The Saint is pleased to see that Finance Minister Bill English has finally taken the bull by the horns and decided to forgo any future ministerial housing allowance and also pay back what he has already claimed.
He has now paid back more than $32,000 and pledged not to claim any more taxpayer cash for housing. That is a pretty heavy price to pay to get the media and others off his back.
English has been under fire over allowances claimed for living in his $1.2 million Wellington house, and has been unable to shut down the controversy since it was revealed back in July.
The deputy prime minister finally admitted yesterday that the row over his housing allowance had taken his attention away from running the economy. While I doubt that is true, as he is a focused man. But he is right his housing issue has been the focus of both the media and opposition attacks. It’s like he had painted a massive bulls-eye on his forehead and asked his critics to take free pot shots – which they gladly accepted.
I do feel sorry for English as he has done nothing legally or ethically wrong – and I am sure this will be proven down the track. Having in a past life worked for him, the Saint knows that Bill English is as honest as the day. He also is a big family man and believes it is important to have his family near him – that is why he moved them all to Wellington all those years ago.
Under the parliamentary rules he was entitled to do this as he is an electorate MP with a home based in Southland. He saw Southland as his home – despite him and his family having lived in Wellington for the past 10 years.
All ok by the rules, yet when you are a politician you need to look at more than the rules. As the well known axiom in politics says – perception is reality. And there was a real perception out there that English was milking the system for his own advantage. Not true, not fair, but when the issue is been fanned up by political opponents and run by a scandal-hungry media – poor old Bill was always on a hiding to nothing.
In fact it had got so bad that TV was actually polling people to ask them if they thought English was ripping off the system. The wily politician knew it was getting out of hand and that he needed to lance the boil – and now he has done this.
So has he done enough by biting the bullet and paying back $32k and giving up any future housing entitlement for the public to forgive and forget? It will be interesting to see. I am not sure he can much more - except commit hari kari. I doubt if the punters think he should do that and reckon he is now back at ground zero!
However, the Opposition seem intent to hounding him more. The say it will continue the attacks, with Labour’s Pete Hodgson saying Mr English's surprise backdown did not end the matter. While Jim Anderton says he is also unwilling to let it go.
But the Saint suggests these continued attacks could backfire. After-all both Hodgson and Anderton were Ministers for nine years and lived on the taxpayers’ account in Wellington. Will the media spotlight now shine on their tenure of suckling on the public purse? How do they feel about opening their books to the all and sundry?
Also how do the public feel about the $100,000 each year Anderton claims as a “party leader’ (who knew hiring a phone box to hold his annual conference should cost us all so much) despite telling his fellow Progressives to join Labour? Surely this is a rort that he can no longer publically justify – even if it is within the rules?
C’mon Jim, those in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones. The Saint can hear all your panels smashing. At least Bill English has paid for his sins – when will you?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Greenies want us to cut down more trees in NZ!
The Saint was not surprised to see yet another cheap publicity stunt being used by self-proclaimed environ-mental (with an emphasis on the mental) do-gooders - wanting to screw both our economy and those in developing countries as well.
Greenpeace’s latest protest is against the use of palm kernel animal feed. This has seen its activists chain themselves to a ship in Tauranga’s port and unveil banners that read "Fonterra Climate Crime", while calling for the Prime Minister to ban palm kernel feed imports. These “environmentalists” claim that palm oil plantations cause destruction to rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia, and threaten species including orangutans.
However, to put a little more perspective into some of the warped claims being made by Greenpeace and other do-gooders, who would rather chain themselves to ships and create a media circus, than actually tell the full truth - the Saint recently came across an informative article written by one Dr Yusof Basiron of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Now your old mate is not completely naïve or gullible enough to think that Dr Basiron does not have an agenda in promoting the benefits of palm oil. Of course he does! Let’s face it the man is – after all – the paid mouthpiece and front man for the industry.
However, is his view any less blinkered than the anti-palm oil critics such as Greenpeace? I seriously doubt it. But then again, the media do not give the palm oil industry unfettered space in their newspapers and TV programmes to make all kinds of unsupported and outrageous statements that allows NGOs to impart maximum damage to the image of palm oil products.
The Saint read some facts about palm oil by provided the good doctor and then weigh them up against the claims being made by anti-palm oil campaigners to help give some balance to this debate. Here is what he came up with.
Palm oil is exported mainly from Malaysia and Indonesia and produced from legitimate agricultural lands - just like competing soybean or rapeseed oils. Palm oil has helped farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia climb out of the poverty trap. With oil palm as their main crop, farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia are now earning US $20 per day – compared to US$ 2 per day they were making 30 years ago when oil palm was not a major crop. (Perhaps the anti palm oil crusaders, would like to explain to farmers and plantation workers who want to have a better life just like their counterparts in developed nations, why they should not be able to!).
Greenpeace’s campaign against the use of palm kernel extract (PKE) as an animal feed by the dairy industry is based on claims that demand for PKE by New Zealand dairy farmers helps cause deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Yet, the Greenies neglect to explain that PKE is actually only a by-product - even a waste product - of producing palm oil. The fact is that until it was found that PKE could be actually fed to cows - it was thrown away! So in fact, PKE use by NZ farmers makes no difference to forests being cut down in Asia, as the palm oil is still being produced anyway!
So is not the use of PKE actually making the production of palm oil a more efficient, productive, sustainable and carbon friendly product? The Saint thought greenies loved these kinds of buzz words. Perhaps if palm oil was able to be used to fuel trains then it would get the green tick. (Why do smelly hippies like trains so much?)
Another point the anti-palm oil crusaders forget to mention is that NZ’s natural forests were mostly wiped in the 19th and 20th centuries. These natural forests were replaced with grazing land, to produce milk, meat, and wool – which are now the country’s main exports. It begs the question: why is an agricultural product produced out of deforested land in New Zealand acceptable to Greenpeace, while an agricultural product from deforested land in Malaysia demonized? Both countries cleared land for agricultural purposes long ago. Seems to be both somewhat xenophobic, as well as economically illiterate
Meanwhile, by discouraging New Zealand farmers from using palm kernel meal as a supplementary feed for cows, this will damage the country’s fragile economy as milk yield and diary production will surely decline. (Palm kernel meal helps increase milk yield significantly). Without palm kernel meal, dairy farmers will have to supplement the feed shortage and overcome yield decline, by having larger grazing areas. This means more trees will need to be cut down and a much larger area needed to be deforested in New Zealand. What about reducing the country’s carbon footprint and enhancing New Zealand’s clean, green image!
So by wanting to ban PKE imports into New Zealand, one can fairly conclude that Greenpeace is not only racist, economically illiterate but also wants New Zealanders to cut down more trees! Ok, we better start the chainsaws.
See what happens when you fudge information to jump to self determined outcomes.
Greenpeace’s latest protest is against the use of palm kernel animal feed. This has seen its activists chain themselves to a ship in Tauranga’s port and unveil banners that read "Fonterra Climate Crime", while calling for the Prime Minister to ban palm kernel feed imports. These “environmentalists” claim that palm oil plantations cause destruction to rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia, and threaten species including orangutans.
However, to put a little more perspective into some of the warped claims being made by Greenpeace and other do-gooders, who would rather chain themselves to ships and create a media circus, than actually tell the full truth - the Saint recently came across an informative article written by one Dr Yusof Basiron of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Now your old mate is not completely naïve or gullible enough to think that Dr Basiron does not have an agenda in promoting the benefits of palm oil. Of course he does! Let’s face it the man is – after all – the paid mouthpiece and front man for the industry.
However, is his view any less blinkered than the anti-palm oil critics such as Greenpeace? I seriously doubt it. But then again, the media do not give the palm oil industry unfettered space in their newspapers and TV programmes to make all kinds of unsupported and outrageous statements that allows NGOs to impart maximum damage to the image of palm oil products.
The Saint read some facts about palm oil by provided the good doctor and then weigh them up against the claims being made by anti-palm oil campaigners to help give some balance to this debate. Here is what he came up with.
Palm oil is exported mainly from Malaysia and Indonesia and produced from legitimate agricultural lands - just like competing soybean or rapeseed oils. Palm oil has helped farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia climb out of the poverty trap. With oil palm as their main crop, farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia are now earning US $20 per day – compared to US$ 2 per day they were making 30 years ago when oil palm was not a major crop. (Perhaps the anti palm oil crusaders, would like to explain to farmers and plantation workers who want to have a better life just like their counterparts in developed nations, why they should not be able to!).
Greenpeace’s campaign against the use of palm kernel extract (PKE) as an animal feed by the dairy industry is based on claims that demand for PKE by New Zealand dairy farmers helps cause deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Yet, the Greenies neglect to explain that PKE is actually only a by-product - even a waste product - of producing palm oil. The fact is that until it was found that PKE could be actually fed to cows - it was thrown away! So in fact, PKE use by NZ farmers makes no difference to forests being cut down in Asia, as the palm oil is still being produced anyway!
So is not the use of PKE actually making the production of palm oil a more efficient, productive, sustainable and carbon friendly product? The Saint thought greenies loved these kinds of buzz words. Perhaps if palm oil was able to be used to fuel trains then it would get the green tick. (Why do smelly hippies like trains so much?)
Another point the anti-palm oil crusaders forget to mention is that NZ’s natural forests were mostly wiped in the 19th and 20th centuries. These natural forests were replaced with grazing land, to produce milk, meat, and wool – which are now the country’s main exports. It begs the question: why is an agricultural product produced out of deforested land in New Zealand acceptable to Greenpeace, while an agricultural product from deforested land in Malaysia demonized? Both countries cleared land for agricultural purposes long ago. Seems to be both somewhat xenophobic, as well as economically illiterate
Meanwhile, by discouraging New Zealand farmers from using palm kernel meal as a supplementary feed for cows, this will damage the country’s fragile economy as milk yield and diary production will surely decline. (Palm kernel meal helps increase milk yield significantly). Without palm kernel meal, dairy farmers will have to supplement the feed shortage and overcome yield decline, by having larger grazing areas. This means more trees will need to be cut down and a much larger area needed to be deforested in New Zealand. What about reducing the country’s carbon footprint and enhancing New Zealand’s clean, green image!
So by wanting to ban PKE imports into New Zealand, one can fairly conclude that Greenpeace is not only racist, economically illiterate but also wants New Zealanders to cut down more trees! Ok, we better start the chainsaws.
See what happens when you fudge information to jump to self determined outcomes.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Putting the hole back into Hami-hole
The Saint was rather amused by – and then bemused by the reaction – to the comments of Springbok coach Peter de Villiers, and others, on why his team had decided not to stay in Hamilton this week, during the build up to the test match against the All Blacks on Saturday night in that city.
A while ago leading South African rugby journalist Mark Keohane, a former Springboks media manager, dubbed Hamilton as “Hicksville” and made no secret of teams from the republic wanting to avoid spending too much time there. A couple of years ago, former Australian fullback and former Queensland Red’s skipper Chris Latham blamed his team’s loss to the Chiefs on them being bored because that had to stay in Hamilton.
Meanwhile, the hapless De Villers – who to be quite Francis – has a knack of inserting both feet in his mouth on most occasions, would have gained a fair amount of sympathy from people when he acknowledged his world champion team would rather stay on the Gold Coast than spend the week in Hamilton.
Let’s get real here and put aside all the fake indignation over the Yarpies bagging of Hamilton. We have all done it – by calling it the Tron, Hamil-hole, Cowtown. Hamilton’s only real claim to fame is being the sexually-transmitted disease capital of New Zealand. Hicksville Hamilton, billed a place so boring even rugby players can't stand to spend time in it. And the Saint agrees whole heartedly.
So why did the cow pats hit the fan when poor old “Two Feet” Pete admitted there was bugger all to do in Hamilton and the Springbok squad would get bored in Hamilton if they stayed there for a week? So why all the fuss when the South Africans chose to bypass Hamilton and the very high risk of gaining a STV ( and I am not talking about any long distance phone calls back to South Africa), and instead enjoy the sunshine and fun parks of the Gold Coast?
I pretty sure any reasonable person would have chosen to as well. Unfortunately for de Villiers, Hamilton – and in fact the greater Waikato region – is somewhat short on the ground of reasonable folk. Probably something to do with the province’s over representation of dairy farmers and its reputation for in-breeding – and not just cows!. Anyhoo, I digress.
There is no doubt that de Villier’s candid comment, saw much gnashing of teeth and wringing of six-fingered hands in the cowbell capital. But the reality is there the pace is a dump.
In a previous life, the Saint had the misfortune of having – each year – to attend the National Fieldays just out of Hamilton. It was four days of hell and Hamilton was always the foggiest, wettest, coldest shithole he ever had the misfortune to visit. Lucky for the Springboks that tonight’s test is being played in September and not in the middle of June when the Fieldays are.
The Saint has real sympathy for Peter de Villiers and his honest opinion about Hamilton. Honestly, the place is full of bogans and fat dairy farmers' wives and best thing about Hamilton is leaving the place. End of story.
Go the All Blacks!
A while ago leading South African rugby journalist Mark Keohane, a former Springboks media manager, dubbed Hamilton as “Hicksville” and made no secret of teams from the republic wanting to avoid spending too much time there. A couple of years ago, former Australian fullback and former Queensland Red’s skipper Chris Latham blamed his team’s loss to the Chiefs on them being bored because that had to stay in Hamilton.
Meanwhile, the hapless De Villers – who to be quite Francis – has a knack of inserting both feet in his mouth on most occasions, would have gained a fair amount of sympathy from people when he acknowledged his world champion team would rather stay on the Gold Coast than spend the week in Hamilton.
Let’s get real here and put aside all the fake indignation over the Yarpies bagging of Hamilton. We have all done it – by calling it the Tron, Hamil-hole, Cowtown. Hamilton’s only real claim to fame is being the sexually-transmitted disease capital of New Zealand. Hicksville Hamilton, billed a place so boring even rugby players can't stand to spend time in it. And the Saint agrees whole heartedly.
So why did the cow pats hit the fan when poor old “Two Feet” Pete admitted there was bugger all to do in Hamilton and the Springbok squad would get bored in Hamilton if they stayed there for a week? So why all the fuss when the South Africans chose to bypass Hamilton and the very high risk of gaining a STV ( and I am not talking about any long distance phone calls back to South Africa), and instead enjoy the sunshine and fun parks of the Gold Coast?
I pretty sure any reasonable person would have chosen to as well. Unfortunately for de Villiers, Hamilton – and in fact the greater Waikato region – is somewhat short on the ground of reasonable folk. Probably something to do with the province’s over representation of dairy farmers and its reputation for in-breeding – and not just cows!. Anyhoo, I digress.
There is no doubt that de Villier’s candid comment, saw much gnashing of teeth and wringing of six-fingered hands in the cowbell capital. But the reality is there the pace is a dump.
In a previous life, the Saint had the misfortune of having – each year – to attend the National Fieldays just out of Hamilton. It was four days of hell and Hamilton was always the foggiest, wettest, coldest shithole he ever had the misfortune to visit. Lucky for the Springboks that tonight’s test is being played in September and not in the middle of June when the Fieldays are.
The Saint has real sympathy for Peter de Villiers and his honest opinion about Hamilton. Honestly, the place is full of bogans and fat dairy farmers' wives and best thing about Hamilton is leaving the place. End of story.
Go the All Blacks!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Plastic fantastic and the green propaganda
The Saint is delighted to see at least some sensible, people power finally paying dividends.
Your old mate’s bon vivant attitude towards his fellow man (and woman) was stirred up with Foodstuffs recent about turn over its ridiculous, stupid and rather foolish plastic bag tax.
The supermarket co-operative had decided - in a pique of faux green washing - a month or so back to impose a plastic bag tax on all of its customers. It appears the owners of the Countdown, New World and Four Square chains mistakenly thought this token effort would not only curry favour with consumers, but also earn them bonus green miles with the tree huggers as well.
However, following hugely negative customer backlash, in which all they seemed to achieve from the stupid 5 cent a bag charge was to piss their customers off and send them through the doors of their competitors and fierce rivals Progressive Enterprise, the powers that be at the co-op changed their minds and dropped plans for the bag charge.
This was done faster than your average Green MP claims air points, when they found out their customers were revolting. However, the saint humbly suggests, that it was not the customers who were revolting, but Foodstuffs for making such a wussy, lily-livered, feel good decision in the first place.
Apart from seriously misjudging their customers and the actual commitment of New Zealanders’ to non problems like this – especially when they are going to be charged for it – the Saint has a few more questions such as:
Just how serious a problem are plastic bags anyway? Is it really the number one environmental problem in world?
And, even if you believe all the doom and gloom propaganda emanating from the likes Greenpeace, the Green Party et el on a daily basis about the impending end of the world, is this the sort of issue a supermarket chain should be involved in.
Did Foodstuffs actually do any research in to the subject? Or did they just think their customers would tow the line because it was one of those green, feel good causes?
The fact is that there are so many myths about the evils of plastic bags circulating around in the media that it is not hard to get caught up in all the green wash. It seems our green friends have taken a leaf out of Hitler’s very able and very evil propaganda maestro Joseph Goebbels’ PR handbook by using the mantra of if you repeat a lie enough times the public will believe it. But if you cut through all the hype and puffery much of the anti plastic bag claims do not stack up.
Here are a just few examples:
Claim: Plastic bags kill 1,000 of marine mammals and sea turtles every year.
In the marine environment, plastic bag litter is lethal, killing thousands of whales, turtles and other sea life every year.
- World Wildlife Fund Report 2005
Fact: In 2006 the Australian government corrected claims that thousands of animals were being killed by plastic bags.
Note: In September 2006, the report was revised to correct an error on page 30.
The sentence:
'A figure of 100,000 marine animals killed annually has been widely quoted by environmental groups; this figure was from a study in Newfoundland which estimated the number of animals entrapped by plastic bags in that area from a four-year period from 1981-84'.
Has been replaced with:
'A figure of 100,000 marine animals killed annually has been widely quoted by environmental groups; this figure was from a study in Newfoundland which estimated the number of animals entrapped by plastic debris in that area from a four-year period from 1981-84'.
- Australian Government
Claim: Most bags end up as litter.
"Bags get blown around…to different parts of our lands…and to our seas, lakes and rivers. Bags find their way into the sea via drains and sewage pipes."
CNN.com/Technology, November 16, 2007
Fact: The vast majority of bags are actually reused or disposed of properly.
The Australian government pointed out that ”60% of bags taken home are reused as bin liners or waste bags, lunch bags, and general carry bags.”
Plastic Shopping Bags in Australia: National Plastic Bags Working Group Report to the National Packaging Covenant Council
DECEMBER 6, 2007
Claim: Plastic bags are the most common beach litter.
"Plastic bags account for over 10 percent of the debris washed up on the U.S. coastline."
- National Marine Debris Monitoring Program
Fact: The Ocean Conservancy’s 2007 International Costal Cleanup Report notes that among litter 8% of the items picked up were plastic bags. Bags even trailed cigarette related items at 27.2%, food wrappers at 9.6%, and caps and lids at 9.1%.
- Ocean Conservancy’s 2007 International Costal Cleanup Report
It appears even a rudimentary check of the facts shows that plastic bags are probably not the root cause of the earth’s eventual destruction as portrayed by some.
Meanwhile, the Saint is delighted that Foodstuffs has seen the error of its ways and will no longer be trading on people’s guilt in an effort to make a few cents and pretend they are saving the planet.
Perhaps it is time someone told the do-gooders in the red shirts at the Warehouse the facts as well. The company would do a whole lot more for the planet if they stopped importing the plane loads of junk, made in high C02 polluting countries like China and India into NZ each week, rather than taxing the bags those poor ugg-boot-wearing saps who carry this crap out of their stores in every day.
Your old mate’s bon vivant attitude towards his fellow man (and woman) was stirred up with Foodstuffs recent about turn over its ridiculous, stupid and rather foolish plastic bag tax.
The supermarket co-operative had decided - in a pique of faux green washing - a month or so back to impose a plastic bag tax on all of its customers. It appears the owners of the Countdown, New World and Four Square chains mistakenly thought this token effort would not only curry favour with consumers, but also earn them bonus green miles with the tree huggers as well.
However, following hugely negative customer backlash, in which all they seemed to achieve from the stupid 5 cent a bag charge was to piss their customers off and send them through the doors of their competitors and fierce rivals Progressive Enterprise, the powers that be at the co-op changed their minds and dropped plans for the bag charge.
This was done faster than your average Green MP claims air points, when they found out their customers were revolting. However, the saint humbly suggests, that it was not the customers who were revolting, but Foodstuffs for making such a wussy, lily-livered, feel good decision in the first place.
Apart from seriously misjudging their customers and the actual commitment of New Zealanders’ to non problems like this – especially when they are going to be charged for it – the Saint has a few more questions such as:
Just how serious a problem are plastic bags anyway? Is it really the number one environmental problem in world?
And, even if you believe all the doom and gloom propaganda emanating from the likes Greenpeace, the Green Party et el on a daily basis about the impending end of the world, is this the sort of issue a supermarket chain should be involved in.
Did Foodstuffs actually do any research in to the subject? Or did they just think their customers would tow the line because it was one of those green, feel good causes?
The fact is that there are so many myths about the evils of plastic bags circulating around in the media that it is not hard to get caught up in all the green wash. It seems our green friends have taken a leaf out of Hitler’s very able and very evil propaganda maestro Joseph Goebbels’ PR handbook by using the mantra of if you repeat a lie enough times the public will believe it. But if you cut through all the hype and puffery much of the anti plastic bag claims do not stack up.
Here are a just few examples:
Claim: Plastic bags kill 1,000 of marine mammals and sea turtles every year.
In the marine environment, plastic bag litter is lethal, killing thousands of whales, turtles and other sea life every year.
- World Wildlife Fund Report 2005
Fact: In 2006 the Australian government corrected claims that thousands of animals were being killed by plastic bags.
Note: In September 2006, the report was revised to correct an error on page 30.
The sentence:
'A figure of 100,000 marine animals killed annually has been widely quoted by environmental groups; this figure was from a study in Newfoundland which estimated the number of animals entrapped by plastic bags in that area from a four-year period from 1981-84'.
Has been replaced with:
'A figure of 100,000 marine animals killed annually has been widely quoted by environmental groups; this figure was from a study in Newfoundland which estimated the number of animals entrapped by plastic debris in that area from a four-year period from 1981-84'.
- Australian Government
Claim: Most bags end up as litter.
"Bags get blown around…to different parts of our lands…and to our seas, lakes and rivers. Bags find their way into the sea via drains and sewage pipes."
CNN.com/Technology, November 16, 2007
Fact: The vast majority of bags are actually reused or disposed of properly.
The Australian government pointed out that ”60% of bags taken home are reused as bin liners or waste bags, lunch bags, and general carry bags.”
Plastic Shopping Bags in Australia: National Plastic Bags Working Group Report to the National Packaging Covenant Council
DECEMBER 6, 2007
Claim: Plastic bags are the most common beach litter.
"Plastic bags account for over 10 percent of the debris washed up on the U.S. coastline."
- National Marine Debris Monitoring Program
Fact: The Ocean Conservancy’s 2007 International Costal Cleanup Report notes that among litter 8% of the items picked up were plastic bags. Bags even trailed cigarette related items at 27.2%, food wrappers at 9.6%, and caps and lids at 9.1%.
- Ocean Conservancy’s 2007 International Costal Cleanup Report
It appears even a rudimentary check of the facts shows that plastic bags are probably not the root cause of the earth’s eventual destruction as portrayed by some.
Meanwhile, the Saint is delighted that Foodstuffs has seen the error of its ways and will no longer be trading on people’s guilt in an effort to make a few cents and pretend they are saving the planet.
Perhaps it is time someone told the do-gooders in the red shirts at the Warehouse the facts as well. The company would do a whole lot more for the planet if they stopped importing the plane loads of junk, made in high C02 polluting countries like China and India into NZ each week, rather than taxing the bags those poor ugg-boot-wearing saps who carry this crap out of their stores in every day.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
How did we manage to survive?
The Saint wishes tip his hat for this email, which he recently received and wanted to share with all those who were born in 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and early 70's!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer.
Then after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright coloured lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets or shoes, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
Take away food was limited to fish and chips, no pizza shops, McDonalds, KFC, Subway or Nandos.
Even though all the shops closed at 6.00pm and didn't open on Sunday’s weekends, somehow we didn't starve to death!
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no body actually died!
We could collect old drink bottles and cash them in at the corner shop and buy Gobstoppers, Bubble Gum and 50 cent mixtures.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soft drinks with sugar in them, but not many of us overweight because...
We were always outside playing. And fat kids were called fatty, porky or chubby. Not told they were physically challenged or had a slow metabolism!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back before dark. No one saw us all day and we were O.K.
We’d spend hours building go-carts out of old prams and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. We built tree houses and dens and played in streams and on rivers.
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We did not have Play stations, Nintendo Wii or X-box. There were no video games, no 999 channels on SKY or video/DVD films.
No mobile phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms. We had real friends (not Facebook "Friends") and we actually went out and met them – not online!
Only old ladies had pierced ears and only men who had been in the Navy had tattoos.
We made mud pies made from dirt, and played with frogs, worms and snails and we didn't wash our hands before eating blackberries, apples and plums.
You could only buy Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns (yes, the buns were allowed to have crosses on them and non Christians were happy to buy them as well!) at Easter time
we were given air guns and catapults for our 10th birthdays. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!
Mum didn't have to go to work to help dad make ends meet!
Rugby and cricket had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Getting into the team was based on merit.
Our teachers used to hit us with canes and gym shoes, and bullies always ruled the playground at school.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
Parents didn't invent stupid names for their kids like Kiaora, Blade, Ridge, Vanilla, Sky, Galley Eyes or Zepplin.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all. It may have not been the good old days, but at least it was real!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer.
Then after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright coloured lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets or shoes, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
Take away food was limited to fish and chips, no pizza shops, McDonalds, KFC, Subway or Nandos.
Even though all the shops closed at 6.00pm and didn't open on Sunday’s weekends, somehow we didn't starve to death!
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no body actually died!
We could collect old drink bottles and cash them in at the corner shop and buy Gobstoppers, Bubble Gum and 50 cent mixtures.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soft drinks with sugar in them, but not many of us overweight because...
We were always outside playing. And fat kids were called fatty, porky or chubby. Not told they were physically challenged or had a slow metabolism!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back before dark. No one saw us all day and we were O.K.
We’d spend hours building go-carts out of old prams and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. We built tree houses and dens and played in streams and on rivers.
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We did not have Play stations, Nintendo Wii or X-box. There were no video games, no 999 channels on SKY or video/DVD films.
No mobile phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms. We had real friends (not Facebook "Friends") and we actually went out and met them – not online!
Only old ladies had pierced ears and only men who had been in the Navy had tattoos.
We made mud pies made from dirt, and played with frogs, worms and snails and we didn't wash our hands before eating blackberries, apples and plums.
You could only buy Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns (yes, the buns were allowed to have crosses on them and non Christians were happy to buy them as well!) at Easter time
we were given air guns and catapults for our 10th birthdays. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!
Mum didn't have to go to work to help dad make ends meet!
Rugby and cricket had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Getting into the team was based on merit.
Our teachers used to hit us with canes and gym shoes, and bullies always ruled the playground at school.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
Parents didn't invent stupid names for their kids like Kiaora, Blade, Ridge, Vanilla, Sky, Galley Eyes or Zepplin.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all. It may have not been the good old days, but at least it was real!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)