Poverty.

Did you know that over two billion people don't have access to proper food or water on a regular basis? That a child dies from hunger approximately every fifteen seconds in our world? There is still ongoing conflict ravaging iraq and darfur, meanwhile tornadoes and earthquakes are causing death and destruction in places scarily close to home. Looking at life from a New Zealand perspective can only be a futile and myopic thing, ...right?

You could argue that any changes happening in our country don't warrant a compelling examination. You could say this because compared to most other human beings, we have life pretty good. Or, you could take the view that I have and realize something else. People are only able to react to situations and changes which are directly relevant to their lives on a day to day basis. I'll put some perspective on my theory using the example of Paris Hilton breaking a nail. Paris reacting angrily over something so trivial, to us; seems both ridiculous and pathetic. The reason we think this way? We don't live in a world where our image is trademarked, copied, and transmitted across oceans. It is trivial to us because we place no value and haven't been taught to place value on the overly superficial. That is how she was brought up, and therefore explains in this fake scenario her total shock. Conversely, a child dying from starvation would not be able to comprehend a person in our country complaining about how bloody long five minutes felt to make a big mac combo at MacDonalds. What that child sees is selfishness, impatience, greed and complete and utter lack of empathy towards other human life. What that child doesn't see is the outward effects of societal pressure to be on time, productive and on the move at a seconds notice.

We humans are like that. We like to think we can walk a mile in another person's shoes, but how can we really without fully being that one unique person reacting to a positive or negative situation?

Today, 'as one person', I am reacting to the proposed rise in GST as part of the May 20th budget from 12.5% to 15% effective October 2010. National released the budget not long ago. It is pretty full of intricacies including a string of changes: depreciation tax reform, working for families and family trust loopholes. That's all fine, until you notice the kicker helping to harm everyday New Zealanders at the expense of the filthy rich being able to invest another six percent of their income.

Raising GST will:

• severely impact the people who spend the majority of their disposable income on necessities
• not at all affect the higher earners, who can put their added tax breaks to big use by investing their extra cash into savings then earn up to and including 10% for every single dollar on top of the money they already own! 

There are families in New Zealand on the bread line as it stands. Not to mention that the tax on cigarettes has increased without warning and is slated to keep increasing, adding a GST hike as-well will make it impossible for the most unfortunate New Zealanders to get by. Don't tell me there aren't people worse off, otherwise there would have been no use for the "school shoes for kids" campaign that rallied for support in 2008 in an attempt to bring those in the lowest of deciles above the poverty line. 

Our country has both one of the highest suicide rates and one of the highest teen pregnancy rates. So, already we don't score very well in key areas. Surely we would be looking at trying to reduce anxiety and panic in our society by helping those who need it, instead of taking support away (i'm looking at you ACC changes). Do we really want to marginalize the most vulnerable in our society by forcing them to effectively subsidize our taxes every time they purchase goods and services that they need to, to survive? 

You know like school bags, kids shoes, power, petrol, food, water, toiletries, insurance, services and repairs -- to name a few of the kickers. "John Key has stated that the tax cuts will mean New Zealanders won't be any worse off, and there is a proposed increase in benefits and superannuation to offset these costs".

The proposed increase in benefits and superannuation is sitting at just above two percent. GST is rising by two and a half percent. ACC levies are rising. The price of tobacco and potentially also alcohol, will rise even further. Fuel keeps on expanding and contracting which makes it difficult for families to budget. The recession has ended, and it's going to be noticeable that retailers will simmer down undercutting the wholesale price of goods just to get customers through the door. 

So, what was that, national? You say: a 2.5% increase in GST verses a 2 percent 'increase' in super and benefits only. That is pathetic. Completely moronic. It is a huge slap in the face to the majority of the country that voted you into parliament. I am beginning to regret the one I gave you, even though I am not a labour supporter. They may have overblown spending but at least the heart of the party came across as caring for its citizens. 

Essay I wrote for school in 2006, 100% Excellence mark

A writer is not just a storyteller but also that of a prophet or teacher.
Discuss with close reference to a novel you have studied.


The Novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest" which details events occurring in a mental hospital, explores themes such as conformity verses individualism, sexual liberation verses sexual freedom and the struggle for power and authority. These themes are both poignant and relevant to us today. Ken Kesey portrays his two main characters Nurse Rached and Randle Patrick McMurphy as examples of contrast to teach the reader the apparent faults of society, and what can result from it's rigid expectations on the individual.

Kesey is a man known for his pro-activism. He was jailed for six months for marijuana possession and he took part in legal drug testing: tripping on L.S.D. He eventually landed a job working in a psychiatric hospital and it is through these experiences, the arch-evil Nurse Rached seems to have been created.

"The big Nurse," antagonist in the novel, represents (among many things) conformist organizations which control our world. Her behavior is authoritative, mechanical and controlling. This is portrayed through robotic-'esque' narration by Chief Bromden.
"I see her sit in the centre of this web of wires like a watchful robot, tend to her network with mechanical insect skill, kowing every second which wire runs where."

Kesey uses Nurse Rached to make an interesting link between conformist's motives and their desire of retaining all power and control. When a patient, Taber asks what is in his pills- Kesey introduces to the reader a genuine human interest. Rached replies that the pills can be taken "other ways then orally." In this example, she is expressing her power and forcing Taber into an imaginary corner. Her mechanical behavior is so inhuman that she is unable to have a genuine human discussion with a patient. However, in order for Rached to control the ward she must appear to be working in the interests of the patients- a faux human side created that adds believablity to her role.

Her supposed "therapeutic meetings" begin with her picking out a patient and humiliating him in front of the group. She appears to be genuinely concerned, but on a deeper level her purpose is to pit the patients against each other, thus creating chaos and discord among them. She does this successfully for years, maintaining control over everybody.

But then something changes.

Into this ward appears Randle Patrick McMurphy, a protagonist Kesey introduces as a "gambling fool", a sex-crazed fun loving joker who only feigns being mental to escape a conviction. His character, in essence, teaches the freedom of speech, sexuality and individuality to both the patients and to the reader. This message comes across clearly because McMurphy is the antithesis of everything Nurse Rached represents.

In an effort to teach about the importance of individualism and the rigidness of conformity, Kesey uses McMurphy's insubordination in an incident between Rached and her ward rules. McMurphy is awake early in the morning, singing, asking for toothpaste. It is ward policy to have toothpaste locked up, it can "only be used at a certain time".

"What would it be like if everybody was to brush their teeth whenever they felt like it?" McMurphy asks sarcastically, aware of how ludicrous such a pointless rule is. Rached cannot answer properly because she appears to feel uneasy seeing McMurphy without any clothes on, as he is only wearing a towel.

This confrontation serves to highlight how ordered Rached is, her rules so draconian, monotonous and repressive- are exemplified examples of some that still exist in our own society. Routine is still the driving factor for most "normal" people throughout the day and perfect monogomaus families are all that are considered as good for society.

Rached's reaction also touches on a major theme in the novel: the contrast between repressed and liberated sexuality. By appearing in front Rached with only a towel covering himself, she is threatened by the sexuality she attempts to repress. Kesey advocates sexual freedom throughout the novel through ideas of "free love" as being part of self expression. Examples of this being McMurphy's two prostitute friends. Because of this message, Kesey teaches that repressing sexuality can be damaging on the individual.

Rached represses her sexuality which helps transform her into a robot. Billy Bibbit is unable to express his desire for sex because his mother's grip on him forces him into innate childhood before eventually committing suicide. Harding, on the other hand, is afraid of the social implications of revealing his sexuality which turns him into a coward. Through it all, McMurphy doesn't discriminate Harding. Instead he appears to want to taint the virginal Rached along the way, while also taking a chance and offering Billy a choice to lose his virginity. McMurphy cares about the individual well-being of all of the patients. Rached doesn't. All she seeks is the knowledge of her own power and authority, kind of like a dictatorship government.

For example, after the patients, McMurphy and Doctor Spivey agree that it might be a good idea to throw a carnival, and the patients begin to get excited, her hands appear to shake. Fear of the thought of losing power cripples her for a second, but it doesn't last because she knows she has the "combine" behind her, she knows her authority is only threatened marginally.

"I believe an idea like this should be discussed in a group meeting" - "Everybody knows that's all there is to the carnival".

By not allowing collective bargaining, Rached is demonstrating her dominance over McMurphy, his idea- and the ward. She wouldn't have allowed a carnival even if for some insane reason she actually thought it was a good idea- because it would shift power from her to McMurphy. Like a dictatorship, she dislikes any idea that is not her own. This highlights again, her mechanical personality so often described by Bromden: for machines only operate by a certain programming code, they are incapable of outside thinking or compassionate consideration.

Rached uses the authority of the 'combine' to eventually lobotomize McMurphy after his attempt to kill her and success at exposing her breasts. However in doing so, her power over the ward is gone. Through it all, McMurphy had inspired the patients to think for themselves, although it was an uphill battle; he knew Rached wasn't his only obstacle to social change. The patients apathy was a burden for a long time because they didn't have the energy to fight against Rached, against the system. Until she took it too far.

"Lady, I think your full of so much bullshit," Harding says before signing out voluntarily, a choice he had disposable to him for years. Kesey teaches that Nurse Rached now represents the ruling class who took power so far- that even an oppressed homosexual in the nineteen fifties saw through her "bullshit". On the flip side, Kesey teaches that the patients were the uninformed mass who had to be compelled to action through McMurphy, who served as the catalystic force of change...though at the price of his own life.

Ken Kesey's ultimate message is simple. Personal, sexual and individual freedom are easily quashed by predisposed rules and expectations of society. He points a finger at an over-protective society that seeks to obliterate 'difference' with rules, laws and biased perceptions. Through Rached and McMurphy, he highlights power struggles that exist between leaders and activists and the positive and negative differences between order and disorder. He is asking the reader in so many ways and in so many words: to become 'our own McMurphy'. To make sure to follow our beliefs, morals and dreams. To protest when injustice is a prevailing reality, to inspire, to not allow people to put others down- to take a stand for those around us who are oppressed...no matter the cost

Regeneration

“I fear it… I fear it” 
These were the words spoken by Rebecca Nurse in 1692, Salem Massachusetts as religious leaders aligned together their idea that witchcraft was on the rise in their small town. This original thought arose from Abigail Williams hate towards the elders she disliked. She callously cried witchery on innocent women her only motive: revenge. Many innocent lives were lost before the killing ceased. 


From nineteen fifty to 1953, U.S. Senator McCarthy who was a powerful figure at the time... began to press his accusations that the American government was failing to “deal with communism”, and the following years, just like Abigail had in the salem witch trials  began to direct others to not associate with others who were seen being possibly guilty of practicing anything remotely anti-american.

Many innocent victims were accused, put in jail, fired from their jobs and discommunicated. It was no myopic scheme by any stretch of the imagination. Some actors, doctors, lawyers had their lives destroyed all due to a public morality panic caused by one twisted person. You would think from the previous two examples alone (there are numerous others) we would learn? But we don't.

Two years ago, mainstream Religious leaders all over the United States were continuing a spearhead campaign against one of the most controversial topics involving the church and state. Gay Marriage and Civil Unions. More specifically, the "break down of the family unit through lesser forms of marriage".

Church leaders have since then chosen and are trying to use their religious morality to defer or quell what should be a current form of legal protection, civil unions. 


Flashback.


Thomas Putman was the man who got the witchcraft allegations spiraling, by using his religion to justify the presence of the supernatural- likewise Abigail, the girl who pretended to be possessed then singled out a group of people she didn’t like. The two made a terrifying pair.

Each three of these situations share the same featured similarity. Fear. 


Whenever Abigail felt like she was in danger of being caught in her deception: she would quickly accuse another person of witchcraft to avoid attention. Senator McCarthy in turn, was afraid that communism would overthrow the democracy America had “worked so hard to build.” And now, today, the church heirachy is using the fear of the disintegration of the family unit in order to justify criminalizing homosexaulity.

The Pope alongside bishops and cardinals from all over the globe, have made it very clear that, not only are they opposed to homosexuality within their church- they are actively trying to bar it in our world. In many parts of the United States, obsessed religious people have come up with a law they hope- will make civil unions (even between a man and a women) illegal. To this day from a New Zealand point of view the Catholic Church have tried and failed to lobby against the Homosexual Law reform act 1986, the Civil union act 2005.

What Religious leaders and fanatics don’t realize is that what they are doing is a complete contradiction to everything they are supposedly about, everything they represent. Through powerful manipulation of biblical texts, they are throwing bible grenades at full velocity towards a minority group- effectively attempting to destroy their lives and create a psuedo-hell on earth.

I haven't mentioned marriage yet. That is because the church is perfectly within its rights to create rules for marriage- for them a ceremony only for a man and a woman, there are no exceptions. The current debate in regards to civil unions covers a whole different paradigm. I am talking about the life long partnerships with another person, irrespective of gender - working for the same goals, just trying to get by and share in some of the benefits like their brothers and sisters can.

Sadly, many lawmakers and citizens fail to see the difference as they are being fed misinformation from the opposition. The main arguments against civil unions focus on the old-age “Homosexuality is a sin” argument, which archaic in itself - has absolutely nothing to do with being in a civil union with somebody. The second largest argument comes from the viewpoint that men have to be compatible with women in order to raise a family and therefore, no alternate to Marriage should be allowed. This argument hardly works either, considering the divorce rate is north of fifty percent now, that many people don’t want to get married and have children, and that a growing amount of evidence is cumulating which backs up claims that us homosexuals do not choose our sexuality as a “lifestyle”.

Many everyday Christians and Catholics though - are begged to wonder why such a frivolous topic is being sought with so much hype and emotional resonation. Why are religions focusing on removing rights from a group of people, when there are more urgent things in the world going on right now to worry about? Religious leaders, governments, scientists and citizens irrespective of sexual orientation- should all be working together to bring an end to poverty, to bring an end to war, to create life long solutions for issues such as global warming, which will eventually affect our population as a whole.

God created us to work with one another, to love one another - to respect one another and to work as a team.

Being an ex-Catholic myself, I share in Rebecca Nurse’s mindset. Rebecca Nurse spoke the famous words during the Salem Witch Trials: "The aftermath of the hangings... I fear it, I fear it"


Likewise I fear that once this mess is finally all over, and there is nothing left to debate on either side - that the church will forever be torn apart. It’s happening already. 


The Anglican Church is in the process of disowning denominations, like the Episocal church who allowed a gay man to become a bishop. The Church has dis-assiocaited itself with it's african counter-parts, something that has never been done before. 


African leaders of that church think they are morally compelled to create law that bans more than two gay people from being in the same room together. It's no wonder the american side of the church has torn away. 


I fear that the battle and aftermath of the current war on Gay rights will not only create a travesty for homosexuals - but also for people who are part of the catholic religion, or any religion. The more the pope spews bullshit about second-class homosexuals: the more our younger generation will spit on the very church he is trying to uphold. 


I imagine it will be everybody else vs. Religious people. The Church won’t be a happy place to reside. Did you know that ninety percent of teenagers aged 16 to 24 feel as though the church's moral stance on sexuality is it's most major drawback? 


What I once thought of was a place of resonating peace will no longer be the angel it once appeared. The same thing happened in the town of Salem, before the hanging and burning began.

By the end of the Salem Witch Trials, over thirty innocent victims were hung, burnt or stoned to death. Abigail, the shrill but determined little girl who felt morally obliged to kill so many women, had since run away and was never seen or heard of again. When the town realized that it was all just a farce, people were filled with remorse. The large middle class who were manipulated into callous action suddenly realized what a tragedy they had helped create. The town went silent. Many cows and other animals were roaming around dying with no masters to feed them - and nobody dared touch that land for at least another century.

You would think that the world would learn from its history. But alas it isn’t. Obviously the church's crusade on homosexuals isn't as deadpan as the witch hunts. But I suspect that is only because social norms prohibit the complete nutcases from getting media attention. 


When you think about it, it is still, in essense, a witch hunt. Like the witches burnt at the stake, religious leaders are doing anything to burn what pleasure of life all homosexuals currently have and in the meantime, other issues are left to slowly simmer. Who cares about poverty issues or increasing war and heat in the world? I’m afraid that as an ex-catholic I have to say that I think the church has finally lost the plot. 


How far religious zealots are willing to go and its expense on the ever widening gap between people in the church, only time will tell. 

1993.

I walked into the cloakroom, standing a distance away from the others. Taking my time to arrange my school bag into my arms, I wrapped it around my back. Stepping forward I asked the teacher with a large grin on my face. 
"Miss, what's going on?" 
I felt perplexed but curious. She told me that the school was doing a bag check because somebody had reported a scent of smoke inside our cloak rooms. No problem, I wasn't the type of kid to play with matches. But, something told me that I would be involved, because things like this always seemed to happen.

Being so young, it was unconscious at the time so I happily passed my bag on.  Mrs. Vernon pulled out a half empty packet matches from it. It was a box I had never seen before. These were deliberately lit, and planted in my bag in order to frame me. 


People suck don't they?

Especially when you're five years old.

My first year of primary school. I hated it. I was a pretty introverted child, and I didn't speak much, or pay attention to any of the classroom activities happening around me. I was confused, and wondering where my mother had disappeared to. Nobody would ever tell me. So i sat alone. That meant at the end of the day I had no friends, and when you have no friends, you have enemies. 


I guess those kids have no idea how vividly i remember some of the things, albiet, stupid they put me through at such a young age. It makes me wonder if how I viewed the world as a child has shaped how i react to things today.

"Morgan. Not again. You always do something wrong. Why are there matches in your bag? Don't try to deny it, because we've found them," were some of the words I remember hearing. Meanwhile my smile began to deteriorate as my five-year-old logic cracked. At that age I couldn't comprehend why the matches had gotten there, and the reason I was being blamed. I felt like an alien, and it was frightening being talked to this way at school considering how much care and attention was paid to me at home.

That November day I sat in the cloakroom crying for hours as the teacher told me I wouldn't be allowed to go home until I admitted to taking and burning said matches. In hindsight, I felt like a criminal in a police cell being blackmailed into admitting unlawful behavior. It seemed like I was being brainwashed by someone of authority into deciding that I should take the blame- because, nobody else would.

Any normal five year old may have just gone along with it. But for some reason I chose not to. Somewhere in the tiny thought process expanding inside me, I decided that I would stand up for myself. I clung to my convictions against somebody probably ten times older than I was, on my third week of primary school. Two hours later, my dad came to pick me up. He and teacher had a yelling match in front of me. As a father, he had my back. He knew I wouldn't lie, because we're family. I've never lied to him, about anything before.

What's the point of posting a blog about something which happened sixteen years ago? To be honest there are three reasons. The first is that I like to write about my past from the present. There is nothing more alluring than going back and remembering how things were, especially when life gets more beautiful, like it has for me. Second, I had a dream about this event last night, and I've had them recurring my entire life, writing them down will hopefully get rid of them. Third, even though I am entirely confident and happy, I am still trying to understand myself. Did you know that apparantly our personalities are shaped by the first six years of our lives? 

Where do these seemingly normal values we carry as adults come from? That one little event (of many) affected how I saw the world as a child, though those feelings I gained changed how as I grew up to understand my place, as I interacted more closely with the world. 


I've always been scared of dark places, since I can remember. And until I came out of the closet, I was deathly afraid of being extroverted. Both of these fears came from my struggle as a child to make sense of why I was living with my grandmother, why I was "different" and why people just seemed to hate me for no reason.

Have a think to some really poigant times in your childhood. Our memories allow us to remember very tragic or very happy times. I guarantee you there will be an event or a series of events that lead back to some of the things you say or do now, some of your irrational fears and thoughts. 


I know that childhood plays a huge role in shaping people because I have two best friends who i've known since the early ninetees. All three of us have been though different hoops and turned out to be completely different people. But there are little things I see in them that remind me of what they were like in the past, or hints about events which changed them aswell.

What I learned as a youngster from this all, is that those in power aren't always right. They are actually more often wrong then they are right. That teacher didn't actually know that it was me who did that. She didn't bother to consider the variables, or use any type of lateral thinking. She just used her position of authority to take out a little guy, because that's what the process ordered her to do. Twelve years later when I studied the novel "one flew over the cuckoos nest" about conformity verses individualism, it's no wonder all of my essays about power verses liberation were all excellences. My experiences with both this, and with coming out of the closet have shaped me into an incredibly social creature. Sadly they also made my relationship with my Grandmother strained when I was reaching an age where I felt I could provide and make decisions for myself. She decided at that point the control was still in her hands. 


A power struggle ensued.


But that story is sealed now and I will not open up that book again.

I hope in writing this down I can erase that memory which still actually affects me. Somewhere in the depths of my brain i remember how marginalized I was back then. It can strike a chord. Sometimes, when i'm being talked down to, or told off, or treated like shit because of who I am outside my control... a sudden sheild flies out of nowhere and in the past it was difficult to control. 


My reflexive attitude has distanced many people. This makes me sad. I wanna change though. Sheilds are bad. 


They keep the evil out, but they also keep the good out at the same time.

We all want to change to some degree. Otherwise we would stay at the same job, doing the same thing each day. We wouldn't seek new friends, forge new relationships or invest our time in new experiences if we weren't compelled to manifest new ways of thinking. The way I see it, the only way to change is to stop thinking "I wish people would quit judging me because of who i am", and instead to think "I wish I could cease judging myself, for who i am".