If Only For Inspiration...

5 Reasons you should have your photo taken.

2011-12-18T17:38:00.001-08:00

I am an amateur photographer. I not especially good at it, but I have an old well loved DSLR (Canon Rebel if anyone is interested) and I love to show up at events and take photos. Its like capturing an event for all time. But I have an problem and I am sure many other amateur photographers also have this issue. People who won't let you take photos of them. Those people who turn their heads away, hide in a bedroom or cover their face with their hands. This worst culprits are teenage girls, but I also know many guys who also refuse to be photographed. So today I will point out a few things about this issue.

Nothing bad happens.
You will probably know that x-rays are not very good for your health. They use radiation and if you receive too many x-rays you are likely to get cancer. Cameras are not like x-rays, they do not give you cancer, brain damage or any other diseases. There are scientists all around the world who say that every time you call someone on a mobile phone, you increase your chances of brain tumours. I have never heard anyone say that camera's give you an illness.
If you're not in a photo, you weren't there.
Often I take photos at camps, and afterwards I make a selection of the photos that best represent the event and upload them. Nearly always people send me messages requesting more photos so they can have "more great memories of this camp". Most people remember by looking at photos and as you get older your memory deteriorates. Have you ever sat down with your parents or grandparents and looked through their old family photos? Laughed at the fashion, listened to their stories surrounding the photo? Don't you want to be able to do this with your future kids and grand kids? If you are not in any photos you will not have these opportunities. And worse: No one will remember you.
The more photos taken of you, the better.
Any real photographer (even an amateur) will only choose a collection of the best photographs. But photographers also want to make sure that there are photos of everyone in the album. I have had people send me messages after parties complaining that they are not in any photos, so I have learnt from this and try hard to include everybody. So if I only get one photo of you all night, that is the photo I will put on Facebook, regardless of how good it is. But if I get 10 photos of you there is 10x the chance of having a good photo. So the more photos there are of you, the more likely it is that their will be a good photo of you. (This doesn't apply so much with professional photographers because they will probably get a good photo every time, amateurs like me will need a few tries)
Popular people get lots of photos taken of them
Have you noticed that the cool kids always end up in lots of photos? You should be flattered if someone wants to take lots of photos you.
Its a little offensive
I don't know if this is just me, but I am always offended when someone refuses to let me take a photo of them. To me it says: 1. I don't trust you with a photo of me. 2. I don't want people to know I was hanging out with you. And 3. You are awful photographer, people always look awful in your photos.
If any of those things are the case, then just tell me that.

So that is the end of my speel about those people who won't have their photo taken. So remember these holidays: Nothing bad happens. People remember you by looking at photos of you. If some one takes lots of photos of you there is a better chance of a good photo. If people like taking photos of you it means you are popular. It is offensive to always refuse photographs.

Ranting about personal peeves once again,
Dan Brunskill

P.S I am sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I know anything about photography or people. I do not know if these ideas reflect the ideas of other amateur photographers, it just a bunch of stuff the popped into my head.
If you wish to debate against something I have said please do! Post a comment below, I would love to hear you opinion.

Interesting and un-exciting: Life.

2011-12-18T02:18:00.000-08:00

Life is an interesting thing. I haven't worked out why yet, but thats what people keep telling me.
I am writing this in the corner of my parents garage. I am sitting on an old couch that was rejected by the family as acceptable living room furniture. The wall to my left is covered in crude shelves and they are filled with the cluttered treasures people hoard and disregard. Memories and potential. Some active, some passed. To my right is another piece of rejected furniture, a large table. Reliced by years of being used by a big family. It is covered in whatever music gear my brother and I could scavenge. Microphones, tamberines, shakers, an old stolen P.C screen, a stereo that belongs in our parents lounge and a collection of tea cups. My brother is sitting at this table writing a song about appreciation of life, a song about hope. My sisters are also occuping this room but they are remaining quiet as so not to put off any flows of creativity Tim may be having. And I have chosen this time to reignite this old blog.

Sometimes I feel the need to create, to write, to share. I don't know that I handle emotions very well. I often don't understand how I feel until I write something and then I suddenly understand. Sometimes I discover myself through song, sometimes through a piece of writing, like this one.
I still don't know why I am writing this. I guess I want to send something out into that cosmic void we call the internet. Blasting some random collection of words off into the internet, like an unguided ship into space. I don't what will happen, except I know nothing will happen. And for some reason that is exciting.
I like the idea of someone reading this and then, in some bizzare and semi-fictional way, us being connected by the piece of my soul, of me, that I have recklessly dumped into these paragraphs. I write without a filter, my subconscious mind thinks it, and then my hands type it. It is like I am telling myself a story and I am writing it down, so I do not forget. I wouldn't call this inspiration, that is different, this is mearly venting, letting all my thoughts out so I can sleep tonight. Thoughts about music, life, fun, bordem, fear, peace, love, there is so much to write about! So many things going on! Not one of them worthy of a film or a book, but not one of them worthy of forgetting or disregarding!

So I will aspire to write it all! All the elements of this apparently-interesting life we call our own, all written on a page on my bedroom floor or cast into this cosmic void. All beautiful, all boring, all life.

Waxing the lyrical once again,
Dan Brunskill

P.S At this stage I would normal go though my writing and see if there is anything worth publishing. Given the occasion of tonight I will not. I will not even read it through again tonight. I cannot really remember what I said. I'm not even doing spell check. This is as raw as it comes.
Look out for some more refined posts further down the line.

Graffiti – an Art or a Crime?

2010-10-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

Graffiti is a pretty big thing in New Zealand. Under every bridge, in every hard to get to place, It’s everywhere! But the question that keeps coming up: Is it art? There isn’t a clear yes or no answer to that question, but there are many different opinions and theories on the subject. What I am going to say is that there isn't a clear yes or no answer because the answer is yes and yes.

Now many snobby classical artist and those who appreciate their art, would usually say that it is not art. They would say the same things about graffiti that they said about Impressionism, Abstract and Cubism. They would say that it is not art, and that only their way of doing things is really art. In fact art doesn’t have rules, you can’t have rules. If art had rules it would be a science. The only reason art ever does have rules, is so people can break them. So, that means that graffiti is therefore art, not necessarily art in the way we think of it, but still art.

So that isn’t the problem then. The problem people have with graffiti (or the only problem reasonable people should have with graffiti), is that it can be destructive. The fact that people create their art on other people’s private property is the problem. This is the vandalism part of it, this is the crime part of it. This big argument that is going on, hasn’t reached a solution because the people on “opposing sides” of the argument, aren’t actually on the same argument. They are arguing different things. One side is argueing that graffiti is an art form, and others are arguing that it is vandalism. They are bot right, but they are taking about different things. In reality, both these groups are extremely narrow minded.

Neither of them is looking at the big picture. Those who are saying it is art, are overlooking the fact, that usually where they do their art is on people public property. And those people generally don’t want that art on their fence. However, the people complaining that graffiti isn’t art,are overlooking the fact that is still art. Even if it is somewhere it shouldn't be. If Leonardo da Vinchi painted the Mona Lisa on their fence, they would complain calling it vandalism. But because the Mona Lisa was painted on a canvas it is considered one of the greatest painting in history. Now I am not saying that people should go inside and do their graffiti on a big canvas. That would no longer be graffiti (or street art if you prefer the term). So how do we fix this problem? It’s simple really.

Many city's in Australia have attempted to stop vandalism by providing specific walls, dedicated to street art, where graffiti artists can go and do their work without breaking the law, or damaging property. By doing that, street art can continue in its age old traditions.

So, this argument is ludicrous and narrow-minded, Graffiti is art. But it is art in the wrong place. If both the ‘artists’ and the ‘victims’ opened their eyes a little they could see that. If we made specific environments to channel these artists talent and passion, we could solve the problem very quickly.

However, knowing bureaucracy I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Dan Brunskill

P.S This is an essay that I had to write for school, not what I usually have in the way of my blog.

The Teaching We Have Neglected

2010-10-18T18:05:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have heard that I started a course on Teaching the Bible, at East West College of Intercultural Studies, recently. The course is taught by Gerald Chee, who is wonderful.
But throughout the last two weeks a few interesting things have come up. Things, I think, are worth a mention. It basically sums up into saying, we don't teach the bible properly. Or we don't teach the bible enough, in many cases. Let me talk about this some more.

"The written word defines and introduces the living word."
Many churches don't focus on the Word. Sermons often feel like motivational speeches. I've heard many sermons about "being on fire for Christ, and living life for him". But they rarely go deeper into the Word of God, but without the word of God we can't "live life for him", because the word is what tells us how to live life for him. So they are telling us to do things, they haven't quipped us for.

"The word of God is sufficient for the work of God."
Another thing churches and Christians often spend a lot of their energy on, is miracles. Everyone wants to see miracles. People go around hopping from church to church trying to find the "anointing", but miracles are nothing compared to the word. Sure they're great when they happen, but that's not what our faith should be built on. Our faith should be build on the Word of God.

"The Focus on the Immediacy of Salvation"
We were given an article to read for class, it was by Joseph T. Bayly (I included the link at the bottom of the page), basically he asked Canon T.C Hammond's opinion on Christianity in America. And he said that he was impressed by our shallow treatment of the doctrines of sin and law. And he also said that we introduced children and adults to salvation, without first giving them a foundation in the knowledge of personal rebellion and sin. And he said that by offering this immediate salvation it gave a the result of people having a low view of Christ, grace and righteousness. What Canon Hammonds was trying to say was that we were, and still are, giving people immediate salvation before explaining the full deal (Gerald Chee likened it to insurance salesmen). We need to teach people the whole bible (which, by the way, doesn't have to take years, you can give an overview of the bible in 20 minutes) before offering them salvation.

Well there's something to think about. Maybe I'm wrong, or have completely misunderstood what Gerald has been saying, but I thought that was interesting.
Have a look at the link I have provided below, its an interesting little article, and it not very long (A page and a half).

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=-yu2pvqYt5oC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=Joseph+T.+Bayly+The+Teaching+we+have+Neglected&source=bl&ots=zzOPe1jdOJ&sig=HKIScKSnN1dBckS06eeNHDhvlYA&hl=en&ei=5PO8TMLjGImucL2cnckN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

50 posts and they're still rubbish.

2010-10-17T18:06:00.000-07:00

This (if I get around to publishing it), will be my 50th post. An event that should be worth commemorating. But to be honest, its not.

The only really good blogs I have written I could count on Von Stauffenbergs fingers. And the reason: I let myself write about anything anytime. That doesn't work.

So I need direction, I need a subject. I need something to inspire me.

I watched the movie Julie and Julia recently, it was basically about some lady called Julie who was madly obsessed with an old celebrity chef named Julia, and she did a blog where she cooked her way through Julia's cook book, in a year (365 days, 500 and something recipes). And wrote a blog about it. Along the way she had several meltdowns, nearly got fired and almost got a divorce. No need to say I won't be doing Julia Child blog! But that sort of challenge is exactly what I need.

So, I want your ideas (all three readers that is)! What should this blog become? It needs to be completely remodeled and renamed (away from the stupidly bland "Dans Articles").

So, suggestions please!

P.S The only things I have considered so far is a review type thing, books or music or something. And believe it or not, cooking was also considered. A sort of documentation of all the meals I make. But I'm not sure.

The world isn't getting any better.

2010-06-13T20:21:00.000-07:00

Who's seem the news recently? I haven't, so I'm writing about something I thought up a while ago.

A few months back, I was having a conversation with a friend about what I would do if I was the Prime Minister. And since I'm treating this blog like a column in a newspaper, I am acting like a columnist, which means I know exactly how to run the country and the politicians don't. But that said, I feel like the world isn't getting any better. In fact it is getting worse. There have been three riots in different country's within the last month! More children are dieing in Africa, not less. Murder is a common thing, every week on the news. The only good thing that has happened recently, is that we have managed to pull ourselves out of a recession. But, we must be doing something wrong. And everything comes down to people, I think New Zealand, and the world, needs a bit of a sorting out. So I will be starting a little series on how to fix the world, one New Zealand law at a time....

The world isn't getting any better. Part one: poverty.

2010-06-07T18:55:00.000-07:00

Poverty. It is everywhere. But the sort I am talking about is third world poverty. According to UNICEF, 24000 die each day due to poverty. So I've come up with a solution....

Pay more tax. This is the exact opposite of what we want. On the last election we spent our vote on whoever promised us the biggest tax cut (of course we never got a tax cut really, and the little one we did get will soon be destroyed by the raising of G.S.T). But we shouldn't be a selfish nation. What would this extra tax go toward? Some of it would go to the normal things, roads, prisons, the poor, hospitals, ect ect but with more money they could do a better job (who likes waiting for three hours in a hospital waiting room, with blood poring out your head, which you hurt when you crashed your car on a bad road? nobody!). But a large chunk of this tax would go toward poverty. In September 2000, the 189 countries of the United Nations agreed to “spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty,” specifically hunger and the “major diseases that afflict humanity.” This was going to be achieved by a program in which twenty-two countries promised to donate 0.7% of their country's total income (this apparently will generate $195 billion). But New Zealand still hasn't achieved this, in fact we haven't even set a goal. You think that in ten years we could have got close, surely? We currently donate 0.29% which is quite a way from the ideal 0.70%. But, even if we did make it to that goal, I don't think it is enough. It should be at least : 1%. But, we could do 10%. If we really were going to “spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty,” specifically hunger and the “major diseases that afflict humanity.” then we would donate 10%, or at least 2%. And we would sort out poverty very quickly. However, if New Zealand did that on its own it wouldn't save the world. But imagine if America did it? Or if all twenty-two countries did it? What would happen then? There wouldn't be a child dieing every second. Thats what would happen. Children would have food to eat. Thats what would happen. Children would have schooling. Thats what would happen. Those children would grow up, and know how to get decent jobs. Thats what would happen. And after one generation the world would be a better place. Thats what would happen. But it would cost a lot. And we would have to be prepared to accept this. But if we really were going to “spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty,” specifically hunger and the “major diseases that afflict humanity” we would.

Maybe Churches Need to Grow Smaller

2010-05-09T23:03:00.000-07:00

Churches seem to often be focused on increasing the size of their church. While having church growth is a good thing, and often means there are more Christians coming in all the time, I’m beginning to think these super-churches miss the point of church. I am currently staying on my Aunty and Uncles farm just outside of Dannevirke, and I had the pleasure of visiting their church, Hosanna Baptist. This church was planted in February last year, so it is only one year old, and has about thirty members. It was a really amazing experience; the pastor was a chap with a stomach the size of a small car, but his church had passion ten times that size. Maybe it was partially because the church is predominantly Maori and Pacific Islanders, who in my experience make some of the best Christians. But it seemed to me that much of the passion was due to the family like atmosphere. When I walked in the door I was greeted with a hug, by a lovely old lady who could have easily have been my Grandmother. We were running a little late so there was no time for more than a quick hello, before we made it to our seats for the worship. Which was fantastic, it was in the traditional Maori style, there was a cheap(ish) acoustic guitar, playing with a very loose, free hand style. A bass guitar, played fairly well by a chap who was obviously having a ball, the smile on his face was a mile wide. Then there were three singers (plus the guitarist who was singing) all quite good, the tone of their voices didn’t quite work brilliantly together, but that’s completely missing the point. And then the rest of the band was made up by two brothers who had been told (or maybe they offered) to learn instruments; a reasonable drummer and a talented but unconfident pianist. Now nothing I have mentioned there is amazing or fantastic, but the worship was. That’s because they were playing music with no other attempt than to worship God. They weren’t trying to make it sound “cool” or “hip”, which is good because if they had they would have crashed and burned, they weren’t caught up on excellence, they were just trying to worship, to the best of their abilities, which is what made it fantastic.
Half way through this worship session they stopped playing and told everyone to hug everyone else. But it wasn’t like in other churches I’ve been in where that type of thing has happened, and everyone turns and hugs the person next to them awkwardly. Everyone (except perhaps me) actually wanted and felt comfortable with this concept. But it seemed the entire church took this as an opportunity to meet and hug me. I met and hugged over 25 people that day, all of whom names I have since forgotten. Though I felt a little awkward hugging people who I’d never met in my life, and whose name I had forgotten, they seemed like they were welcoming a new member to the family, like my family would when one of my many siblings got married, or brought home a Fiancée.
This family attitude, I believe, has added the amazing feel and atmosphere. I felt like this is what church should be like and it was a far cry from the flashing lights and guest speakers I have in the past been accustomed to. Maybe this is the direction the church needs to grow, maybe this family attitude is more like what the actual church should be. Church is about growing close to a family of fellow Christians, it’s not about numbers, music or fancy suits. It’s not about how comfy the suit is, how big the church buildings are or how flash the leaflet you are handed is. It’s about being greeted with a hug even if it’s your first time, a “Welcome Home Brother” hug. That is what the church is all about.

The Driving Age.

2010-04-22T18:27:00.000-07:00

Last week, the government confirmed a change of the driving age (changing the learners age from 15 to 16, and increasing the learners period). When all this talk started about changing the driving age I was very strongly opposed, I even discussed possible protests. I believed I had the right to drive, and I was furious that someone was trying to take that away from me, I believed that 15 year olds were plenty mature enough to drive a car! But now, as I get closer and closer to receiving my learners licence, I'm beginning to rethink my beliefs. Although I believe I would be mature and responsible enough to drive a car (or maybe I'm just cocky), not everyone I've met recently would have been. Well its not really the people on the learners I'm worried about, most kids ten and up could drive okay, if supervised properly, its the fact that after only six months, they can get their Restricted. That is the part the worries me.

I met this guy at a camp I went to, he had just got his restricted and we were sitting around relaxing when all of a sudden this guy stands up and says: "Who here doesn't know how to drive?" I then said I didn't and he said: "Alright then, I'll teach you", and he pulled some car keys out of his pocket. When I said no he proceeded to appeal saying "Come on, I can do burnouts and everything!" I was just short of horrified that this guy was allowed to driving solo on the roads. I suppose that there will always be irresponsible drivers no matter what the age is. But it got me thinking, how many other 15-16 year olds plan to be "cool" and drive around doing wheel spins, attempting burnouts and driving way too fast. I reckon the would be masses of them, a good 60% of guys at least (I for some reason don't expect girls to drive like that at all). That means that there would be thousands of people hooning around, just trying to kill us. So maybe this driving age change is a good thing, maybe it will sting the responsible drivers, but are they the majority? Or are they the minority? It will be interesting to see if deaths/injury's actually decrease. Although, half of me still thinks that those who have been crashing have been breaking their driving conditions anyway, so they will just continue breaking the rules, even if they change. But I think that some good will come out of this change, but not heaps. I think the longer learners period and having to have a set amount of hours driving time before being allowed to get your licence, will be the things that make a difference.

Dan B

2010-03-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

Recently I had a read of Jeremy Clarkson's book "The World According to Clarkson". Every thing he said was very, very amusing, but complete rubbish. Nothing I read was really true or relevant, he mostly spent the time being mean to politicians (though many deserve it), and celebrity's in the most hilarious way, but without a really good point.

I once read (in a Readers Digest): "Get a someone laughing, and then you can tell them anything"

Although you want a column (or in my case a blog) to be funny and easy to read, it is pointless unless you get a good point across. I want what I write about to have some type of purpose, not whether the Brits or the Russians look better in speedos.

Yesterday I had a chat with James Brunskill, whom I consider my Blogging mentor and is my only reader, he was talking about a podcast he had heard by somebody or somebody else who said that basically columnists usually end up just raving about whatever had happened to have happened to them that day, and finding one way or another to blame Facebook or the Internet for it. But what is a column\blog apart from a little rave? In the movie "You've got mail" the lead character is writing something on the Internet where she ponders life, she then continues to say: "I don't really want an answer. I just want to send this cosmic question out into the void."

I would like to think a column is more than just a rave into a cosmic void, a column should be a opinion put carefully into writing, showing the reader your idea of things, but without forcing them into believing it. It should raise a good question about society and life. Whether or not it answers this question depends on the subject. But, in the end, it is just someone having a little rave. I looked up the meaning of rave in the dictionary, and I picked out a few of my favorite results; to talk or write with extravagant enthusiasm, an extravagantly enthusiastic appraisal or review of something, Relating to or being an extravagantly enthusiastic opinion or review.

A column is a review of something, currently I'm reviewing columns, and a review requires an opinion. And if your not passionate about writing, or what your writing about, then don't bother. To me a rant or a rave is enthusiastically, and passionately stating your opinion. And that will always be a good read, whether or not the reader agrees with you. Whether or not what you have written will be meaningful or true depends on what the rant was about. This rant, helped me understand what it is I'm doing (or should be doing) with this blog. And it will help me in the future, if this rough, smacked together blog ever becomes refined, and maybe turns into a column. I will always try to bring something new and fresh to the reader. Which shouldn't be to hard, I've lots of strong opinions.

Dan B

The Waihopai Terrorists.

2010-03-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, three men, Otaki schoolteacher Adrian Leason, Auckland Catholic priest Peter Murnane and Hokianga farmer Sam Land, broke into the Waihopai spy base and cut down the domes that were protecting a reviver dish, set up to intercept international satellite communication. Within the last week, all of these men were acquitted of their charge and set free. No punishment whatsoever, after attacking a spy base! Surely it's a matter of National Security.

The three men claimed that what they were doing was a lawful protest, and that they believed that doing it would save lives in Iraq. It probably would save lives in Iraq, terrorists lives. Al Qaeda and the Teleban, who, by the way, are fighting some of our SAS troops. The more terrorists alive the more NZ/USA troops die. It is that simple, I consider what these men did, not to be a protest but an act of terrorism. I guess it would be hard to charge them with terrorism since there is no evidence that anyone was killed or injured as a result of their actions, But they should have at very least been fined enough to repair the dome.

This also made me wonder, is the idea of having twelve members of the public choosing who gos to prison, and who stays home, really a good idea? These twelve people let these men get away with a sever breach of national security. Maybe we need a new system, maybe focused completely around a trained judge?

But maybe not. I suppose that the prosecution and the defendant both get a good chance show the jury the law and help them decide on the right verdict. But is it really different from manipulation?

I don't really know, but what I do know is this: If you trespass on Government Property, and damage their Anti-Terrorism equipment, you should be charged, or fined, something.

Dan B

Danger! Lawyers ahead!

2010-02-21T12:25:00.000-08:00

Recently, while surfing the net, I came across a top ten list of worst drivers by profession. It went as follows:

1. Attorney/Judge

2. Financial Professionals

3. Government worker

4. Bartender or waiter

5. Business professionals

6. Dog groomer

7. Marketing/advertising professionals

8. Barber/stylist

9. Coach

10. Nurse

A few of these came as a surprise to me, for example Dog Groomer? There can't be more then twelve of them in the world, yet they have more accidents than the hundreds of people in Marketing. But, I think this can be explained logically. You have to look at the type of person who would do this job, the Dog Groomer, would be a young, blond female, who drives around to somebody's house to scrub their Chihuahua, and then, they would back straight out of their driveway and into their letter box. Or if you take the Government Worker, they are too busy trying to work out how to get a free trip to France to notice the car in front of them stopped. Or maybe they consider the stopped car to be the opinion of the New Zealand public, and therefore completely ignore it, just like they did with the smacking referendum.

This list also tells as a bit about what our employees might be up to behind our backs. The bartenders are number four, and with all that alcohol around them, we can only jump to one conclusion...

The marketing professionals, crash their company car as a publicity stunt. And the nurses are simply overtired, or just trying to bump up their work quota. As for the barbers, they have no excuse, they are just bad drivers.

And for all the other professions I haven't mentioned, I mustn't have a prejudice for them.

But maybe to prevent crashes, you should have in your back windscreen a sign, like the learners plates, saying your profession. Lawyers and Judges could have a red sign with a J in it representing a high risk profession, and nuns could have a green plate with a N in it representing a low risk profession. It's all about road safety.

Dan B

Change of the flag?

2010-02-03T13:02:00.000-08:00

New Zealand Flag Australian Flag

Over the last year or two there has been a debate going on about whether or not to change the New Zealand flag. They have been saying that as a independent country we should no longer bear the Union Jack, also they say that our flag often gets confused with the Australian flag, so we should change it.

The New Zealand Herald surveyed 18 of the 22 members of the Order of New Zealand and 11 of them said it was time to change the flag, five wanted to keep the same flag and two of them were unsure.

Our flag was officially adopted 24 March 1902, but was in restricted use since 1869. Before that the united tribes of Maori had chosen a flag, suggested by missionary Henry Williams.

The flag has seen us through a lot, two global depressions, many gold medals at Olympic events, but the biggest stand out, would be the two world wars. Thousands of New Zealanders died under that flag, and I don't think they would want it to change, well they are dead so they wouldn't really care so much, but at ANZAC day I want to fly the same flag that they flew in 1915. And why get rid of the union jack, it shows our roots, and we are still very closely associated with Briton, we would be the first to follow them into a war. And who cares if our flag looks similar to the Australian flag. We are even more closely related, an two hour plane trip away. I like our flag, it shows lots about New Zealand, and I don't want to change it, but I would be willing to, if somebody came with a really good design. Otherwise lets keep it old-school.

Dan B

Concert's volume is out of control.

2009-12-10T15:25:00.000-08:00

Last night I went to the Mums Dollar gig in Hamilton, it was a pretty good gig. It was also pretty loud. My ears had a constant high pitched ring in them for over an hour. These gigs are just to loud, like Mr Tim Rogers pointed out: "Why have the music so loud that people have to wear ear plugs just to listen to it." He is so right, apparently the kind of volumes they have at your average rock concert, (without ear protection) your ears can only handle for 15 minutes, not to mention the fact that the music would sound better quieter, because they make it so loud it is forever distorting and feeding back, if they turned it down everything would sound much, much better and it would be much, much more pleasant to listen to. The sound would be clear, sharp and have far more clarity, plus you might actually be able to hear the vocals! So all you Sound Technicians out there, why have it so loud? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it unnecessary? What we need is some Jazz Soundys, all music should be done like Jazz, loud enough, but not blasting your ears out.

And no, all you people out there who will be saying that I'm an old grandfather, I'm not, I just enjoy my ability to hear, and enjoy good music.

Dan B

Smart phones are brillent, when they work

2009-11-22T14:32:00.000-08:00

Recently I read an article about smart phones, the author was raving about how great these phones, especially the I-phone, is and how it is like having 75% of your office in your pocket, you can keep on top of things while out for a walk in the park, and that it gives you amazing freedom. Not to mention the amazing applications for instance Pizza Hut recently released (in America) an application that allows you to order your pizza from your I-phone, you can stretch the pizza base to choose the size of your pizza, and you get to sprinkle your own topping on, and there is a pizza hut racing game you can play while you wait. All this stuff is great even brilliant... if it works. To often these type of things just don't or they are to complicated to understand, no point having all the drama of applications if you can't work out how to call somebody or send a text. It could take weeks to learn how to operate it, after three days of "how hard can it be", you have to find the manual, which you discarded when you opened the box, and then you have to flick through it, and all it's twelve different languages, till you find the part that tells you how to make a call, then you have to decipher what the writing, which has been translated literally from Japanese into English and barely makes sense, means, then you have to find the phone and try and try again till you get it right. And then just to top it all off, the phone's battery then goes flat.

Musical worship, the panadol for my soul.

2009-11-03T19:47:00.000-08:00

Music is an amazing thing, ask any musician. Music is my passion. The things music does for this world is far more than entertainment. Music, in its best, reflects your life. That's my quite a bit of music sounds hollow and empty. The artist themselves are hollow and empty. Nothing in their live, but drugs, alcohol and the side affects of those two things. Therefore what comes out in their music is a empty hollow song about drugs, alcohol and the side affects.
Whats triggered all this? Well it all started with a quote that was sent to me; "You're out in the world and your skin is getting thinner by the day, and it's almost like travelling wears your defences down because your soul is usually f****** miles behind you. So it gets to a point where you just need music. At that point, instead of reaching for a guitar, you reach for the music that you know heals you."
Glen Hansard, who made this quote, was talking about music's healing quality's and how it affects his life, when another quote was made; "Unfortunately, poor Mr. Hansard only has part of the picture.
The reason I love playing music so much is that the organic, God created gift of music is a sacrificial work or service of worship from my body, and have my heart speaking to God, and him speaking back, is healing for my soul.
Mind, body and soul, all involved in one task, all giving and yet all receiving. Worship via music, the ultimate therapy."
This man, Ben Brunskill, who made the second quote was talking about an even higher form of music which, at its best, is the strongest and most powerful form of musical healing, worship.
This, I find, rings true in my life. You don't have to be a musician, just put on a worship CD and\or just sing it out, God won't mind if its out of tune. Try it.

Dan B

Young punks and paranoia's ruin everything.

2009-11-02T15:14:00.000-08:00

With Guy Fawkes just around the corner, the usual group of people, the SPCA, the Fire Service, the police and the burn victims and who knows who else, (Saddam Usane will be having his say next) are up in arms about how dangerous fireworks are, and how they should be banned and how expensive they are and such other drivel, that I thought, I would like to have a turn. So here goes.
Guy Fawkes, to me, is one of the best times of the year, right up there with Christmas and Easter. You have a great big bonfire, toast marshmallows, sing songs and best of all, set off fireworks. But with all the scrutiny going on it seems that people would have them banned. Why? Because apparently nobody is properly capable of setting off fire works without killing a young boy, several old ladies, burning down two houses, blowing up a petrol station, setting fire to a national park and killing the odd cat. (I would give you correct statistics but New Zealand stats are almost impossible to find) So every one wants them banned. The other reason is that young, usual drunk, Punks go around popping the odd modified firework in peoples letterboxes, setting fire to cats and generally making to much noise. So all the elderly in New Zealand (which is half the population) call the Police and Fire service and generally waste people's time, which then gets blamed on the fireworks users. Which by the way is the people using them incorrectly. Therefore young punks and old people are to blame for half the talk about banning fireworks. Who is to blame for the other half? The paranoia's. I'm talking about the people who don't do anything in case of injury, the parents who won't let their kids ride bikes without shin pads, knee pads, elbow pads, steel cap shoes, helmets, and the odd AK47. It is people like this who hear about someone getting burned one (or every) year and then completely freak out and wrap their children in fire proof clothes, and give them a low power water "blower" (not gun) and then write to the news paper about how dangerous fireworks are and how they should be banned. I've been shot by a firework myself, i didn't set on fire and be rushed to hospital, I barely noticed, then turned around and shot the guy who shot me. So I say before you ban fire works, ban more dangerous things, I'm talking about bungy jumping, smoking cigarettes and driving cars, ban these things and I'll will be happy to let you ban fireworks.
I think some people have heard the saying "living is the leading cause of death" and decided to stop living in order not to die.
Happy Guy Fawkes everyone.

Dan B

Can no one discover the meaning?

2009-10-28T14:27:00.000-07:00

Without Wax

Great men and woman are without wax,
Those who mean what they say,
and say what they mean,

Bill Clinton was covered in wax,
he used it to cover his tracks,
and to hide all his cracks,

The Spanish sculptors whose skills were weak,
Used the wax, and tried to seek,
A gullible one to fall a prey,
To their very wicked ways,

The Bible talks on this law,
"Now therefore fear the LORD,
and serve him 'Without Wax'"

Dan B

Worryed about global warming? Eat your labrador.

2009-10-26T15:31:00.000-07:00

Everyone is worried about the environment, and our government has been coming up with all sorts of ideas about how to solve this problem with things like, the emissions trading schemes, which no one really understands, and telling us to drive electric cars, which cost a small fortune and force power plants to burn more coal and create more emissions than before.
Well there is a new idea, eat your dog. Robert and Brenda Vale have written a book in which they claim that an average sized dog has the same ecological impact as driving around in a SUV. So clearly it's people like me with a medium sized Labrador-Staffy that is destroying the planet. Not those who have giant bonfires every night, not the people driving Dodges, its the dog owners. So maybe the government should come with some sort of family plan, like if you have a large dog like a Great Dane, which are taller than my mother, you are only allowed a Moped. Or if you have a medium sized dog like a Staffy you can drive a small car, or if you have a small dog like a Poodle you can drive a station wagon, or if you have no dog you can drive a SUV.
So clearly the solution to the people who like to drive big motorbikes and SUV's is that they can can eat their dog, or maybe turn it into pet food or fuel for your car. Maybe there is some nice dishes you can make with dog, like Sweet and Sour Poodle, Roast Chihuahua, Bulldog and Mash or Meat Staffy Burgers. And then you can go for a drive in your Dodge.

Source: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/save-planet-earth-eat-dog-3090078

Car Deprication

2009-08-25T21:13:00.000-07:00

We all know that secondhand cars a worth much less, even if nearly new. But do cars really lose half their value the moment you drive it out the dealers? Well according to "leading experts" most cars lose 15%-20% of their value within the first year, so not half the value, and not on the way out the door. But cars do depreciate quickly, the AAA study put the average deprecation of a new car at 3,392 a year. So that brings up the question, which cars depreciate the fastest? Well...

2006 Best Resale Value*	2006 Worst Resale Value*
BMW 5 Series	Chrysler Sebring Sedan
Chevrolet Corvette	Ford Freestar
Honda Accord Hybrid	Mercury Monterey
Infiniti G35 Coupe	Kia Optima
Infiniti M45	Jaguar X-Type
Lexus GX 470	Kia Rio Sedan
MINI Cooper	Ford Ranger Long Bed
Porsche Cayenne	Chevrolet Uplander
Toyota Prius	Pontiac Montana
Volvo XC90	Chrysler Town and Country

* In alphabetical order Source: Kelley Blue Book

Car depreciation is often due to people's perception, if the type of car used to be unreliable the buyers perception will be that it is an unreliable car, even if it isn't, and unreliable car's depreciate faster. Other contributing factors can be colors or accessories. A bright purple car probably won't sell so easily, as a black one will. And of course some cars will just always be sort after eg. Mini Cooper, Porsche Cayenne, BMW, Corvettes and such other cars. They just won't depreciate like standard cars.
So that's it boys and girls hope you learned something, see you next time.

Dan B

Lord of the Rings

2009-08-03T15:21:00.001-07:00

Lord of the Rings School Report

Fellowship of the Ring PG

1. Middle earth is a fairly large continent that consists of
many different worlds colliding. From the hideous Orcs to the
beautiful Elves, the powerful Wizards to the peace loving Hobbits, all
trying to find their place within.
In a world controlled by magic rings, nothing is certain and with One
Ring to rule them all, only one thing is certain. War.

2. Bilbo Baggins
A. Appearance; A Hobbit, a little round in the middle like most
hobbits, short once again like the tradition of his race, no more than
three feet tall (The largest Hobbit was Bull-Rorer a member of the
Took family he was said to be well over four feet tall and could ride
a small human horse). He was a Wizened old hobbit.

B. Personality; A bit cheeky, and brought adventure to the shire and
was considered a little bit mad. Long years with the One Ring caused
it to grow on him and took a grip on his heart, but gave him long
life; he lived to be 113 years old.

C. Role in the Film; Role model to young Frodo, (Who was 40 years
old). Found and past the Ring on to Frodo triggering the whole
adventure. He gave Frodo two important items, his Mithreal coat and
his old sword Sting. He was writing
a book about his own adventures.

3. Special Effects

Shooting in different scale; In this technique they shoot a scene and
then using computer graphics change the scale of the character to
ratio, e.g. Hobbits and Dwarf’s are small while Orc’s and Men (All
played by humans) were large. So there was heaps of that going on.

4. Sound Effects

Voice emphasis; they use voice emphasis to make a characters voice
more powerful, often made deeper and slower, this was especially used
to indicate magic or immense power.
One scene it was used was when a powerful elf was offered the ring of
power; at first her voice was normal but as the desire to take the
ring increased so the ring increased it’s hold on her giving her a
power craze, at this point what she was saying was screaming out loud,
deep and slightly slurred, giving an amazing effect of power.

5. Music

In this scene were Bilbo is making a speech he is expected to tell a
secret when he put’s the ring on and disappears and returns to his
house invisible. All the time it is building up to the point where he
disappears with slow suspenseful music.
Music can add emotion, suspense and emphasis.

6. Camera Techniques

In the scene when Gandalf came across the ring lying on Bilbo’s floor
they had the camera pointing up at him so it appeared that the ring
was watching him.

Henry VIII

2009-07-27T18:58:00.000-07:00

Now due to having difficulty with Azerbaijan, I have decided to move, temporally, to a more comfortably subject. The Tudor period. Here are some interesting facts about King Henry VIII;

We all know about how our good friend Henry had six wives, but did you know that after his first wife, Cathrine of Aragon, died, that same year he married and beheaded Anne Boleyn, then married Jane Seymour. Man he must have been bored.

He loved music. He owned 10 trombones, 14 trumpets, 5 bagpipes, 76 recorders and 78 flutes. He is also attributed the writing of Greensleeves.

He was an expert archer, he could hit the bulls eye over and over again at a distance of 220 meters.

He liked to play a game called "Paume" a bit like tennis, and he was playing this game while his wife Anne Bolyen was beheaded.

The Trojan War

2009-07-21T19:04:00.000-07:00

How did it start?

Around 1200 B.C Paris prince of Troy ran off with Menelaus wife Helen, Menelaus got an army together including Odysseus and Achilles. (One man, Cinyras King of Paphos promised to send 50 ships, this he did, but only one of the ships was real, the others were toy models.) These men sailed (Or tried to sail) to Troy, and laid siege to it.

Who won?

The Greeks, King Menelaus. After ten years.
Achilles killed Hector and then Odysseus had a huge hollow wooden horse built which he and thirty of his best soldier’s climbed inside. The rest of the Greeks sailed away, leaving Sinon behind, giving the appearance of giving up and going home.
Sinon convinced the Trojans that the Greeks were gone and that they should pull the horse inside. Once the horse was inside Troy the Trojan’s threw a party and later on when everyone was either drunk or asleep they jumped out and slaughtered everyone.

Who were the main characters?

Paris, he was the prince of Troy and the most handsome man alive and he was in love with Helen.

Helen, married to Menelaus king of the Greeks, most beautiful woman alive.

Priam, king of Troy, father of Paris.

Odysseus, king of Ithaca, former suitor of Helen, hero in the Greek army, built the wooden horse.

Achilles was the prince of Phthia and Thetis, he was a legendary hero in the Greek army. Killed by Paris

Hector, Troy’s greatest warrior, Paris brother. Killed by Achilles.

Dan B

My Drunk Driving Poster.

2009-07-20T15:00:00.000-07:00

A novel approch to truck sales.

2009-07-20T14:06:00.000-07:00

Over in America sales on motor-vehicles are way down, including trucks. But one man from Missouri believes he has found the answer, his slogan; God, Guns, Guts and American Pick-Up Trucks. He is now giving away a free AK47 to everyone who buys a truck, any truck.
People have been responding well, they are worried about crime and want to protect themselves
An AK47 is worth about $700 (US$450) it was used by the Soviet Union in the 50's and hundreds of wars since.

Tin Cans.

2009-07-19T20:01:00.000-07:00

We all know tin cans, we all have them in our houses, we use them night and day, Peaches on breakfast, spaghetti for lunch, Canned tomatoes in your dinner. But did you know that they are only a small percentage tin? They are actually steel, coated with a tin plate 1/250 of a inch thick. Tin was used because it isn't toxic and doesn't affect the color of food.

The tin can was invented by a English (Or possibly French, I have conflicting story's) man called Peter Durand (Or Pierre Durand) he based his ideas on the glass bottling technique formed by Nicolas Appert but changed it from breakable glass to strong tin and steel.
Durand took out a patent on his idea in 1810 but then sold it to two English men Bryan Donkin and John Hall, who set up a canning factory and were producing the first canned goods for the British army in 1813.

Dan B

Some Boys Aren't Jerks... ...Well in Disney anyway

2009-05-25T18:03:00.000-07:00

This romantic story appeared on a friends blog. Isn't it beautiful?

Girl: Slow down, Im scared.
Guy: No, this is fun.
Girl: No its not.
Please its too scary!
Guy: Then tell me you love me.
Girl: Fine I love you.
Slow down!
Guy: Now give me a BIG hug.
Girl: *hugs him*
Guy: Can you take my helmet off and put it on yourself? Its bugging me.
Girl: Alright, now slow down
Guy: I love you babe

(in the paper the next day):
A motorcycle had crashed into a building because of brake failure. Two people were on it, but only 1 had survived.

The truth was that halfway down the road, the guy realized that his brakes broke, but he didn’t want to let the girl know. Instead, he had her say she loved him and felt her hug one last time, and then he had her wear his helmet so that she would live even though it meant that he would die.

Aww how cute, Romantic guy saves his girls life, Might even bring tears to the eyes . However it's just as cute and as romantic and tearjerking as, Say, Ella Enchanted, The worst fantasy since Disney started.
But, There is more in common between these two story's than I first implied, Ella Enchanted is probably more likely to be a true story. You see they are both works of fiction, Me and some friends got into an argument over wither or not this guy was a jerk I talked about letting go of the accelerator, turning a corner but, I was starting to lose, so I came out with the idea that it wasn't even a true story, This at the time I was yet to prove, so the next day I try'ed to search for a newspaper article with evidence of this story, but I could not find anything indercateing truth or fiction. Untill i came across a site called Snopes.com (www.snopes.com) this site gave me some interesting info I quote: The story appears to be a work of fiction in that we have been unable to find any news storys of such an accident... ...Numerous folks who know far more about motorbike than we do have pointed out that most (If not all) Bikes have two breaking which are independent of each other, so it would be hardly likely for both to fail at the same time. Even if they did, a motorbike that has lost it's brakes can be brought to a stop by downshifting or even turning off the engine.

Imhotep

2009-03-11T13:15:00.000-07:00

Imhotep was the chancellor for the Pharaoh Dojser ruler of Upper Egypt during the Old Kingdom (The first part of Egyptian History.)
Imhotep is spelt in many different ways, Immuftef, Or as the Greeks called him Imuthes.
He was given credit of the inventing or improving the papyrus scrolls, (Hieroglyphics's are quite hard to read precisely.) He was a brilliant architect and Designed the Dojser pyramid which was a step pyramid(Shown below) As a tomb for his king, Imhoteps own tomb has never been found

Imhotep invented medicine
that was not based on magical properties, Those types are very rear in Egypt,
All his finding were written on the Edwin Smith Papyrus
48 accounts on traumatic injury cases and about his surgery research.

Something I found interesting was the story of Imhoteps Dream the dream was a warning about seven years of famine that would shake Egypt (sound like the Joseph story?) the big difference is that Imhotep, The high priest of the god Heliopolis, had a chat with the god of the Nile convincing him to flood the river to bring fertility to Egypt.

It never rains in Egypt so to make the crops grow the river Nile floods it's banks and leaves a layer of fertile soil over the ground which they plant their seeds in, if the Nile doesn't flood their is famine and the people starve.

Imhotep was a brilliant man all his architecture and inventions helped shape the Egyptian culture even if he was never Pharaoh, Which he may have been but not for very long, He still has an important part in Egypt's history.

Dan B

New Food?

2009-03-02T13:03:00.000-08:00

How often do you wake up and have a bowl of porridge or some weetbix then for lunch you then have some white bread and a blue berry muffin and for dinner you have some potatoes. A normal day, well for me at least.

But apparently we are becoming too reliant on our 12 main foods. Things like wheat, rice, maize, barley, oats, potatoes. we are being told to start to grow rare foods like: Breadfruit, Bambara Groundnut, Barbados cherry, Amaranth, Pigeon peas, Cowpea (No not cow pee, a nutty bean like thing) and Tamarind.

Professor Hopper, Director of the royal botanical gardens has been suggesting just that, he thinks that with over 30,000 known edible plants, that it is crazy we only have about a dozen we rely on.
But I find it hard to believe that one day soon we will pick a Breadfruit of our tree and roast and that it will taste like bread. But who knows? Maybe a normal day will be get up, eat a bowl of Amaranth (Some sort of cereal, like wheat) At lunch roast a Breadfruit or two. Then have a nice Barbados cherry muffin made from Pigeon Pea flour and then a nice dinner of Bambara Ground nut.
Yummy! To be honest I think it sounds horrible. And I don't think that it will catch on any time soon. Sorry Professor Hopper.

Source: NZ herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10559394

Dan B

2009-03-01T12:35:00.000-08:00

Lately I have found myself no longer living in a family, but a wolf pack.
Sounds strange but apparently all dogs descended from Chinese wolves, they were tamed, trained and breed to do work for their masters. And now we're told to send them back too their wolf roots. Apparently the way to train them is too treat them like a wolf pack and teach the dog that it's at the bottom of the pack or food chain. In wolf packs the leader eats first then the others follow in order of rank. By eating in front of your dog before feeding him he realises that he is lower down the food chain and submits to you. Also you are meant to give a command before doing anything they like E.g cuddling and feeding. the other thing is that when they are disobedient or bad you can expel them the from the pack. Several times our dog has been "outcast" when shes been eating food off the table or refusing to get off chairs.
Now my only fear is that she will decide she wants a spot higher up the food chain and will try to kill us all. But oh well. Anything for science aye.

Dam Earthquakes!

2009-02-09T15:03:00.000-08:00

Part 2

Although the Chinese government (who probably know their country best.) Say that Zipingpu dam had nothing to do with the massive earthquakes, I believe that it did, so much pressure from all that water had to do something to those tectonic plates.
When Hoover dam was built there were hundreds of earthquakes in the years afterward measuring up to magnitude 5--. there was no seismic history in that area. Another example of a dam causing earthquakes is Vanont Dam, built in 1960, 250 tremors were felt as it slowly filled, later when the reservoir was full, a large tremor knocked a huge slab of rock that slid into the reservoir causing a huge wave that swept over the dam killing 2,600 people. However Zipingpu earthquake has been the biggest dam earthquake ever. I believe that this can put down to it's place so close to fault lines. (Double click picture for a clearer view.) As you can see from the picture the Zipingpu dam is very close to several faults possibly multiplying the effects of the shock.

I wonder is there a way around this? Or will every time a dam is built will there be earthquakes? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed near faults or populated areas?

What ever the weather, I believe that Zipingpu Dam effectively killed 80,000 people.

Dan B

Dam Earthquakes!

2009-02-05T02:54:00.001-08:00

Part 1

Scientists are blaming the huge Zipingpu dam for a earthquake witch took place in china last year causing over 80,000 deaths.

(http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1782360)

the zipingpu dam holds 315 millon tons of water the dam is built only 500 meters from the fault line.

Scientists from Usa and China claim that the water was putting too much pressure on the fault line and causing voilant ruptures and killed all those people. However the Chinese goverment are adiment that the mass building was not the cause of the quakes.

When two tectonic rub against each other faults ecur thats where merjority of earthquakes happen.

Scientist Christian Klouse belives that there hasn't been any "Majour secimisic ativity on that fault for years." he belives that a shift In the huge amount of water would relive the tension on the plates alowing them too move apart therefore increasing the overall presure causing the voilent ruptures. Bejing has called for an investergation although the gorverment claims that mass building has nothing too do with it.

Dan B