Hair today

I count myself a fortunate person because I have hair. I have a lot of hair. Many men my age, and younger, do not and it is not always for hereditary reasons. My father lost much of his hair and two of my sons continue to look distinguished despite losing much of theirs. A third son keeps all his hair.
Hair is a wonderful thing, though I am unsure of what useful service it performs. Obviously, it is a throwback to the day when we descended from hairy apes when I guess its purpose was warmth. These days it is aesthetic, but it is also a distinguishing factor, particularly among men. We are still largely a tribal society and if we examine men's hair styles closely, we can see that style distinguishes which tribe they belong to. Here are some examples:
Televangelists
Without a doubt and universally this tribe of parasites have the worse and most distinctive hairstyles of all. Think Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Kenneth Copeland and Brian Tamaki. They invariably have an abundance of hair with not one follicle given the freedom of movement; their hair is always swept to the side or the back and is invariably dyed. Do they go to the same hairdresser? You can walk down the street and see that hair coming toward you and say, yes, that’s a televangelist…God help me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2af4gcS-b9Y
Rugby League Players
This tribe tries to out do each other in strange hairstyles. Many sport throwbacks to the 50s when short back and sides were de rigeur and hardly avoided. Others have strange cuts such as man-buns (Kieran Foran) or umbrellas (Kevin Proctor). Others such as Tohu Harris grow their hair long so they look like a Dothraki from Game of Thrones. What all rugby league players seem to have in common though is a complete inability to have a normal haircut like rugby players (Ma’a Nonu apart). They are however less boring.
Rock Stars
Who knows? They are all over the place these days. They don’t even call themselves rock stars any more; they call themselves “artists”. Right—Kanye West? There was a time when the rock star tribe was easily identified by the length of hair and moreover the differing length of hair showed which sub-tribe they belonged to: the longest denoting heavy metal. But these days? Who knows? Then again, who cares?
Donald Trump
Nothing more need be said.

I am growing my hair long. Not because I want to look like a rock star/artist. Not because I want to have the scope to turn it into a piece of art like the league players. And not because I want your money like a televangelist. No, I am doing it because I like it long, because it suits (hides) the shape of my face, and…most of all…because I can. I count myself a fortunate person.

Bully for "them"

Today is the final day of Bullying-free Week. The supposition I make from that is from tomorrow we can feel free to resume bullying. Yes, I know it is a serious subject, and it is wrong of me to make light of it; but I have serious doubts about whether wearing a pink shirt for a week will produce anything more substantive than body odour.
I was a bully at school, but I was a selective bully; I bullied only those who in my view could be bullied, though none deserved it. I, in turn, was mercilessly bullied by those who perceived I could be bullied and that continued well into adulthood—yes, I know you are reading this Rob.
However, nobody deserves to be bullied and the fact that bullying has always occurred doesn’t justify it let alone condone it and I support the premise of drawing attention to it. I also commend the on-going work, particularly in schools, of the facilitating organisation, The Ministry of Education’s bullyingfreenz. 
Bullyingfreenz has an excellent website—comprehensive and informative. And, unlike their flagship week, it is there to stay and available permanently--in recognition perhaps that so is bullying.
But, why the pink shirt? The website does not explain it, so we are left to surmise that in some archaic way bullyingfreenz believes that the colour pink is the signature colour of one of the most bullied sectors of our society—the LGBTIQA+ community.There is a hint of that on the website, given an entire section is dedicated to that community and justifiably so. 
But surely bullyingfreenz wouldn’t resort to the cheap trick of stereotyping?
I would hate to think that, even worse, encouraging heterosexuals to wear pink means he or she is relating to and showing solidarity with “them”. I felt the same about the use of the word they in “they are us.” Words such as they and them immediately draw a distinction and have a whiff of superiority, though I am sure that was not the intent.
So, no, you have not seen me wear a pink shirt this week.  Wearing one in a week when I went to Hamilton would be like the risk of wearing a cow costume down there—being objectified.
  But no, I have not not done it for any of the reasons outlined above. Fact is, I have never worn a pink shirt. Never shall. It has nothing to do with gender politics or stereotyping. Pink is simply not my colour.
And, yes, I do support the work of bullyingfreenz. Good on them for doing what they can.

The Awakening of Likability

What gets a politician elected?
There are many things that could and many things that should. However, often it will come down to the one thing that most of us—politicians or not—crave: likability. Likability can win or lose an election. Politicians know that but too often fail to act on it.
In America, Hillary Clinton lost for a lack of it. Few could or should like Donald Trump but liking what he was saying and represents gifted him a presidency. Of the current Democratic hopefuls, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are immensely likeable and are front runners because of that. Significantly, none of the six women in the race is coming even close—has Hilary ruined it for women?
Which brings me to New Zealand Politics, Jacinda Ardern and Simon Bridges. There is nothing to like about the first, something to like about the second (at a superficial level), and very little (apparently) to like about the third.
I have been around New Zealand politics and politicians for a long time and remain a political nerd. I watch Question Time. Yes, our elected officials act like school children, but they always have; that’s not an issue. What is an issue for me is MMP. MMP has foisted upon Parliament and us an immense amount of deadweight.
I have observed them in the House—these list and minor party MPs. With few exceptions, they contribute little and possibly care even less. What MMP and the List have given us is quantity not quality.
The fact is all substantial and lasting social developments in New Zealand  (of which we as a country was justly renowned) happened under the First Past the Post system when the House was totally comprised of electorate MPs directly responsible to the electorate.
No, I don’t like MMP at all.
Nor do I Like Jacinda Ardern, though I don’t dislike her either not at least as a person. As Fryday opined last week: I don’t think she is doing her job or is even up to it. But people like her because she is a woman, she is a mother and soon—maybe close to the next election—she will be a bride.
But where is the substance in that? Well, quite a bit actually. The likability factor, notwithstanding my opinion, will probably get her through.
Which brings me to Simon Bridges. Mr Bridges seems like a nice guy and I am told that he is intelligent and compassionate. Trouble is, he and his advisors have failed to convey that. As a result, he does not have that likability factor and, unlike Trump, is not compensating for it by what he is saying.
Not being liked (or disliked) is too substantial a barrier for Bridges’ personality to penetrate. The National Party has to recognise, before its too late, that the electorate does not like the party’s parliamentary leader, and, worse, are not particularly interested in him.
National may not like it, but like it or not likability is everything.

The ultimate win for Winston

The NZ Herald is asking me to pay $2.50 to know something I already know. That’s the weekly subscription fee they require for accessing their online “premium content”. It costs nothing to access ordinary stories, but there is precious few of those, and the interesting and well-written stories, often an oxymoron for the NZ Herald, are behind a paywall.

One of those stories has the enticing headline: “Inside the coalition: Who’s really running the country?” I don’t feel the headline needs the question mark. The answer is so obvious that it should be more a statement.

I will not pay $2.50 to be told Winston is running the country--by deceit, by demigoddery and by default. Our titular prime minister is missing in action for domestic issues. And the government she leads is floundering in an ocean of incredulous actions and inactions.

Almost all of their campaign pledges—the war on poverty, affordable housing, addressing mental health issues, capital gains tax, etc—are in tatters as are the targets to which they aspired.

The Prime Minister, who must shoulder ultimate responsibility, seems uninterested and indecisive on such issues. In fact, the only decisive action she has taken since she came into power was the banning of automatic weapons.
But taking one decisive action and quickly learning the art of looking doleful in the wake of a national tragedy does not a prime minister make.

So, where is she now? Striding the world stage addressing global issues, trying to constrain Facebook—good luck with that.

Meanwhile, we who look for leadership and vision on pressing domestic issues are left with a set of largely incompetent ministers who without a credible head are led by a somewhat disreputable tail--Winston Peters.

Few would doubt that this is Mr Peters’ swansong as a member of parliament. He has probably already been offered a major diplomatic post if this government keeps power. But this term may also be his most important while he builds the legacy he may be most remembered for—restraining an out of control, incompetent and ideologically dangerous government.
 Love or loath Winston Peters now,  ultimately we might all thank him for that.