese until my early teens when I started exercising a lot and lost the weight. Then for a few years from 2006-2011 I was obese again before losing 80% of the weight. I maintained for a while but then gained back 3kgs, which I've now lost since upping my exercise, overhauling my diet and starting ISAGENIX which is a health and nutrition system. I still have 8.4/17.4 to lose. I'll know once the first 8.4 kilos are gone. Anyway I'm back on my anti obesity crusade.
Day after day I see people making bad choices with their foods. I see them eating chocolate when they could opt for water or a piece of fruit instead. They have fast food instead of going for a packaged meal at the supermarket or cooking a healthy stir fry, or simply having fresh fruit or vegetables for lunch or dinner. It drives me crazy.
People say they need salt on food. Nobody NEEDS salt on food. Salt is so bad for people in so many ways. It causes water retention for starters. Water retention may sound like no big deal but water retention actually causes your blood pressure to increase which can of course increase your risk of a heart attack and a myriad of other issues. So when people say it's bad that you're losing water weight when you drop the kilos, it would appear it's actually a good thing and you're lowering your blood pressure. There are other ways to flavour your foods. You can use herbs and spices which are more natural.
Chocolate or other sugar. Nobody needs a chocolate bar or other sugary treats. Instead you can have a piece of fruit and you'll be consuming fewer calories and natural sugars are not as Hague as processed sugars. Sugars can also cause diabetes. Diabetes is bad for you as well because just like salt it causes high blood pressure, high cholesterol and increases your risk of having a stroke.
Then there are the people who point blank make excuses as to why they should remain obese. There is no excuse. Whenever people lose weight their mood improves, they have more energy and often are happier. That's because the extra weight literally isn't there to weigh them down. Extra weight puts pressure on the vital organs and particularly in men visceral fat is bad for you. Visceral fat covers the vital organs. Visceral fat can stop the liver doing what it is supposed to which means your body cannot metabolise foods correctly and that instead of getting rid of toxins your body holds onto them.
Obviously some people don't care enough about their health but given obesity can literally lead to your early death it confuses me as to why anyone would choose it. There are so many healthy food and exercise alternatives that will give you a long and happy healthy life.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
A Princess is born - Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge Kate have a baby daughter
Yesterday at 8:34am, Her Royal Highness Princess Cambridge was born. Her name is not yet known. She is younger sister to His Royal Highness Prince George who was born in July 2013.
Her Royal Highness Princess of Cambridge is now fourth in line to the throne. Prince Charles is 1st, Prince William second, toddler Prince George third and Princess Cambridge fourth. William's brother, Prince Harry has now dropped to fifth in line to the throne. Princess Cambridge is the highest female in the throne's succession line which is very exciting.
There are now bets on what Her Royal Highness Princess of Cambridge's name will be. Popular choices are Alice, Charlotte or Mary.
I'm picking Victoria Diana, Victoria Diana Elizabeth, Victoria Elizabeth Diana. Any of those names would maintain royal tradition and be a nice throw back to the late Diana.
The Princess's first name will not be Diana as the Queen has to approve the name, and it has been said that she and Diana never were the best of friends. It is also rumoured that Prince Charles only married Princess Diana because he had to get married, but he always loved Camilla Parker Bowles.
Watch this space for the name announcement in coming days.
Her Royal Highness Princess of Cambridge is now fourth in line to the throne. Prince Charles is 1st, Prince William second, toddler Prince George third and Princess Cambridge fourth. William's brother, Prince Harry has now dropped to fifth in line to the throne. Princess Cambridge is the highest female in the throne's succession line which is very exciting.
There are now bets on what Her Royal Highness Princess of Cambridge's name will be. Popular choices are Alice, Charlotte or Mary.
I'm picking Victoria Diana, Victoria Diana Elizabeth, Victoria Elizabeth Diana. Any of those names would maintain royal tradition and be a nice throw back to the late Diana.
The Princess's first name will not be Diana as the Queen has to approve the name, and it has been said that she and Diana never were the best of friends. It is also rumoured that Prince Charles only married Princess Diana because he had to get married, but he always loved Camilla Parker Bowles.
Watch this space for the name announcement in coming days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)