On why I will never financially support Greenpeace

If you know me personally, you’ll have a pretty good idea of my political viewpoint. If you don’t, I’ll sum it up by saying that I’m a vegetarian, garden growing, creature loving, equal rights politicising person who manages an allergy food store who can’t wait to see the back of National. This would lead many to believe that I’m a total greeny – which I kind of am. Nevertheless, Greenpeace ain’t my bag.

These are the two main reasons why I won’t financially support Greenpeace:

1) I don’t enjoy being harassed on the street by them

2) I don’t agree with their ‘sales’ strategy

I was inspired to write this blog post when I went to pick up some groceries and ran into the Greenpeace conversion crew at the entryway. One of their ‘sales people’ was yelling at someone who said they weren’t keen: ‘Do you want another oil spill in your back yard?’ Hearing someone guilt trip a stranger like that reminded me the time some Auckland Uni Christians I didn’t know told me I was going to hell. Just like with Christians, I don’t judge the Greenpeace sales people by one ‘bad’ representative. But this is a familiar refrain from them. And having lived with someone who worked for Greenpeace, I have a fair idea why.

Has someone in telesales ever called your home around dinner time? Have you had difficulty getting them off the phone? Have you ever wondered why? It’s because in most call-centres, an incentive of some kind is on offer to increase sales rates and therefore profit for the company they work for. As a clueless teen I worked in a call centre so trust me, I know. Did you know that Greenpeace uses cash incentives to increase their membership rates? A good Greenpeace sales person can earn good money. It’s no wonder that their ‘sales people’ can be just as vigilant as those annoying telesales reps.

I understand that Greenpeace isn’t about making a profit like the companies who utilise telesales reps, so let’s move this analogy to Mormons. If you live in a reasonably easy access property, it is likely you have been visited by some Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses (J-Ho’s) at some point. I know that most have been raised to think this way, and I respect their right to believe what they like. When they come knocking I politely say thanks, but no thanks. These religious groups genuinely believe they are helping to make the world a better place. Greenpeace genuinely believes this too. I’m not a Mormon or J-Ho, even though I agree with much they believe in because there are some things about their faith system I’m not a fan of. It’s the same with Greenpeace.

The main thing I disagree with (as evident above) is their marketing tactic. Yes, I understand with more members there is more money to do more work and make the world a better place. And I understand that using a business model for a charity has some logic to it. But taking a corporate hard-line sales stance when you are opposed to corporate interference with our environment seems a little hypocritical...

I’m also not a fan of the guilt-tripping. I’ve heard it a bunch of times. They look at you like you are some heartless piece of scum if you don’t sign on the dotted line, and they know nothing about you. This is a great way to prey on those with insecurities or with a little too much compassion. I used to be like this. I used to be like: ‘But I only give money to Red Cross, Canteen and volunteer at Hospice twice a week. I should really do more for the environment (the elderly, the dolphins, insert anything that tugs heartstrings here).’ I don’t do that now*. I’ve learnt from speaking to a range of charity sales people that their sales rates are higher in lower income areas. It’s those who know hardship who know how helping others can make a difference. I don’t like how Greenpeace uses guilt to pay their bills.

Lastly, sometimes the ignorance of their ‘Sales reps’ is astounding. I’ve stopped getting in arguments with them after the few cyclical arguments I’ve had. It’s just like arguing with a telesales person, or a Mormon, or a tree – it goes nowhere. I guess if you benefit from telling people how to think, you can’t really question that way of thinking.

Despite these things, I do believe in many of the things they believe in – I’ve even signed a few petitions on their website. There are many more useful ways of supporting the causes you believe in than by giving them your money or telling others to think how you think. Share information, and let people decide for themselves. Live your life in a way that reflects your beliefs.

*I now have a ‘charities budget’. I donate regularly to one charity, financially aid a political party (who incidentally, don’t support oil drilling) and give to other charities as I am able.

On losing a tube

Our family has a bit of a history with ectopics. My mum had three. My great Aunt had a few too. The doctors say it is not hereditary. I say given our family history maybe an aspect of it is. Maybe our fallopian tubes are a bit anorexic, or maybe our cilia (little hairs in fallopian tubes) are wusses that get damaged easily. The pro for me about our family history is that when something goes a bit wrong, we know to be proactive. Mum has haemorrhaged twice. I’ve had two ectopics now and have haemorrhaged nonce. I’d say that’s a lesson learnt.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

If you read my ‘On Getting Older’ post last year you will have read about my nervousness of starting a family. Despite this, Murray and I decided that 2012 was going to be the year we’d try and get knocked up.

So I went off the pill just before Christmas as it usually takes a couple of months before you are able to conceive. Due to my super fertility and with a bit of help from Murray, we managed to get knocked up first ovulation cycle(2^nd Januaryish) – so we clocked the whole getting knocked up in 2012. Go the year of the Dragon! We were very excited about the prospect of a dragon baby.

I knew I was pregnant before we had a positive test. It’s hard to explain this to people that haven’t had this happen, but sometimes you just know. Next thing we knew my period was late, boobs suddenly huge, people had said I was ‘glowing’ and we took a home pregnancy test that was positive. We were so excited! We told my best friend, and our flatmates, and our friend who was going home to Switzerland (cos who is he gonna tell?) and planned to go to the doctors the coming weekend to confirm.

Two days after the excitement and pondering baby names (Ulysses?) I started spotting at work. I was worried, so I called Healthline and they told me to get to a GP within 24 hours. Because the pain had gotten worse and shifted to one side in particular, and because of my previous ectopic, my GP sent me straight to Auckland Hospital for a scan.

I had an ectopic pregnancy when I was twenty. I didn’t know I was pregnant – it was most definitely an accident. Because it started partially miscarrying just after my period was due, I thought I had a bad period – but it lasted for ages. The only reason I saw a doctor is because I had trouble doing yard work at the bach so told Grandma what was going on. She sent me to her doctors straight away. I had blood tests over a couple of weeks, had a laparoscopy and removed the ectopic from my right fallopian tube. Bing bang boom. Freaky gynae surprise dealt with.

Here are the basics on ectopics for those not in the know:

An ectopic pregnancy is where the fertilised egg implants itself in the wrong place ie: not the uturus. Most of the time it implants in the fallopian tubes, but sometimes it implants in weirder places like the cervix or ovaries. 60% of ectopic pregnancies naturally miscarry. If this doesn’t happen, and the ectopic is not removed it haemorrhages in whatever tiny space it is wrongly occupying. An untreated ectopic can be fatal.

So we went to hospital, did scans, tests, etc, and they kept me there for three days for monitoring. The thing with ectopics is, they are hard to detect. They usually fix themselves via miscarriage but if they don’t, time is a factor because of the whole possible haemorrhaging to death thing. The process of working out what this was took them about ten days. Because of how early in the pregnancy we were, it was hard for them to know for sure what was going on.

I had three scans over nine days and five blood tests. Last Friday I was told it was ectopic, and they were going to give me this chemo drug to dissolve the pregnancy tissue. They sent a counsellor to talk to me, measured and weighed me to work out the dose, and then a few hours later a specialist came and told me there wasn’t enough certainty for them to give me the drug. There was a possibility that it was still a normal pregnancy with other issues. The specialist (and us) wanted this possible baby to have every possible chance. We went home with strict instructions to come back if anything changed before my next appointment on Sunday.

On Saturday night we were watching A Team (which sucks) when the pain became a bit more stabby. We went straight to hospital. I felt like a bit of a dick for not waiting until morning, but was glad after we got there as it got worse; the hospital gave me oxycontin, we don’t have drugs like that at home. They told me that they were going to do a laparoscopy in the morning, and had doctors on hand in case I did haemorrhage and had to go in sooner. I stayed up all night feeling a bit dopey and doing Sudoku.

Murray and Mum managed to get in before they took me in to theatre. Going to theatre is weird. It’s this big room with big lights and lots of people. My anaesthetist, and all my doctors and nurses were women. The operating table has a hole in it, but it was covered by a towel. When I tried to shift from bed to table I put my arm through it. About four people grabbed at me to stop me falling. It was hilarious. Then they gave me midazolam…

Waking up from general was surprisingly nice. I was pretty sore but they had put warm towels on my stomach and I had these weird, inflating electric blanket socks on which were comforting. My pain levels took awhile to go down so I was in recovery for a few hours before I could go to the ward. I had been in surgery for an hour. Apparently I had been very funny on midazolam so when I came out of surgery everyone was smiling. I asked what had happened, and they told me they had to remove my left fallopian tube as it was too badly damaged from the ectopic.

Losing a tube for me is harder than losing this pregnancy. About one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage, and at just a few weeks into this pregnancy, we were aware that might be a reality for us. Losing a tube is weird. It’s not like something that people notice when you’re walking down the street. It’s also not like it feels that different not having it – there’s no weird empty space like if you lose a finger, your organs just kind of move around and fill the empty space. Losing a tube could also lose me an important function.

Because my previous ectopic was on the opposite side, it means we may not be able to naturally conceive. In six weeks I will have a scan to test the function of my right fallopian tube. If it functions, we can then try and get pregnant again. If not, we will have to look at other options. We have already been told that we will be eligible for IVF because I’m young, not too fat and a non-smoker – so that is great. Because of my super fertility, and the fact I’ve been an egg donor before, this option seems pretty reasonable. Sadly, if things go awry at our 6 week scan this will be our only way to have a baby. Currently in NZ law, gay couples, and people in Civil Unions are unable to adopt. This law needs updating. I will write more about this later.

It’s so funny how a person can go from not really being too bothered about something to really wanting it to happen in a few short months. And it’s weird how you can miss having a part of your body that you don’t see, use or think about every day. Murray and I are both very pragmatic people so we are coping well and I am sure something positive will come from this.

On the short shorts dilemma

Happy New Year! I know I’ve been slack. I thought I’d post a little blog about short shorts, as it was a topic which brought with it much debate on Facebook earlier this week. My exact post was this:

‘Witnessed butt cheek walking to work this morning. This girl’s shorts were SO short that every time she moved her leg you could see butt. Glad it was a nice butt. For future knowledge, in this situation should you tell said person you can see their butt? Or is it implicit that they are already aware of this?’

This post elicited 61 comments. The first few comments were from female friends instructing me that I shouldn’t tell her that I can see her butt, that this is, in fact, the intended fashion. Now, her shorts were not quite as short as those in the images above, but that was about the amount of her butt that I could see as she took each step forward. It’s quite a bit of butt.

It is because I wear short shorts myself that I wanted to know what the protocol around buttocks is. It is not my intention to show my buttocks to strangers (even though I am quite fond of my bootiliciousness, cellulite and all) via short shorts. I wear short shorts as it is Summer and it is hot, and I run around all day for a job and skirts and dresses look bad with running shoes. BUT, if you can see my butt, please let me know. I would feel as embarrassed about my visible buttocks as if one of my boobs accidentally fell out of my top and I somehow didn’t notice (I know someone this has happened to. It can happen).

It is also very easy to not know that your butt is showing in short shorts because:

a) Dressing rooms and mirrors are ill-equipped for a proper short shorts butt check and we don’t all shop with our mates, or get our mates to check our arses when we walk.

b) Sometimes we put on weight on our bouncy back bits and don’t notice…

c) Shorts ride up. Front and back. This can also create the dreaded camel toe.

I think the comment that started the real debate (which was about freedom of expression vs children being exposed to sexually charged ideas to early) was from Peter:

‘i find it interesting here its women regulating the bodies of other women , honestly shouldnt they do it any way they want as long as it aint Genitalia?’

Regulating the bodies of other women was not my intention by the post. My intention was purely to find out the protocol around buttock bearing. I know it goes against most people’s sense of decency to wear a top so low cut that you can see the areola, I wondered if this protocol extended to butt cheeks, as this would be my assumption.

I thought I’d check out NZ law around nudity to support my point about publicly displayed buttocks and I found this website. It turns out there is no law in New Zealand which bans partial or full nudity, unless it is accompanied by ‘obscenity’. ‘Obscenity’ is a fairly subjective term. Some may find the display of buttocks via short shorts obscene, some may not. So the law is really not designed for such petty things as the control of short shorts.

So I then scoured the internet to see whether I could find an article about fashion and dressing etiquette and I have to say, the pickings were slim. I found lots of articles on how to dress for a black tie event, and some poorly written blogs, but nothing especially helpful. I found this: an article on a study of how men respond to women based on how they are dressed in nightclubs.

‘Any more than 40 per cent and the signal changes from ‘allure’ to one indicating general availability and future infidelity. Show some leg, show some arm, but not any more than that.’

By ‘not any more than that’ I’m sure they mean no butt. So putting together two and two from this article, and the fact that we women appear to be 'regulating' seeing buttocks on the street, I'd say naked butt is quite probably off-putting to many. I guess the reason I had difficulty finding any article about the protocol of arse in public is due to the general assumption that most of us know not to display our backsides in public like baboons. I think the only thing clouding our logic here are the artificial, media driven 21st century ‘Gods’ fashion and celebrity.

I know the kids these days are doing it because those they most want to emulate are doing it: Katy Perry, Rihanna, Lady Gaga and even Hannah Montana have recently sported some pretty public butt. And fashion trends follow the celebs, and the cool kids follow the fashion trends and everyone wants to be cool. But just as we don’t expect people on the street to be wearing Haute Couture, or to turn up at a wedding and find the bride dressed in this, we don’t expect to see naked buttocks on Symonds Street overbridge at 8.30am. If you can ever see my butt in short shorts I assure you, it will be because I got fat. Please tell me. I will not be offended, I will just feel like a bit of a dick.

On Politics: Part Two – Economic policy

I’m trying to keep this short and simple, which is very tricky. What seem to me to be the major economic issues for this election are:

- Getting a handle on our debt

- Growing our economy

- Taxation

- Cost of living

- Savings schemes

Here are some graphs to give you an idea of how our debt has been handled over the last ten years. The things we need to take into account when looking at this are the major, unexpected expenses which have come up since the last election – the Christchurch earthquakes and the Rena grounding. This has, understandably, blown out budgets significantly. What is interesting about the graphs is how it shows a serious decline in debt toward the end of Labours last term in government. Despite National constantly touting Labour as the 'spendthrift' party, they managed to keep our debt in check. Both National and Labour have plans to have our debt paid down by 2015, but both have very different plans. In simplified form, National plan to part sell our SOE’s, grow the economy and cut spending. Labour plan to install a CGT, bring emissions taxing for farmers forward to 2013, grow the economy, gradually increase the retirement age to 67, and bring the upper tax bracket back up to where it was before National reduced it.

In order for us to ‘compete’ with other countries in terms of wages and work opportunities, we need to grow our economy. Growing our economy will also help us pay down our debt faster, and add some slack to those tight governmental purse strings. This is valued by all the political parties I looked at, but all have a different view on how to do this. National plans to reduce business costs, work on progressing trade agreements to encourage our export market, use Asset Sale shares as a way to ‘revamp’ investment, alter the beneficiary system significantly and improve infrastructure (internet/roading etc) within NZ. Labour are looking at bringing in an R&D tax credit to encourage research and development, creating more apprenticeship schemes, putting more red tape around the sale of our land to foreigners, keep government contracting to NZ based firms only and introduce a CGT to encourage more diverse investment.

In the minority parties the Greens are interested in more than measuring a country by GDP, and want to focus on creating a new way to measure success. They want to create more sustainable businesses, support local businesses and stop the sale of land to foreigners. Act want to cut spending and red tape, lower taxes, sell SOE’s and allow more mining. NZ First want to buy back land that is in foreign hands and rebuild the NZ export economy without free trade deals with low wage economies. Maori want to encourage business in small rural communities, and create a Maori Economic Strategy.

Tax is an interesting thing. It is essential to the running of our country, but also hits us where it can hurt – in the pocket. Labour’s proposed CGT has got a lot of people running scared, but it isn’t a new concept. It has been one of the Green’s policies for a long time, and currently exists in most OECD countries. National and Act are against it, but it is a tax policy most minority parties agree on. Where Act and NZ First is about lower taxes for all, Labour wants to bring the upper tax rate back up to where it was before National took it down and bring emissions taxation forward. The Greens want to bring in more eco taxes and Mana want to bring in the ‘Hone Heke’ tax (like the British ‘Robin Hood’ tax) and a more progressive tax system.

There are also some ‘tax free’ zones proposed by a number of parties. For every party for it, there is a different amount:

Labour $5,000 Greens $10,000 Maori $25,000 Mana $27,000

Many parties are also all for taking GST off at least something, if not everything. Mana want to abolish GST entirely, Maori want to remove it from food, and Labour want to remove it from fruit and veges.

Cost of living is of large concern to many of us. Inflation has gone up around 9% because of the rise of food, electricity and petrol prices, not to mention the 2.5% hike to GST. Over this time median incomes have dropped around 6%, and the minimum wage has increased just 1.9%. For families working hard for minimum or low wages, it’s tough times. National has few plans to address this – a slight reshuffle of Working for Families giving low income families around $14 extra a week, and changes to healthcare. Labour, NZ First, Greens and Mana want to bring the minimum wage up to $15, with both Greens and Mana wanting to fix minimum wage at two-thirds of the average wage. Changes to GST are also designed to aid in this. Act do not seem to be concerned about cost of living at all, but given their target demographic for votes, this is no surprise.

Savings has become even more of an issue for this election with Standard & Poors saying this was a key reason behind our credit downgrade. To be honest, it’s quite difficult to find what the minority parties plan to do about this through reading policy online. Although the Greens say they ‘support savings schemes’ they do not outline specifically how they support these. National and Labour clearly outline how they plan to address this issue. National plan to increase minimum Kiwisaver payments, establish auto-enrolment to Kiwisaver in 2014 (if in surplus), adding investment opportunity through partial asset sales, and resuming contributions to the NZ Super fund once back in surplus. Labours plans are similar – making Kiwisaver compulsory, restarting contributions to the NZ Super fund and gradually increasing the age of Super entitlement from 65 – 67 over 22 years.

So that’s the basic gist of financial policy. I’m sure you have already made your mind up, or at least thought about what you think makes most sense. I’ll tell you my thoughts pretty shortly, but first, here are a few informative articles about what other people think: This is from business leaders on National's economic plan. This, on National from an MYOB poll. And this is an interesting blog on both parties and their approach to the economy.

Economics is supposed to be National’s strong suit, and as such, I see no point in debating their numbers. Phil Goff has produced the numbers also, and until someone other than John Key and Bill English can pick this apart, I see no reason to believe it will not work. More importantly, National's fiscal policy might be completely sound, but is it really what's good for New Zealand?

National are proposing selling off 49% shares in some of our SOE's. This means that the government will maintain decision making power over these assets, but 49% of the profits from those assets will go to whoever invests in them. National and Act are behind this idea, but everyone else disagrees with this. And although National has said these shares will be sold to 'Kiwi families', the likelihood of 'Kiwi families being able to afford this investment is minimal, and in reality, these investments will go offshore. This will not 'revamp' the NZ investment economy as proposed by National. It will just provide a short-term cash fund for the government. As David Cunliffe from Labour says: ‘Asset sales: a one off, short term fix that ignores the lessons of history.’ Selling off our SOE’s is an extremely short sighted plan with little benefit. My other concern with National’s proposal of this, is the validity of it being necessary to get us into surplus. Initially, asset sales were designed to pay down our debt. Now National are saying that asset sales will fund changes to education, health and provide more funds for Kiwibank, so are asset sales really necessary to get us into surplus?

Labour (and every party besides National and Act) give us the option not to sell our SOE's. This comes at the price of changes to taxation. If the upper tax bracket is brought back up to 39%, it will still be the 7^th lowest top tax bracket in the OECD. Countries with lower top tax brackets tend to have more unequal societies. Given that NZ is currently rated as the 6^th most unequal economic society in the OECD, surely upping tax levels in the top bracket can only mean positives for us as a country? Introducing CGT’s to me is just a common sense way of creating a fairer tax system and a more equal society. Please read Labour’s CGT policy if you don’t really understand it – it’s quite simple, and not really that scary.

For those of you who don't know me, you are probably thinking that I'm just another 'bloody Leftist', that I have everything to gain from Labour and nothing to lose. That I am another poor beneficiary who is moaning about the 'haves and the have nots'. Like many 'Leftists', I am not. My husband and I both work. Financially, I would probably be considered middle class. We eat out at nice restaurants, we're about to buy our first home, we travel overseas, we part-own our family bach. Although (like most Kiwis) we would not be affected 'in the pocket' by changes to the upper tax bracket, we would be financially affected by the introduction of a CGT and changes to the retirement age and my workload would be affected by changes to GST My choice not to support National is not about financial envy, it's about how I truly believe NZ can be a better country to live in.

I do not believe selling our assets is a good long term plan. Neither do most politicians. I do believe in creating a fairer tax system. Given both our current financial position and position on the OECD tables, I think this is necessary for creating an all-round better New Zealand. More equal societies have been proven to have lower rates of crime, unemployment, poverty, teen pregnancy, mental illness and homelessness. That means less spending on health and law enforcement, and an increase in tax revenues. The bottom line is important to me, but, like the Greens, I believe the wealth of a country is determined by more than it's GDP.

On Politics: Part one - NZd's Hottest Politicians 2011

Now that we're coming into election month, I thought I'd write a series of posts which cover my thoughts on party policy (because I rant about it so much) around the following important areas:

- Finance

- Health and wellbeing

- Environment

- Education

- Fairness and equality

BUT, before I get all serious about politics I’d like to take some time to talk about the most fun way to vote in this election: by hottest MP. So I thought I'd look into this and reveal the hottest faces in politics, the hottest area, and, most importantly, the hottest party in New Zealand. Now this is an area of great discussion between my husband and I as we drive into the zone of his number one hottest lady in politics (ahh, Carmel). So before I give you MY thoughts, I’ll remind you of this years hottest lot as voted in The Durex Valentine's Day Foreplay Election Survey.

For the ladies:

1) Jacinda Adern (Labour)

2) Nikki Kaye (National)

3) Paula Bennett (National)

And for the gentlemen:

1) John Key(National)

2) Simon Bridges (National)

3) Bill English (National)

Jacinda and Nikki not only have to battle it out in the 'hot' seat, but they are also both standing for the Auckland Central seat. In my personal opinion, Nikki out-hots Jacinda by a country mile. If Jacinda learnt to smile without using all her teeth, she might be slightly better competition. And Paula Bennett, well, I’m not a huge fan of her policies, but I agree she’s a bit of alright in the looks department.

Now this is John Key.

He has won this for two years running now, and I have to say I have no idea why. Yes, he's been in Woman's Day more than the rest, but surely that doesn't make him a hot man? I don’t find him attractive at all. His jaw line is undefined, he has kind of piggy eyes, and let’s face it, that nose does him no favours. I do see that he is a charismatic man, and I know that charisma trumps looks, but really people, are you sure about this guy?

Simon Bridges who took out second, is definitely a hot man. I can't see why he's not number one though. He is much better looking than Mr Key. Bill English, like John, is a mystery to me. Bill is one of the few National MP’s I actually like, but I don’t find him attractive at all.

I don’t know what was up with this election survey. There are some very hot politicians missing from the top spots. I am very surprised to see Melissa Lee from National not in the top three this year. She is currently ranked the 50^th hottest woman in politics worldwide. And yes, I know, she was extremely offensive to the entire South Auckland populace, but this is about looks people, and I have to agree that she’s smoking hot.

After scouring the party lists for Labour, National, Greens, NZ First, The Maori

Party, Mana Party, Alliance, Act and Democrats for Social Credit (that's a LOT

of MP's!) I found a couple of other gems. Carmel Supuloni from Labour, Waitakere, is who my husband is in love with. I have to admit, Carmel (top of blog post), is pretty banging. I think she definitely out hots Paula Bennett, and it's easy to see this as their billboards are often almost side by side.

But my number one hottest lady in politics, who is probably not mentioned as she’s ranked 46th on the party list is Sehai Orgad from Labour, Hamilton East. Hot damn! This woman is extremely good looking. She looks like a beautiful mermaid that got washed up on our shores before the Rena disaster. How she ended up in Hamilton East is anyone’s guess. I showed her to Murray and now he’s having a dilemma over Carmel. She is magical.

There was also a MILF (or GILF) that deserve notable mention. Charmaine Watts from the Greens is a bit of a minx. She has a bit of mischief in her eyes, and she’s a stunner. After discussing ‘silver foxes’ many times, we label this category the ‘silver beaver’, and Charmaine is that.

Now, on to the top blokes. The survey got this so one so wrong. The ladies, I can kind of understand, but the men? The notable people missing from this survey are: Kelvin Davis (Labour), Dion Jelley (NZ First), Peseta Sam Lotu-liga (National) and good old Winston Peters.

Now Kelvin Davis is my Carmel Sepuloni. Whenever we head West, and I see his billboards I get just a little bit hot under the collar. If I were in the Te Tai Tokerau electorate, he’d be my guy. When scanning through though the candidates, I spotted a couple of other notable mentions. I checked out Dion Jelley’s Facebook page – many hot pics of him there. Definitely should have made top four at least.

And Pesata Sam Lotu-liga just has something so warm about his face. How could anyone not fall in love with him?

Winston Peters is one of those love/hate characters who’s been in politics for a long while now. But even if you hate him, how can you deny that he is a silver fox? He’s the Howard Morrison of politics. He’s got charisma, he’s got style and I think he’s got the looks too. If he were a single man, and I were a single lady and he closed his mouth for five minutes, I’d go there. If I were voting for our next Prime Minister solely on looks, it’d be NZ First all the way.

Also have to mention Mahesh Bindra from NZ First for the most impressive tashe. He could almost fit in well here with the other Kenny Rogers lookalikes. Mahesh, you made my morning so much better.

So here are my final verdicts.

For hottest female MP it’s gotta be Sehai Orgad. Despite this being only my opinion I’m guessing she’s missing from the Durex poll purely because people thought her a vision, a mirage, because no politician in NZ could possibly be this hot. So she wins. Go Labour!

For hottest male MP based on pure looks (sorry Kelvin) it’s Simon Bridges. Simon, you look like a smarmy little prick, BUT I must admit, you are a pretty hot man. So he wins. Go National!

The hottest area of MP’s in New Zealand has gotta be Waitakere/Te Tai Tokerau with Paula Bennett, Carmel Sepuloni and Kelvin Davis (I combined electorates a little - made sense really). Number two is Auckland Central. With Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Adern - the two top picks from Durex. Number three is Tauranga, with good old Winston Peters and favourite Simon Bridges. Note that there is only one MP representing all of the South Island. You hang in there Bill!

Now we’ve reached the most important part of all – the hottest political party in New Zealand. I worked this out by allocating points to each party based on the selected MP's and ranked them based on ‘official’ ranking as well as my personal ranking.

There was a clear overall winner, which was National. Not too far behind in second, was Labour. A surprising third place goes to NZ First – a bunch of pretty good looking blokes in that party, and the Greens were worth mentioning with their 'silver beaver'. There are little to no attractive politicians to be found in any of the other parties I looked at. Kudos to Democrats for Social credit and Mana party – there were a few people that nearly made it to my final list. And Dr Pita Sharples from Maori has made the Durex list before - we can't forget that. Well done all.

So if you are choosing to vote based solely on hot politicians, vote National in the 2011 election. Don’t vote for Act.

On being silly

So I haven’t written a blog post in ages because I’ve been slack, so I thought I’d better write something. The only thing which inspired me today was my horoscope. Not the bloody RWC results, the coming election, the Rena disaster or the Occupy movement because today I have a headache, and those things are far too hard to fathom.

Here is my horoscope for today:

You haven't been celebrating life to the hilt. It's the little details that turn an ordinary scene into a party. If you haven't already, this is the perfect day to go looking for the mother of all pumpkins.

Now if I was in Dave Gorman’s Important Astrological Experiment, I would probably take this advice on board and go and find a giant pumpkin. But I am not, and I am under the weather so can’t be bothered finding a pumpkin. And given my propensity for celebrating small things, I think a more appropriate horoscope for me today would be:

You need to stop dwelling on winning the trophies you have created and maybe do something useful for a change, like seeing a dentist or getting a haircut like your flatmate Sam. Hannah, you have a mullet.

Now I don’t think I should stop celebrating small things. I think it’s a very important part of life. I was talking about it with one of my regular customers at work yesterday and we agreed that most grown-ups have forgotten what it’s like to be properly silly. I don’t mean drunken karaoke silly. I mean fall-on-your arse-when-you’re-not-drunk silly. I’m pretty good at both of these kinds of silly. And watching large amounts of It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia has kind of inspired me to be more silly more often.

I think that grown-ups with kids understand silliness a little better than people without kids. That’s mostly because children say and do ridiculous things all the time. Kids are, by nature, a bit ridiculous. The only problem being that when you HAVE kids, you tend to monitor your silly better because you have to set ‘an example’. Because I don’t have kids, and I’m silly, I am not the best when there are kids are around. I encourage them to be a bit silly, and kids being kids, have more energy for silliness than me. They out silly me, and then they get in trouble. And it really is my fault, not theirs – I don’t know how to put proper boundaries around silliness, and kids are still learning boundaries themselves, so it becomes utter chaos.

As grown-ups I think we all need to be a bit silly. Parents included. Sure, we need to do some grown up things, maybe have some financial stability, goals, be nice to people, blah blah blah, but there is always room for being silly. Here are some examples of simple ways of injecting a little silly into your life:

1. Buy a big bouncy ball from the $2 shop. See how far you can kick it. This helps you to ‘press play’, be silly and meet your neighbours!

2. Pull faces at small children that stare at you in malls, buses, parks, anywhere really. Just not a scary face. In lieu of this (if you don’t know how scary your face is), smile at small children.

3. Buy some bubble mixture. Blow bubbles in a crowded public place. This makes everyone happy.

4. Play ‘$2-$3 Challenge’ with some friends at a $2 shop, emporium, The Warehouse or K Mart.Try and buy the most awesome thing you can find. You vote afterwards and can’t vote for your own thing. And play with all the things.

5. Build a hut in your living room. Probably best to do this with household objects, not sticks and leaves. That’s a little too silly.

If you need a slightly sillier challenge, try one of these ones on for size:

1. Decide on a competition of some kind (gross food eating, cup cake decorating, four square tournament etc). Invite your friends. Make a trophy. Try really hard to win the trophy but don’t break anyone’s legs or stuff whilst doing so.

2. Create a ‘local park challenge’. Go with your friends to a local park. Design some kind of confidence course on it then time trial everyone over the course.

3. Go out to a café/supermarket in your pyjamas or some awesome dress up gears. Smile at anyone who looks at you. Make some new friends.

I encourage everyone to get their silly on. And make trophies. Then you can get a trophy cabinet and look important. Being silly is important. But so is not having a mullet.