THEY SHOULD SHOOT JETSKIERS SHOULDN'T THEY?

Richard fairly ranted against cyclists in his Blog. They can be a nuisance but a bicycle is a legitimate form of transport. Jetskis however are a complete waste of space driven by sales manager types who are wannabe bikies but lack the gumption to buy a Harley. These arseholes transport their expensive hunk of junk to peaceful and pristine water environments and then race up and down spewing out fumes and noise being totally oblivious to everyything and everyone around them.

I live in Point Chevalier in Auckland, close to the water where there is a marine reserve. The water is safe for swimming and there are marker buoys controlling boating and the speed that boats are able to travel at. The boaties comply with the rules. It seems however, certainly in the minds of these cretins, that the rules don't apply to jetskiers. I have seen them race into shore at maximum speed thinking it funny to make a big splash. I have seen them race past swimmers, narrowly missing them. I have seen them travelling too close and too fast to kids in kayaks and trailer- sailers. I have, on more than one occasion gone out and remonstrated with them, ending up in abusive slanging matches. Its a funny thing when morons are confronted and know that they are in the wrong - they don't apologise, they just get very defensive.

The thing about jetskis is, is that they serve no proper purpose. Sure, the bimbos in Baywatch used them, but probably to show off their assets better. Real surf lifesavers use rubber dinghies and surf skis (non motorised). Jetskis are used in our lakes, rivers and close in-shore at our swimming beaches and marine reserves - usually in idyllic settings. They are not unfortunately used in Cook Strait or the open seas because they are unstable and practically useless as marine transport. There seems to be an inverse correlation between the environment and the noise the machines make with the morons driving them delighting best in revving up in the most peaceful of settings.

A couple of years ago , not far from where I live, across the harbour a jetski ran over and killed someone in the water. It was another jetskiier who had fallen off his machine. Divine justice?

BUSH GIVEN THE BOOT

George Bush was shoed out of a press conference in Iraq. Bush joked about it (as we all would) but there is cultural significance in the act of throwing shoes at someone which Bush does know (In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt. When U.S. Marines toppled Saddam Hussein's statue on Firdos Square in 2003, the assembled crowd whacked it with their shoes.)
What if the journalist threw a bomb, a knife, a double bass? OK, I assume that all the journalists were searched or screened before they came into the press conference but, given the significance, why didn't the authorities confiscate their shoes then?
Obviously it was a slipper-up.

P.S. Well done Muntadar al-Zeidi — I hope you are OK. I salute your bravery.

PARALLEL MEMORIES

I've just been listening to Van Morrison's Astral Weeks album (The Old Girl is out so I can listen to my '70's music' in peace). How evocative music can be, bringing up old memories set in place and time kind of like Proust's madeleine experience. Astral Weeks was recorded in 1968 when 'Tantum Gloria' was the latest hit in my world, so I missed it first time around. I 'discovered' Van's Astral Weeks and other music of his in my first year of university. Tony used to refer to him as the 'Irish Slug' (unfairly) and I'm sure that Richard was too fixated on Penderewski to have even been aware of Irish music let alone Van! Anyway, whilst listening I was putting people and situations in place around the times that I listened to Astral Weeks and Van Morrison's other '70's' music. The things I remember are obviously important to me as they have in some way shaped me. The things that friends remember may well be quite different as their influences vary.

BUSY FRAMING

I'm practicing.

I take over the business on 8th December.

GETTING READY

"Still, I'd like to know why he made women so complicated." said Richard in a coment in a previous post.

I'm sure all men ask themselves this frequently.

Women are mysterious and do things in ways that men find confusing and complicated.

One of the many differences between men and women is in the 'getting ready' to go out.

After the showers and dressing men are usually the first to be ready and, anxiously looking at watches and out windows for taxis, when they ask the question "are you ready yet", the "just a minute" answer is always forthcoming.

Finally the woman will emerge from the bathroom and state that she is ready. It is only then that she will look for the jewellery to match the outfit. This last minute addition can take at least 5 minutes often more. It is not a simple case of grabbing an earring or two and a bracelet as a man would do but involves trying on numerous combinations, often involving reconsideration of clothing choices. Why can't women have the earrings already matched up with the necklaces and other junk so that its just a matter of grabbing the set and going. When I suggested this to the Old Girl I received that "poor man he just doesn't understand" look.

RENEWAL

The picture I posted earlier of Richard holding a baby makes me think of the magic of life in the constant refreshing that happens. New life replaces the old and, whilst doing so can rejuvenate the ageing.

Writing that I think about Lynn's Godson who visits us a lot. He is a two year old with a lovely nature and the ability to light up a room. He is not the sort of kid that creates tension amongst oldies as he is well behaved and never seems likely to smash something - he invariably asks if he can touch something or pick it up.

We have had losses recently and the presence of the Godson is like a catharsis.

I wish everyone could feel like that in the presence of little children but recent news events have shown that not to be true. Poverty of spirit is infinitely worse than material poverty.

DARWINS THEORY

Here's a close to home picture for Robert.

Maybe he should reconsider his belief in Creationism and have another look at Evolution.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

After watching 'One Foot In The Grave' tonight on UKTV I channel surfed and found on TV2 a programme named SCU (Serious Crash Unit).

Having missed the beginning I was confronted immediately with police officers investigating a death by accident where a pedestrian was run over. This is at 7.30PM on mainstream TV. The investigators were looking at marks on the road and concluding that the stains etc. were where the woman basically melted into the tarmac after being dragged 12 metres under the car that ran her over. Almost gleefully the investigators pointed out highlights saying at one stage "Oh, her head must have hit here".

I am not familiar with this programme and initially thought it was a spoof programme like Little Britain etc. After watching 'One Foot In The Grave' I was conditioned to the bizarre take on life that that comedy has - I was unprepared for this as real life in a kind of documentary. The problem is this 'documentary' is just tasteless, sensationalist crap at the lowest level. Have we really sunk this low in Reality TV?

BACK IN BUSINESS

The Old Girl suggested that I do something to earn money again.

I gave up my full-time job (again) on Friday 31 October. Her suggestion came on Saturday 1st November having given me almost a day of holiday. She went shopping and came home with the idea of a local business to buy. We looked it up on Trade Me and rang about it to discover that it was the wrong one, this one in another suburb. Over the last two weeks I have researched the businesses and decided to buy both of them and combine them (after all Robert has two sheds). I bought both today. Now I have to learn the Trade. I could do with Robert's handyman skills (and his sheds). I'd ask Richard for advice but that shelf he made looks a bit dodgy.

Oh - The businesses are Picture Framing.

DANCING WITH THE DEVIL

More than 80% of Maori live in urban areas. Most are in the main metropolitan centres with a quarter living in Auckland alone. This was not always the case obviously. In the late 1930's over 80% of Maori were living in rural areas. During the Second World War, however, young Maori were ‘manpowered’ into industries to support the war effort beginning the urban drift.

Initially, the change brought greater education, prosperity and acceptance for most with the governments of the day encouraging the move and assisting with jobs and accommodation. Over time however when the industries closed down and the state accommodation fell into disrepair the advancements have not seemed so attractive. Maori it seems, have wanted a change.

Settlement of large land claims has brought new wealth to some Maori Iwi and the urbanisation has become corporatisation. This I believe is one of the driving forces behind the new Maori political leaders. It explains the movement away from the traditional Labour support that attracted Maori voters and why they now seem so intent on getting into bed with National. Sure they will chase down promises of Maori Seat retention, seabed and foreshore legislation review amongst others that Shonkey will be more than happy at this stage to pay lip-service to. But it is most important to remember the roots that are more akin to Labour than National. In fact, apart from what the Maori leadership says, only 2.2% of votes went to the Maori Party and surveys have suggested that more Maori voted Labour than National in the general seats. OK, dance with National if you want but watch your toes!