Dear MP

I'm writing to you because you are my elected parliamentary representative and therefore the closest person I am aware of to influence change at government level. Although this is a letter written by an individual it does not carry views held by myself alone. I’ve used a multitude of arenas to bounce my thoughts off friends, neighbours and on occasion random members of the public. Of course I’m careful who to speak to about particular subjects but regardless find few are offended or feel betrayed by my views. So, I wanted to share my thoughts and ideas with you and hopefully get some answers.......Because I’m bewildered by some aspects of the environment I live in



Let me further make it known that I do not write this with any particular political bias; although I’m sure those to the left of the political spectrum may side with some ideas whilst others from the right may agree with others. This is a letter driven by a sense of fairness for all.

I feel it’s only proper to set the scene from which I am writing. I am a 37 year old University educated immigrant. I am employed by a private firm which pays me NZ $72,000 gross per annum and have use of a company vehicle and fuel card. Add up the vehicle and fuel card to whatever amount you decide but that’s my ‘lot’; that’s my deal. I live on my own, ‘own’ my living quarters and owe a debt of around $180,000 for the privilege of having title to my property....Ok, so the bank owns it really but there we go. I am eligible to 4 weeks leave and 5 ‘sick’ days per annum.




Not bad right? I mean $72,000 per annum is considered a very healthy salary relative to the average wage, my job is sound and I ‘own’ my own place. So what’s upsetting me? Well, not a great deal really, it’s just that I seem to be about the only idiot who lives off his own earnings with no other means of income and the only clown who pays full tax on everything he earns and that’s not fair - simple as that.
Amongst others, the following topics wind me up:-


• Income Tax (and I know everyone hates tax)

I pay tax - in the first instance in the form of income tax or PAYE. It’s the deal, the accepted penalty to contribute to and thus benefit from the national infrastructure. A necessary load we all bear...But..... We don’t all bear that load, do we? No, we don’t. We bear it to varying degrees or various reasons with a whole bunch of caveats in place. These caveats allow a great many people to reduce their personal tax burden from the stated and legislated IRD directives. That’s hardly fair.

Pick a method: Family trusts and income splitting, rental properties, obtaining items for personal via company accounts (GST free), creating pseudo lifestyle businesses, being ‘paid’ tax free company drawings...The list go on and on. Quite frankly whichever way you look at it such methods are plain and simple, hook line and sinker tax avoidance....SORRY - I mean ‘tax minimising’. Call it what you will. In far too many cases it is quite simply TAX EVASION.




Here’s the really smelly bit; you can’t dodge tax to effectively increase your disposable income if you’re poor and have few assets. What a joke!
So, let me get this right; because an individual is lucky enough to have some assets (by whatever means) and a healthy standard of living, they are able to use a host of facilities to reduce the amount they contribute to the very society from which they profit? PLEASE! Don’t tell me I’m correct??

What about the family with an income just enough to mean they are ineligible for any ‘kick backs’? They own no assets and rent their property. Can they feed from the tax fund that we have all contributed to? No, they can’t. It’s utterly unfair. I don’t care how much somebody earns; they pay their personal taxes and are not given the facility for retrospective claims against it.

I suggest the Norwegian Tax system as a very good way to move forward. Crucially, it’s transparent and is all public information. Your tax payments and my tax payments are available for all to see. This also means that we’re all obliged to be accountable and so there is little facility to hide earnings. Nobody will be surprised by a guy with three homes, 5 boats and Lear Jet yet pays bugger all in personal tax. The Norwegian tax system works and importantly, it’s fair. So, fix it ok? Employees (like me) are becoming sick of bearing greater tax burdens than their bosses.

Let me make it utterly clear that this is all about fairness. Personal gain at the expense of others is not fair unless a conscious and agreed transaction between all parties has occurred. It’s not my choice that others are ripping off society and yet I and others pay for it. It’s time for that to stop.

Let’s say I decide to turn my property (an asset) into a rental property. I will rent a room in a shared house. I’d do this because effectively it might (will) cost me less to live between pay-packets and somebody else can pay my mortgage. No surprise then so many people do similar! My asset gains value with time (under normal circumstances) and my debts diminish. Fine, deal done, no issue...Well yes, there is an issue actually. The issue is that things are not quite as simple and linear as that. For some reason we have a system in place that allows me as a landlord to claim reasonable expenses (laugh) incurred, against my personal income tax at the end of the year.

This means that I happily contribute to the pot of gold that runs the country’s infrastructure, pay-packet by pay-packet and at the end of the tax year I am eligible to stick my hand back into that same pot and fish out some cash in the form of a tax rebate. Lucky me! Hold on...Is it the choice of my neighbours that I rented my asset out? No. It’s my choice, my risk and for my benefit. The next door neighbour didn’t make the choice to rent out my property and yet they are effectively charged with ‘paying’ me for my selfish decision by mechanism of a tax rebate. Bullshit!

I could go on and on but hope you see my view crystal clearly. Even in circumstances that would financially benefit me, I feel the taxation system in place is just morally and ethically wrong. It encourages those with the facility to do so to effectively avoid paying their obligations. In my World a Kilogram weighs exactly 1000 grams and that applies to everybody.




• Welfare State


I’m pretty sure you’ll identify a common theme but for now let’s change topic. Let’s talk about the welfare state (Ironically it seems funded by those closest to it, via taxation).

So, I heard a true story the other day about a 25 year old guy who has a terrible condition that will ultimately kill him. The poor bastard suffers tumour growths. The problem is that his tumours grow on the outside of his brain. With time as the tumours grow, pressure is exerted on his brain as the tumours press against the inside of his cranium. This causes the guys demeanor to deteriorate and his capacity to function diminishes. He then requires and undergoes surgery to remove the tumours. In each case a small amount of brain tissue is regrettably removed during each surgery. There is no alternative. It’s a saw tooth decline. Each time the guy undergoes surgery his performance and ability increase (rebound), but never to the point they once was because each time some more healthy brain matter is taken. He will eventually die from this condition. He is already deaf and partially blind. His co-ordination is failing and will not return. It’s only going to get worse for this man with time.

The welfare state looks after this guy. They fund his day to day lifestyle, the procedures he undergoes and also after each procedure they fund his physiotherapy and rehabilitation.

Here’s the catch; he is only eligible for so much physiotherapy and so much rehabilitation each time. Then, he is placed back into everyday society until his condition deteriorates again whereby he will undergo the next procedure and the next rehabilitation. There is only so much money in the welfare state ‘pot’ to fund such things. It’s tragic and I feel very sad about such circumstances.




I’m pretty sure the Bull didn’t choose to be there. The same can’t be said for the guy on the ground. He chose to be there and he knew the risks.


What’s my point? My point is that this poor fellow is exactly what the welfare state in my view is for: To look after the welfare of those within the state. Crucially there is a key point. The poor guy I mention didn’t choose his circumstances and so he can’t be responsible. It’s not his fault.

I am a healthy (some may argue about that) heterosexual. At 37 years of age I am old enough to have fathered children and were it not for considered choices I would now have children. Decisions have been made in my life that have contributed to the demise of relationships and brought much sadness but I own them and I am at least partly if not wholly responsible for them. I’ll be straight with you. Until recent times I have not been in a position to be able to personally afford to have children and that is precisely why such decisions were made and I don’t have any.



My first year of teaching (2001) was teaching at a decile 1 school in the North Island. During one Year 9 class a bunch of paperwork lay scattered about my desk. Amongst the paperwork was a payslip. A student took my payslip. I didn’t chase after it. I suggested it be passed around the class and it was. I’m a rich white boy so all the class wanted to know just how rich I was. My salary of around $35,000 gross per year was in any case public information. I can tell you that it was pretty quiet as the payslip was passed around the class. Nobody asked me to buy a Ferrari for them, an All Black shirt or give them $2 (a very common request). On the back row, Stacey Renata spoke out:

“This what you get paid, Sir?”
“Yup” I replied.
“Faaaarrrrrr....” she said, “My Mum gets more than that - and she doesn’t even work!”.

And that is an actual factual bona-fide 100% true story. The exchange revealed far more than the printed dialogue suggests of course.

I don’t have the Children I could have had. Is the welfare state going to give me or my partner money for saving the state money and taking responsibility? No. Will I or my partner have any offspring to look after us when we’re older? No. Is anybody else paying for my kids in any way? No. Will the state give me money if I choose to own a dog, cat, budgie for company or provide better accommodation to assist such? No. Do I feel others are responsible for decisions they make? No. So why should I contribute to the lifestyle of those people? I want to pay to care for the guy that didn’t make the choices, not for the fools that did.



I realise it’s a big social issue but I also know that people respond to incentives or disincentives. As an example I believe you could reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads if the disincentive was an instant ‘no questions asked’ execution for those over the legal alcohol limit but of course our society just wouldn’t have that*. How about an intermittent $1000 cash bonus incentive for every 10 pieces of litter an individual collects from the streets? Ok...difficult to monitor and you’d probably create a black market immediately BECAUSE of the cash incentive but you get my point right? I feel the incentives to be responsible for the ‘average Joe’ are poor. Currently if you ARE responsible you are effectively penalised. I’ve already suggested examples as to how this occurs. It winds me up big time. Being penalised for being responsible isn’t much of an incentive now, is it?
By the way, some people have attempted to justify their position by stating that they are bringing up the next generation of tax payers to pay for folk such as me when I’m old and infirm. Rubbish. Nobody has kids for this reason and to suggest such is utter nonsense. Anybody who subscribes to such a notion shouldn’t be a parent in the first instance. Others have talked about the need to sustain the population. Well, The World doesn’t seem to be short of people and there are plenty of kids out there who need good parents, not just circumstantial parents.
I use the ‘DPB / children’ example because it’s the easiest example to identify. It’s very difficult to immediately measure how responsible the lifestyle of one person is relative to another. People don’t have electronic ‘black boxes’ to record how many smokes they’ve had or pills they’ve popped.


• Public Service Positions


This is really straight shooting one. I work for a privately owned firm. The firm and its employees pay tax that fund the Infrastructure of NZ. Part of that Infrastructure consists of a healthy number of government departments – tasked with the aim to make the place we live in a better and more ‘fair’ environment. That being the case, should it not be a key requirement that the personnel employed within such departments are treated with and exhibit the kind of behaviour they are tasked with policing? And should they not be the shining example of how the rest of society conducts itself? Too much to ask?

How often is a person sick? It seems that people working in government departments are ill more often than those in the rest of society. My employers grant me 1 week or ‘5 working’ sick days per year and accrue to a maximum of 20 days, depending on years of service. Many associates of mine are granted similar. Can you explain why IRD employees for examples are eligible for 20 days sick leave (that’s FOUR weeks!)? Can you explain why other government department contracts have this allowance as ‘unlimited’? Can you explain why school teachers are able to accrue sick leave with no maximum limit? Every day an individual is not contributing to our wee society is a day when every other sucker is being penalised. I think we’re all ok with people taking time off and not contributing if the deal is equitable and fair but it bloody well isn’t.



When away on business I’m able to claim reasonable expenses. The company grant me a credit card. Quite rightly, my seniors cross check my receipts with my movements and expenses. As a result, it is a requirement to be responsible. Its ‘transparent’ like the Norwegian Tax system you see? In other sectors such as our ultra efficient government departments, individuals are allocated a daily allowance if they are away from the home. Every night an individual is away, the daily allowance is provided and paid directly into the allocated individual’s bank account to cover the ‘inconvenience’.

In one government department I know of, the allowance in 2010 for a case manager was $70 per day – that’s $70 cash on top of the expenses of accommodation. Yes, I realise it’s to allow the individual to eat but $70 PER DAY? For God’s sake!

Now, let’s go back to the ‘people respond to incentives’ concept. If I am working for ANY organisation that directly pays me $70 per day for being away from home then I have an incentive to be away from home. $350-00 per week net is a pretty good incentive, I think you’ll agree? I think it’s pretty easy to live off that figure. You don’t agree? Well, its more money than a combined unemployment benefit for a married, civil union or de facto couple. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!?
Furthermore it appears that very little accountability is in place for the various government departments (I have friends and associates within such departments and I hate them...OK, I don’t really but I do like to make them feel uncomfortable at the super easy ride they have).

If one can derive any reason to be away from the office without any real qualification then why wouldn’t they do so? There is a real cash incentive to be had. Of course the incentive is reduced or may be increased depending on circumstances (family commitments, sports clubs or perhaps the allowance is $120 per day) but regardless, the incentive IS there. The incentive is also independent and of and, I would argue actually counters productivity. People you see have a habit of making their lives as easy as possible and will assume an advantage wherever they can. I’m a supporter of using what you have to your advantage but I do not support unfair advantage. The allowances and accommodation costs that the incentivised government departments expend are provided by the tax payer - so it’s ironic that the very people they to whom Government departments are accountable to, are paying rather excessively for their return.

My belief is that government or ‘state’ owned departments should operate and be as accountable as any private business. They derive a budget, they set target outcomes and they calculate the differential as profit or loss. If the difference is a profit then we cheer and sing and maybe even offer a bonus (the carrot). If it’s a loss then they need to either reduce costs or increase productivity (the stick) - pretty simple really. Is that so hard?

So, we travel full circle. It’s all about choices and being responsible or accountable for those choices. If individuals choose to take a risk they must be aware of the consequences. If they succeed, then their life position changes for the better - good for them! Let them reap the rewards (after they have paid their dues). If they fail, then similarly their life position may change and they might have to toil harder to get back to where they were.

This is not penalising those who take a risk, it’s not penalising those who don’t take risks. The consequences (good and bad) are available for all to see and yet we do little to redress the balance.



Teaching story #2 (yawn): This from a different school in the South Island where over half the students had a some record of a learning difficulty that was deemed to have a ‘potentially’ negative effect on their behaviour during the school day. I found the notion that greater than 50% of a co-educational school might have such ‘conditions’ absurd - even if it may have been true! It was just far too silly & improbable for me to stomach.

After a few weeks of hearing the same kind of tiresome discoveries about this student or that student, I’d had enough. My question to the Principal one morning during a staff briefing went something like this:-

“A Grand Piano is positioned hanging 20 metres above the ground by a crane. Below the Grand Piano is a large ‘X’. Each student in the school is positioned on the ‘X’, directly below the Grand Piano. A countdown is performed. The student has the choice to stand still or move. Each student is informed prior to the event that at the end of the Countdown, the Grand Piano will fall from its point of suspension and land on the position marked ‘X’ (on which they are standing). How many students regardless of behavioural learning difficulties do you think would remain standing at the end of the Countdown?”

How many do you think? I say a maximum ever of ONE. You only need to put your hand in the fire once to know it hurts and most people don’t need to do it themselves to realise that.

If we change the rules and the consequences (incentives & disincentives) then maybe more kids would stand there (maybe the piano will stop at 2.5m above the ground, so why move?)

Similarly it is very rare that people, bright or otherwise, will take a stroll on a rifle firing range or across the fresh green grass of a recently planted minefield. Funny that.




Incentives and disincentives

What will you do to help me? What answers do you have? I don’t want some ‘party line’ answer, I want actions. I want the platform to be fair for all and that means those who need and deserve a hand GET a hand, those who want a bonus earn their bonus and its fair and squarely owned. Currently its people like me who feel they are bearing the load for both the ‘dodgers’ and the ‘irresponsibles’ of society. We’re paying into both pots and it’s getting tiresome.

You must know that this letter could go on and on and incorporate exasperating stories of healthy folk appearing at WINZ offices to wait nearly three hours to gain a $12 food grant (could they not have perhaps washed a car & mowed a lawn @ $10 a go in that time?) but the theme is the same.

Help me. I’m wondering why I bother to be employed in a ‘good’ job – I really do. I know I could have as much money each month if I played the system and I’d have far more spare time to do what the bloody hell I like. I am not feeling encouraged to be a good honest straight citizen. It doesn’t pay!

I apologise in advance if the grammar and structure in this letter are a little lacking at times. It’s been written in a conversational manner - as if I was speaking to you directly.
Yours sincerely,

J. MacLellan


*Reference:-
Taken from a concept in the book ‘Superfreakonomics’
Authors: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
Publication date October 20, 2009
ISBN 0060889578

(I recommend you read it.....But then you might want to write a letter like this one).

Foul play or playing the game?

Lawyers and accountants. Proponents of dark arts. That's what I *think* anyway. You see, what I don't understand is why an individual can operate as an individual, earn a wage, pay the bills and maybe save some money and yet an individual can also operate as a 'company', earn a larger wage (frankly), and get away with paying reduced bills.
I'm a linear thinker, so in my book if you eat twice, you pay twice. Simple as that really? So why is it that society allows some people to structure their finances to A) dodge tax and B) Qualify for greater state benefits? Which idiot allowed that to happen? It is simply not fair.
Of course the game the game the game...If you play smart you can dodge right? Legal fraudsters I say and you should all be shot.
I like the Norwegian tax system. There is complete transparency on tax paid, income earned and net worth for all tax residents and for me (on the surface at least) it is the solution for tax avoidance.
I don't know how people can become lawyers or accountants. They must have a facility to activate a blind spot with regard to ethics and morals and that disgusts me. Are there any accountants or lawyer that have not acted professionally in a non ethical manner. I don't believe you if you say so. Most people never bite the hand that feeds you see. Lawyers and accountants are paid to work for the benefit of their clients and keep their mouths shut. Surely that's a conflict of interest if you have a conscience? Begone you evil buggers.
So, foul play or playing the game? I prefer foul play. At least it's visible and some sort of admission. Hmmm.

Road Safety

So, after 2 years or so I got myself a speeding ticket. It was Issued by officer ZQ18 at 1431 on 19/07/09. The alleged offence took place on State Highway 1, just north of Ashburton. I was clocked travelling at a speed of 121km/h. The limit is 100km/h.

I have collected possibly a dozen or so speed infringement notices / penalties since attaining my Drivers Licence 18 years ago or so. In that time I'm fortunate to have driven thousands of miles (or kilometres if you prefer) and yet never cause or be involved in any serious accident.

Since I can recall speed tickets have infuriated me because of reasoning and yet the seemingly ironic criteria by which they are issued.

So, the reasoning is road safety right? Nonsense I say and in my case I can justify writing so.

In New Zealand we have passing lanes of maybe 1.5 to 3km. That means that everyone 'queues up' behind a slow moving vehicle and then like a cork from a champagne bottle explode past the irritating pedestrian vehicle. Its the most ludicrous thing ever. Of course such roads as the result of little money to build dual lane roads and clot headed clowns running the nations infrastructure...I digress...

I didn't get clocked on a speeding lane. I was measured after overtaking a slower (than the speed limit) vehicle on a section of Highway where there are only 2 lanes of opposing traffic.

Now I'm not sure if it is 'standard' practise but I prefer to stay alive. As a result I don't really embrace the idea of loitering in the wrong lane of a 2 way highway to play chicken with any oncoming traffic.I favour depressing the accelerator pedal in order to gain speed and get past any obstacles as quickly and safely as possible before pulling in well ahead of any labouring traffic and steadying my speed.

So, I do exactly as I mention above and I receive a ticket. I explained why my vehicle was travelling at an elevated speed but this mattered not to the ticket issuing officer. He really couldn't care less. His job is to issue tickets to speeding drivers. End of story.

I was advised that I should stick the car on cruise control @ 100km/h and then all would be OK and also that I could pass in a passing lane a couple of kilometres further on. It's all absolute rubbish. And this is why:-

Lets say you wish to pass a vehicle - regardless of it being a dual or single carriageway road. You are travelling at the 'safe' speed limit of no more than 100km/h.

You will start from a safe position behind the vehicle you are passing (obviously) and end up in a position a safe distance ahead of the vehicle. In reality this means that whilst you have a distance to perform the manoeuvre, the car you are passing must travel a shorter distance to ensure safe distances.

Scenario A

Lets say the car in front is travelling at 95 km/h. If you are travelling at 100km/h It will take over a minute to pass (1 minute 12 seconds in fact). That means over a minute travelling the wrong way down a single carriageway highway or at best, over a minute in the passing lane. You will also have travelled TWO KILOMETRES from start to finish. Is that safe??? I don't think so. You must be kidding if you suggest it is. Try spending 1 minute 12 seconds driving the wrong way down a carriageway on State Highway 1.

I have admittedly been generous with my example. Passing a car travelling just 5km slower than yourself is virtually pointless. I have however also been equally generous with my distance and time suggestions and that's my point precisely - you just don't have 2km to pass a vehicle or for that matter a minute to perform a passing manoeuvre.

Scenario B

You are travelling at 100km/h and wish to pass a vehicle in front. You have 500m to perform the manoeuvre safely. To do so you must cover 500m in the same time as it takes the slower moving vehicle to cover approximately 400m. If your objective is to be achieved then the vehicle you are passing must not exceed a speed of 80km/h. This is a more realistic scenario and you will perform it in under 20 seconds. All things considered it is a far safer manoeuvre and all boxes can be ticked. Nobody exceeded the speed limit and the hazard to other road users is minimal.

Scenario C - my scenario.

The car in front is travelling at 95km/h. I needed to travel 500m in the same time it took for the vehicle in front to cover a distance of 400m. At 95km/h a vehicle will travel 400m in 15.2 seconds. At 121km/h I will travel 500m in 14.8 seconds. It was a safe manoeuvre and I completed it safely with half a second to spare - the car can reach some pretty high speeds in 14.8 seconds so to say I'd reached 121 km at the end of the manoeuvre is an indication that I was hardly attempting to achieve 'rocket ship' speeds.

Other factors you ought to be aware of:-

1. Officer ZQ18 agreed that the car I had passed was travelling at a speed under 100km/h as he had clocked it after measuring my speed. So its not as if i was already over the speed limit prior to overtaking.

2. It was a clear day, not a cloud in the sky. A dry road and a straight section of highway. The road to Ashburton has very few bends. Driving conditions were as good as you could possibly ever expect. Traffic was moderately busy which is precisely why I wasn't 'hanging around'.

3. The traffic Police vehicle performed a rather risky U-turn to 'chase' me. Ironically enough it's not the safest or smartest thing to do on State Highway 1 with moderately busy traffic but that's not my issue really.

4. The traffic Police vehicle was I think the same as the vehicle I was driving - a Toyota Aurion. The officer did say that they are 'easy to speed in'. He would know. After all he's just zipped past vehicles behind me to catch me. Again the actions of the Police officer are not my point - more that I'm driving a safe modern vehicle rather than some wreck of a machine that has barely passed its latest warrant of fitness.

5. 121km/h is not 228km/h (Toyota's claimed top speed for the vehicle I was driving), 200km/h or even 150km/h. I was not driving like a lunatic, wishing to endanger myself or anyone else. I just wanted to get past a slower moving vehicle safely.

Why do we have passing lanes?? If it is not acceptable to exceed the speed limit in order to pass a vehicle then why have them in the first instance? As my examples clearly show, if the law is to be adhered to strictly then drivers only have a use of the passing lanes if slower vehicles do not exceed a speed of approx 75km/h. In every other scenario we'd all have to queue up behind anything else on the road and become more and more frustrated.

Drivers in NZ have a habit of accelerating in a passing lane before returning to their previous precession speed. This only adds to my point.

$170 is a lot of money and 35 demerit points don't help me in my job which requires a reasonable amount of travelling.

All in all it leaves me feeling very frustrated and frankly a little bitter towards the Police services who only ever seem to cost me money. I feel I am the victim of a very simple and unintelligent quantitative assessment - the speed gun. Any qualitative mitigating factors have been blissfully ignored. I guarantee that tonight I will travel down Moorhouse Avenue, Christchurch @ approx 20% above the speed limit - along with hundreds other commuters so as to allow safe passage. I doubt I'll see a Police officer issuing speeding tickets.

And to think. Here was me thinking speeding tickets are issued for road safety reasons. I'd just like to have someone use 'reason' when penalising motorists.

It is Ironic that the ticket issuing officer concerned is originally from the UK - indeed originally from about 10 miles away from my home town. He like me, probably got sick and tired of the bureaucracy in the UK as much as anything and took off to place where common sense is supposed to be more prevalent. Here he is in NZ, issuing black and white penalties. The very thing that he possibly tried to escape. Irony of ironies.

I won't even start to comment on the thousands upon thousands of dollars in unpaid fines...Or the countless uninsured, unwarranted vehicles travelling our highways....Makes you wonder if you should try be a 'good guy' after all.

I really do hate being penalised on 'technicalities'.

When do you know?

For me, this is a very selfish place where thoughts crystallize. It's my equivalent of a cigarette - just a place i go and think for a few minutes every now and then. Sometimes its as If I need a lot of smokes and at other times I've virtually kicked the habit.
I've met a girl. She's lovely. The difficulty is that I habitually look for the bad in a person and then satisfy myself that they don't belong on my 'A' list. ridiculous but true. Clare hasn't pissed me off yet and that surprises me because i'm such a grumpy bastard.
I'm 35 and I have dreams and ideals for the remainder of my life. Surely that's normal (?). With relationships my worry has always been that you are in a relationship and then you meet else who you consider to be better, faster, stronger, fitter....OK I'll stop - you get the idea.
I'd like a little help here. When do you know that its time to park up?
She's beautiful isn't she?

Play the ball

Dating sites. Aren't they queer places? So, I'm on two sites and my profiles are loosely similar. You'll have to look to tell me what you think of course. the odd thing about dating sites is that despite the anonymity its generally guys that fire the 1st emails and generally girls that ignore them - just like 'real' life at the bars...Am I wrong?

I am looking for bites here but I do believe that more guys buy drinks for females than females buy for guys. Is that sexist and if so, which sex is being sexist?
So anyway, the dating profiles. I'm a good guy (no really - I am) but the most sexually suggestive and yet most hidden of my profiles gets the attention. The more 'genuine' one gets very little. What to feel about that I don't know. What I do know however is that a lot of guys are slime balls, send lurid pictures of their genitalia at the first chance, post pictures that do not resemble themselves in the slightest and try to hit on women at the first meeting like its the way to behave. They make my life hard on the dating circuit. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Angel but if I'm not wanted I'll leave the girl alone and deal with the 'rejection' (if it is rejection) like an adult rather than a bruised ego'd brat.
I'm wondering what the story is. The 'nice guy' profile gets nothing. The darker one gets some...They're both very very honest but the darker one is a profile your Mother would suggest you avoid.

A prominent NZ Sports Radio presenter called Brendan Telfer took ill the other day. He's a guy that says some stupid things during talk back radio (in my opinion) but a discussion about him (on air)was worth listening to. It was agreed in a very polite way that Brendan does have some unique views and his method of disagreeing with callers has many wondering if he is alright in the head. However he does have an ability to argue a point but that he always 'plays the ball - not the man'. A sporting analogy but the point made was that he can argue & disagree to the nth degree and then after the discussion go and have a beer with the very same person he has argued vociferously with. I wish I could do that...Sometimes the argument taints the person for me and I wish it didn't. Hmm mm. Thanks for reading.

The DIY Mechanic

Far too many people take themselves seriously I reckon. I do too but do my very best to limit it.

So, 'idiot' here decided to change his brake pads on his truck today and made a right balls up of it. For some unknown damn reason I released the bleed valve and now the frikkin truck won't stop. What a moron. WHAT A MORON!

If you ever feel the need to so the same..

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4213448.html

Oh and its not a one man job if you stuff it up like I did, which is why I'll be asking a friend for their help tomorrow. Duh. I'm smiling! (Bloody idiot).

Gym Etiquette

Nothing is so interesting for me as people. Still images where faces and expressions are unknowingly captured in times of thought are just fantastic. You can tell so much from a face.
Equally as interesting are the faces of people in public; at the airport, walking through the mall, sitting at a cafe or working out at a gym. All are fascinating places to see expressions and imagery and utter nonsense as folk 'reinvent' themselves in real time. I'm smiling by the way.
So, the gym - a place that saves my bacon maybe 4 or 5 days a week. Its the place where I can rid myself of anything that is winding me up..almost.
It's generally guys that suffer dramatic physiological issues at the gym - created by massive mental panics about image. Girls suffer too but their ego's seem to to deal with it better. I'm not sure what happens as a male walks through the gym door but they seem to have difficulty walking properly and in fact need to slow down as if walking on the moon, carrying eggs under their armpits and at all times wear a scowl that would befit a WWE smackdown star. That's even before they grab the dumbbell that is far too heavy and begin wrecking themselves.
Ugh. I smile because I know you understand exactly what I mean. Guys in gyms - what are they like?