Music Review: Taylor Swift's 1989 (Deluxe Version)

Taylor Swift's latest album, 1989 was released today and being a Swift fan I purchased the album immediately upon discovering it had been released earlier than the expected time of midnight on the 28th of October.

The first single from the album, Shake it Off is similar to Speak Now's Mean, in that it is about dealing with bullies and 'shaking off" their comments.  There have been rumours that it was about her feud with Katy Perry, which she hasn't confirmed or denied.  It's the first single she's released that's a major departure from her traditional country pop sound and is up tempo.  The track was highly successful going to number one in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The second single, Out of the Woods is a typical Swift song.  It's about a break up she went through.  The relationship was going through a period of turbulence and she was wondering "are we out of the woods?".  That's the general premise of the song.  The mainstream media has reported this song is about One Direction's Harry Styles.  Taylor hasn't confirmed or denied this only saying that she thinks questions about her love life are sexist.

My favourite song on this album, Welcome to New York is very upbeat and about Swift's move to New York.  Like most songs about New York she sings about how it's a place of opportunity with people having opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have.  It has a very catchy beat and Swift is singing about her experiences upon moving to New York.  She sings that New York has been waiting for people.  Despite not being officially released as a single, it went to number 6 on the New Zealand charts and 23 on the Aussie charts.  It reminds me a bit of Red's The Lucky One which was about fame and success.  This is a song for anyone who wants to move forward in their life and reach success.  It is the first track on the album and really sets the tone of being upbeat.

New Romantics, track 16 on the deluxe version is a reflective song where Taylor sings about how we're constantly learning in life but trying to show off and appear to be cooler than everyone else.  She describes everyday as a battle.  The lyrics on this track are actually quite dark, but because of the structure of the song in that it's upbeat and uses warm notes it doesn't appear that way.  It has elements of hope.

There are three voice memos at the end of the album where Swift goes into details about the song writing process on a few of the songs which feature on this album.  They give you some insight into how Swift works with her producers and song writing crew.

It's an odd comparison but Wildest Dreams reminds me of tracks from Lana Del Rey's album Ultraviolence.  The only differences between Swift and Del Rey are that Swift tends to sing at a higher pitch and slightly more upbeat than Del Rey, but there are certainly echos of her.

My only criticism of this album, is that although it is very polished it is too polished and it looks like Swift has sold out from her original style.  Her voice is more edited than it has been on other albums.  This said, as someone posted on Twitter last week - she sold out, but we still purchase the music despite this.

Overall I think this is a really great effort from Taylor and it will be on high rotate on my iPhone.  I give it a 4.5/5 stars.

What computing device is right for you?

You could be forgiven for thinking technology is moving along faster than you can keep up - iPhones, iPads, lap tops, desk tops, tablets, phablets.  Sometimes it can be hard to know what you should own and it can be hard to know what device is right for you.  In this blog my intention is to offer you some advice and opinions on what device is right for you.

Desktop
A desktop computer is probably most suitable for those of you who don't need to take your computer out and who don't need portability.  Despite lap tops and tablets or iPads selling higher quantities than desktops which have steadily declined in the last few years dew to the availability of new technology.  Figures are hard to find but data and research shows that PC sales are down more than 10%. 

However, just because PC sales are down doesn't mean you shouldn't have one.  It depends on your needs.  If you work in an office environment then a desktop could be right for you because they offer more storage and functionality than lap tops or iPads and other tablets.  The biggest tablet only had 128GB worth of data and costs approximately the same as a desktop computer.  If you write a lot of documents or use design suites like Adobe Photoshop and Final Cut Pro then a desktop may be best for you.

Lap top
A lap top is highly portable and Apple's new MacBook Air and MacBook Pros are lighter than other other lap tops on the market.  This makes portability much easier.  The only downside to the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro is that they do not come with a pre-installed DVD drive but you can purchase one of these for $99AUD from the Apple store.  Apple removed the DVD drive as people move away from disks to digital data and presumably to cut down on weight and make the device lighter.  A lap top is good for those who don't have a fixed office location and for those who want to take their lap top with them on trips or to meetings.  The lap top is good if you write a lot.  Writing is possible on tablets and iPads however it becomes tough after a while and these devices have limited functionality.

A lap top is also suitable for someone who does a lot of web browsing and requires more storage than what tablets and iPads do, and unlike iPads you can upgrade your data storage from the "off the rack" pre determined about by paying approximately $200AUD in the case of Apple.  You may not need to upgrade your storage though because of the Apple and Windows clouds which you can pay an annual subscription to use.  In many ways this is better than if you were to store files on your computer because when you upgrade you don't have to worry about losing the data and transferring it over is much simpler.

iPad/Other tablets
It appears as if everyone has been sucked into the hype surrounding tablets and believes they need one,  The reality is much different.  As I've previously mentioned, tablets have limited functionality and while you can type for a short amount of time, its not practical to type for extended periods and this is where a PC/Mac Desktop or lap top will always win out.

Tablets are good for editing photos and movies and can be good for browsing the internet on a short term basis however anything longer and you're best to get a lap top.  The other advantage of a tablet is that they are significantly more portable than a lap top and lighter so easier to carry.  Tablets have longer lasting batteries but they have limited storage as previously highlighted.

Smartphone/iPhone
The latest iPhone 6 and 6 Plus is more of a cross between a phone and a tablet, a phablet, due to its bigger screen and increased data storage capabilities.  The lastest iPhone is very easy to use and has excellent battery life.  I'm a high user and it's so nice to only need to charge it once or twice a day or an hour if I'm out and about and cant charge it for longer than that

The new iPhone has been designed to rival tablets and computers.  It's been designed in such a way that watching videos, recording videos and taking photographs, doing your banking, email and other tasks is much more enjoyable.  If you have a new iPhone it actually removes the need for a tablet because the functions are similar however you have the added bonus of being able to make phone calls, which you can't do on an iPad unless you use FaceTime, but that is only compatible with other Apple iPhone users.

The bottom line is, there are so many technological options and it can be hard to know which is right for you.  If you are out and about and have an iPhone then chances are you don't actually need an iPad.  Given the performance and functionality of lap tops and desktops, if you have a smartphone you're best sticking with the older technology rather than having an additional device.  It doesn't make sense to have a traditional Mac or PC computer, a tablet and a smart phone.  If you want portability and own a smartphone then a lap top is your best option.

As a random aside, IBM actually invested the first touch screen smartphone, but that was back in 1994.  It was called the IBM Simon and was effectively the first version of what we know as a smartphone today, however due to poor internet and low market adoption it was only on the market for six months before being discontinued after 50,000 sales.  It was black and white and a brick compared to the phones and tablets we see today.

Why university & following your passions is important

Now earlier in the week I wrote about the injustice of the New Zealand student loan scheme.  NZ news site www.stuff.co.nz has been inviting people, through their Stuff Nation platform, to submit stories on whether or not they think an education in New Zealand was worthwhile.  The overwhelming response was that education is a waste of time unless you're going to become a doctor or a lawyer.  The purpose of today's post is to refute that.

As some readers will know, I have a Post Graduate Diploma in Communications, Bachelor of Arts and a Diploma in Broadcasting.  A lesser known fact is that I hold half a Diploma in Advertisinh & have taken marketing papers at university.

There are people who say you should only attend university to get a job but the problem with that is it could lead to people studying things they despise or that they do not have a natural aptitude for.  This in turn would cost the taxpayer more money because of the cost involved in paying for people's unfinished qualifications.

Often following university one of three things will happen:

1 - You'll get a job in your field easily.

2 - You'll give up either for financial reasons or you just don't care enough about your chosen field.

3 - You'll be so passionate about your field that you'll make sacrifices.

If you fall into category one then you are very lucky however some industries like media and manufacturing are going through changes which means only the truly committed will get a job.

Category two disappoints me because nobody should ever give up on their dreams and passions if that's what gets you up in the morning however it should be acknowledged that dreams can change over time.

Then of course there are the people who try to balance money with their passion.  These are the people who will only work to cover their bills while pursuing their calling.  They're the people who work part time and in their free time they're working on their goals.  You see, they're driven but realistic at the same time.  They know they need to survive but they also don't want to wake up one day wishing they'd followed their dreams.

It's all very well and good for people to say that people should only study at university to get a job but no two degrees are equal because people take different electives outside of the compulsory papers and they approach the job hunt differently.  There are those who make excuses as to why they aren't getting ahead and there are those who are so driven that they'll do whatever it takes to succeed.  These are the people who will use small gains to propel them forward.  These are the ones who are willing to work for free following completion of their study to gain experience.  

Some people don't care about what they do as long as they're generating an income but there are others who can't do jobs they hate.  While I was at university, until my last job at a news agency which I loved until being forced to resign because of upcoming redundancies, I had jobs I hated.  Often if you hate a job you won't perform as well as if you're in a job you live and enjoy going to.

Those receiving welfare don't contribute to society but students through student loans and taxes they pay while working do contribute.  It would be wrong to deny people an education based on what someone deems useful or useless.  What if by doing so someone's exceptional talent doesn't have the chance to be developed and recognised.

People have missed the point of an education.  It is to open up doors and opportunities but like anything it is up to the individual what they do with them.

Key failings of NSW Transport

Earlier this year I raved about how awesome Sydney's public transport network is but that is not true.  In some parts of the city it's great, the inner suburbs are fine and the buses and trains to Bondi are generally pretty good too but try getting an enjoyable trip on the North Western routes - that's Penrith to Hornsby and its a nightmare.

Aside from not having enough trains, during peak hours they're always crowded and you're lucky to get a seat and if you're standing then you'll be packed in like sardines with absolutely zero personal space.  This is made worse by the fact half of Aussies are overweight or obese so even if you do get a seat and you're little, you're likely to be squashed to the wall.

The NSW Transpory Minister Gladys Berejiklian seems to think that light rail and one level trains will alleviate the problem but it won't.  When you see photos of her have you noticed that she's always at stations during non peak hours and that she probably doesn't have to endure crowded trains so doesn't get a true picture of what it's like to use public transport for long commutes of at least an hour, some purple have to commute for two hours.  And that's just one way.

The NSW Transport Department and NSW Trains need to start talking to people who use public transport on a regular basis.  For the most part it's good and better than other cities like Auckland but there are key areas where it's failing.  That is ignoring the matter of Opal, which will eventually be forced upon us. 

Why someone may vote in a country even after physically leaving.

I live in Australia as I have done for what will be the last ten months tomorrow.  Although, if you include previous times I've lived here then it's actually on and off since 2008, a total of six years.  I voted in this year's New Zealand General Election.  This is something that people do not understand.  They can't comprehend why you would vote in a country that you do not live in.  The common view is that if you do not live in a country the policies do not affect you and that you have no right to have a say.

Well my friends, that is what I want to discuss today.

I am a New Zealand Citizen.  And it is my legal right to vote, as any and all citizens should do.  The ANZACs back in the first world war and the second world war didn't fight for our freedoms so we could throw out our right to vote.  They fought so we could enjoy civil liberties such as voting.  When only 77.6% of the voting public exercise their right to determine who leads the Government it's absolutely essential that those who are interested do vote.  Just to emphasise that again, it's our legal right and there are people in the world living in dictatorships who can't vote.  If you look at the fact women haven't always had the right to vote then you'd understand how important it is we take an interest in democracy.

Just because you aren't in a country doesn't mean you aren't affected by Government policies.  I hold a New Zealand passport and that means when I travel overseas I am doing so as a New Zealand citizen.  That is what I am in the eyes of the law.  This means New Zealand's foreign policy can affect people outside of the country.  Then there is education and tax policy.  If you hold a student loan then you're still tied to NZ, which means that Government decisions in these areas will have an influence on your life so why shouldn't you have a say on the matters which affect you.

Another thing is, if you hold bank accounts or an investment property, or even if you plan to purchase an investment property down the line then tax policy will affect you.  If you're being affected by tax policy and have connections with a country then you should absolutely have the right to vote and should exercise that right.

Another reason you should vote is that you may not hold the right to vote in another country.  Until I'm an Australian citizen, 3 years, 2 months and 1 day away (plus processing time) New Zealand is the only country I'm able to vote in and given I studied politics at university it is vitally important to me that I exercise my right to vote.  If I wasn't to vote in NZ then in essence I would have no democratic voice.  And if that was the case then are we really any better than countries in the East that we look down upon for their treatment of citizens.

The main point of this blog post is to highlight the fact that just because you are not physically in a country doesn't mean you no longer have ties with the country.  Quite often you would still have financial or social ties to a country even after you've left.  These social ties could include friends and family members still in the country of origin.  So as long as I legally can I will continue to vote in NZ, that may change down the line when I am an Australian citizen and can vote here, but until then, I have a New Zealand passport so legislation introduced there affects me.

It appears as if Lambie is the self elected whipping girl in this Australian partiamentary term.

There's always one politician in one country that cops a lot of flak.  Prior to this year's New Zealand election it was NZ First MP Asenati Lole Taylor who faced a torrent of abuse.  Then it was former Labour leader David Shearer for being inarticulate and too weak.  Then it was former Labour leader David Cunliffe for being too arrogant.  In Australia former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd received flak for being difficult to work with, Gillard for allegedly lying.  Going back to the 90s, Pauline Hanson copped a lot of grief for her views on race relations.  Well, it seems the girl everybody hates is Tasmanian Senator for the Palmer United Party Jacqui Lambie.

A while ago she copped it for saying she wants a man who is well endowed.  Then she copped it for saying she's worried about the Chinese invading and today, sure to form in the media, and Twitter, she's copped it for asking a question of the Senate, "is it possible for ebola to be used by suicide bombers?"

On the surface we think, "what an idiot" and that it's not possible, but lets look at things another way.  Say we go back to September 11 2001, did you think it would be possible for aircraft to be flown into a building.  We didn't think a subway bombing in London would be possible, or that the Bali bombers would attack a night club.  If you remember then back in 2001 Anthrax was a threat.  That was biological terrorism.  So what's to say Lambie's hypothetical situation of ebola being used couldn't happen?  There's no doubt that there are plans in place and maybe that's actually what she was asking, and wanting detail on.  Remember, we wouldn't have thought someone born in Australia with Aussie citizenship would want to kill the Prime Minister of the country.

Do I think it's likely that ebola is a threat?  No, do I think it's possible though?  Yes, given recent history which shows the impossible can be possible and that the unexpected can happen, I do think we need to be prepared but I have faith that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will already have this contingency plan in place should such an event ever arise.

When it comes to Lambie, she may be bad at expressing herself and come across as a bogan, but she's doing more for Australia than you or I, so even if we don't agree with her, we need to give her a break because she's actually trying to make a difference and because she cares more about the future of the country than others.

It seems as if she's become the whipping girl this year now that Rudd and Gillard are gone.

Arresting people and chucking them in prison preventing them working won't recover student loan money, working with overseas tax offices will

Fairfax's New Zealand news site published a story this weekend where they reported that an Auckland accounting firm Andersen Accountants was offering advice to graduates living overseas to declare bankruptcy due to the crippling interest on student loans.  The crippling interest can make a student loan unaffordable for even the most honest person who wants to do the right thing.

As you can imagine because students are supposedly evil, the majority of reader comments on the article criticised students as being bludgers, saying that they never paid taxes, that they basically stole from the taxpayer and that they should be arrested at the border.

Lets consider a few facts though, and this is coming from someone with a student loan who cannot make the minimum repayments.  Before I go into what I think I will explain my situation.

I have been working since I was 16 years old, so the last 12 years.  Most of that was in NZ but I left NZ for Australia in 2008 for the first time so interest was added to my loan, then I left another couple of times so more interest was added, and I left in December last year so at least $4000 worth of interest has been added in six months.  So why didn't I work in NZ?  The company I was working for in New Zealand announced upcoming redundancies so my plan to move back to Sydney was put into motion and made active.  If I'd stayed in NZ then more than likely I would have stayed with the media company I was with and been made redundant in May of this year, and then sat on a benefit for God knows how long, or ended up in a call centre.  You see, today, the NZ Herald reported that call centre jobs are the growth area in Auckland.  You do not attend university to work in a call centre or sit on a benefit and why should people be punished for deciding to create a better life for themselves?

Next up, consider the financial positions of former students living overseas.  They may have debt.  I know I have private debt and because that impacts things, little things, like even being able to rent an apartment it has to come first or I have to keep living in backpackers or hostels when I'm reliable with my rent and always have been.  People may genuinely not be able to afford the minimum payments which are basically based on 10% of your student loan, not on what you can actually afford.  So to give you an example - let's say you have a loan of $50,000 (and some, like me owe more) then your minimum payment is $5000 a year.  Let's consider you have to pay $10,000 in rent a year (based on a modest $200 a week in a modest suburb in Sydney's inner west) but let's figure this, you still have to eat, you still have to cover your other debts, you still have to buy clothes and shoes for work, and you may have unstable work, so you also have to save for when you have no work, because casuals in Australia don't get holiday or sick pay.  So even if your income was low and you genuinely couldn't afford the repayments, you my friend, well you would be arrested at NZ Customs trying to enter or trying to leave.

Okay, so you then get a stable job, so you have to service your private debt first, now what if you made stupid decisions with money when you were younger?  Then chances are you may have a very high amount of private debt where you should be paying at least $100 - $200 a week on that.  As that debt is going down and affecting your everyday life in your new country you're going to prioritise it.

So the simple question remains, how is arresting people at the border when, like all bad financial situations, they may just need more time?  How is stopping them leaving going to help when they have jobs overseas and commitments overseas?  Will imprisoning someone while they're sorting out their finances really help the Government recover the money?

The problem, and the main reason why people overseas don't pay their loans is because they simply cannot afford to and if the interest was removed then they would probably make more of an effort, but why would you pay a debt that doesn't affect your everyday life when there are private debts that do?  And why would you pay an ever growing debt when you could pay the decreasing debts that affect your day to day living?  Why would you pay a debt that is primarily made up of interest?

The NZ Government needs to work with overseas tax offices and base repayments on actual income.  If you are in NZ then 12% of what you actually earn will go onto your loan, while if you are overseas at present, the NZ IRD doesn't work with the Australian Tax Office for example, why not?  Why haven't they looked at this?  This would stop people defaulting on their loans.  And why not remove the ridiculous minimums?  Why should someone like me, face being arrested because of our financial position?  This also affects our voting rights because given we could be arrested at the border and stranded in NZ do you really think we'd be dumb enough to re-enter the country?  We have to once every three years to maintain our voting rights if we're an NZ citizen.   Are we supposed to just forgo our right to vote when we're good citizens?  What right does the NZ Government have to take away our right to vote when the policy affects us?

Also, what IS a serious defaulter?  I make payments on my loan where I can but certainly not the minimum because I simply cannot afford it.  I only hold citizenship in ONE country at present and that means if something goes wrong I'm on my own.  Are we so stupid that we want to protect our new lives?  If the NZ IRD worked with the ATO at least then people wouldn't default because short of defrauding the Australian Government, defaulting simply would not be possible.

It astounded me to read half the comments on the Stuff.co.nz article.  Former students/graduates of NZ universities may in fact have paid their student loan while they were in the country, paid taxes and generally contributed to the economy, yet those commentators made it out like former students never paid taxes and that is untrue.

The legislation needs reviewing, but anyone who does want to consider bankruptcy really needs to know it is not the easy way out and I can't see it becoming a legitimate option for people because it prohibits your opportunities to travel, you can't have more than $500 in savings, you can't control your finances etc.  Sometimes NEARLY going bankrupt is actually the push you need to get your finances in order, but legislation around student loans needs reviewing otherwise people will continue to default and NEVER return to NZ because of the prospect of being arrested.