The lucky ticket

52 comments on “The lucky ticket ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   24 April 2012 at 3:27 pm

   Does having a very wealthy family give you a pass straight to Div 6? Suppose that not having to scramble for things might spill you back down to Div1.
   • just saying 1.1

     24 April 2012 at 6:34 pm

     I love it that you don’t play lotto Ianmac.
     I pay my idiot tax regularly and more fool me.
     Division one is the biggie. Division five is about $20.
     Division 6 is the second chance draw in many shops.
2. ad 2

   24 April 2012 at 3:30 pm

   This is slick and fun and an adroit communication in the moment of the pokies debate. First Leftie to use it in a press release about Sky City wins.

   The natural addition to this posting is to calculate the odds of getting each one – and you rapidly get to very, very few people getting Division One. Something about similar to the 1% who currently own most of everything, and the 99% being everyone who loses at Lotto.

   The metaphor breaks down however when it comes to intervention by the public sector; a subsidy from evryone else playing doesn’t necessarily increase your odds of moving divisions.

   Sharp writing Rosie. Bring it on.
   • Campbell Larsen 2.1

     24 April 2012 at 7:31 pm

     Rosie – nice writing, but ad :”First Leftie to use it in a press release about Sky City wins.”

     No more free promotion for Lotto please. Week after week the MSM (in particular the newspapers) publish ‘stories’ about winners that are blatant ads for Lotto.

     Lotto is NOT news.

     An aside: For some reason seeing the pictures of grinning Lotto winners always reminds me of the ‘winners’ in Running Man, pictured happy in holiday photos to promote the competition, but in reality just dusty skeletons lying in a dungeon, executed by those running the game.
     • Reality Bytes 2.1.1

       24 April 2012 at 8:00 pm

       Agreed. I hate the “Lotto” stories. The current pokies legislation for sale issue has nothing to do with my opinion, it just reminds me why I hate the Lotto stories so much. The whole treat Lotto winners like heros cliche our media breathlessly reports on is utterly wrong imo.

       Oh so some charity collects a third or something from Lotto sales which is better than 2% from pokies or whatever, so that makes it ok. Um hello, if you donate directly to a reputable charity they get pretty close to 100% of your donation.

       Drinking turps may be 1000 times less toxic than drinking cyanide, but they are still both toxic.
3. Pete George 3

   24 April 2012 at 3:35 pm

   There’s a major difference – Lotto is purely chance, each and every time you participate.

   There is a lot of chance and luck in life, both good and bad, but much of it can be influenced, mitigated and enhanced by the actions you take.

   If you buy a lotto ticket, as soon as the draw is over that’s the end of it, you will get nothing more from it.

   If you invest that same amount prudently over your working lifetime you would most likely end up with all of that plus much more. At $12 per week that would be $28,080 plus interest.

   If you spend that same amount on insurance then it substantially reduces the chance of falling on unlucky times.
   • ad 3.1

     24 April 2012 at 3:43 pm

     Rosie’s points 1, 2, and 4 are mostly chance, not choice.
     • felix 3.1.1

       24 April 2012 at 4:53 pm

       As is 3, unless Pete wants to blame kids for the shortcomings of their parents.
       • Pete George 3.1.1.1

         24 April 2012 at 5:55 pm

         No, but many kids overcome the shortcomings of their parents, and that’s not by luck.
         • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1

           24 April 2012 at 6:09 pm

           Good choices are often necessary, but are not always sufficient.
                
           And if we are talking serious parental shortcomings, it can be a matter of luck as to whether one is overwhelmed by severe anxiety, depression, or ptsd.
         • felix 3.1.1.1.2

           24 April 2012 at 6:17 pm

           Yes Pete, you’re getting it. Keep going.
         • rosy 3.1.1.1.3

           24 April 2012 at 6:27 pm

           In a sense there is a bit of luck, Pete. But it doesn’t need to be.

           The opportunity to see or experience different ways of being sometimes comes about through lucking into a teacher that takes an interest – sees something that others don’t – or someone took it upon themselves to nurture a talent, took a kid to sporting, cultural and school events, and the like. Maybe they just had a neighbour that provided a different example family and parenting.

           Kids very rarely get out from what they absorb everyday about what being a family unit means without some input from outsiders IMO.

           [p.s – can someone please fix my typo? dyslexia, lol. Ta.]
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.3.1

             24 April 2012 at 6:37 pm

             Kids very rarely get out from what they absorb everyday about what being a family unit means without some input from outsiders IMO.

             This is a good post on that subject and it all reminds me of the saying:
             It takes a village to raise a child
             Our nuclear families are, IMO, part of the problem as they isolate the children from the rest of the community.
             • rosy …

               24 April 2012 at 8:16 pm

               A good link. It speaks to my experience. One of the greatest frustrations of growing up in a non-supportive family is the time it takes to realise what ‘normal’ social discourse is, and what the expectations of other people are (good and bad). As the writer says it’s an absolute joy when you crack it – but the skill never comes easily (and at times disappears) if it wasn’t learned from an early age.
             • LynW …

               25 April 2012 at 7:31 am

               +1 Very interesting article. I have always agreed with ‘it takes a village to raise a child’
         • Puddleglum 3.1.1.1.4

           24 April 2012 at 11:01 pm

           Pete George,

           By what magical, transcendent mechanism do people  “overcome shortcomings”? Explain to me how someone chooses the capacity to ‘overcome’ and, prior to that, chooses the capacity to choose the capacity to overcome … ad infinitum.

           At some point, the spade hits rock and turns. Sorry, but you can’t claim that some people are personally responsible for their personal responsibility. The material realities of the forces that gave rise to each of us sooner or later have to be acknowledged.

           Otherwise, it’s pure magical – and illogical – thinking.
   • McFlock 3.2

     24 April 2012 at 3:46 pm

     Nope.
     The chance is in having money to buy the lotto ticket in the first place.
     Then if you invest it prudently, there’s a chance it turns out to be one of the finance companies with false director declarations. Sure, they go to jail when it collapses, but it doesn’t get your money back.
     Then if you spend all the money on insurance, you still might not be covered for the bad luck that falls on you.
          
     Are we abject slaves to fate? Not so much in the minutae of life. But nor are we complete masters of our own destiny.
         
     All poor are the deserving poor. To assume otherwise is to dare to judge others for simply being human.
   • Mike 3.3

     25 April 2012 at 7:09 am

     You just don’t get it do ya Pete.

     Also, as per lotto, there is a basically fixed pool of money (expanding I know) in the overall money supply which all has interest attached to it somewhere down the line. This means that there is never enough money for everyone to get a share. Just like lotto, there will be a large group of people, through no fault of their own, who will get no prize at all (i.e will become bankrupt or destitute). That is the way the system is designed.
4. You_Fool 4

   24 April 2012 at 4:44 pm

   6) Should be the powerball, along with starting with parents in a high division. I.e. instant extra prize….
5. marsman 5

   24 April 2012 at 5:25 pm

   Nice one Rosie!
   • Carol 5.1

     24 April 2012 at 5:28 pm

     +1
6. Bill 6

   24 April 2012 at 6:09 pm

   I know it’s just an analogy (quite a good one 🙂 ) and shouldn’t be pushed too far, but the b’stard factor is missing. Capitalism encourages and rewards the b’stard in us all and the bigger a b’stard you are, the further you can stomach going and the better equiped you are to barge, elbow, steal, bully and generally fuck people over as you grasp for those higher divisions.
7. just saying 7

   24 April 2012 at 6:36 pm

   Always find your comments worthwhile Rosy.
   Hoping to see more blog posts from you 🙂
   • rosy 7.1

     25 April 2012 at 12:21 am

     Thanks just saying, there are many opinions on this blog that I value, and yours is right up there.
8. vto 8

   24 April 2012 at 6:47 pm

   A bit simplistic.

   Life is a lottery fullstop. On the upside and the downside. To that part of the post 10 points.

   But what of the fact that most of what is described is not actually luck, it is the result of a culture within the particular group. A culture fostered that encourages all those ‘good’ things. Just as many other groups claim certain positive attributes due to their heritage ande culture so too can most of these divisional winners. It is not just luck (unless you are talking just about the luck of place of birth), it is the result of generations and centuries of cultural influence that result from living decent hard-working diligent honourable lives.

   Simplistic and not very enlightening or helpful. But there you go – probably wrong side of the ledger again for this place …
   • McFlock 8.1

     24 April 2012 at 7:09 pm

     Randomly years ago I went on a training course because I had a thing for one of the other people going- no interest or knowledge in the subject whatsoever, and I didn’t continue the studies. Over a decade later that course was a key reason I got my current excellent job – I had been in career A, and the course years before was just enough career B to get me a job that was mostly B with an incidental amount of A (which was good, because A was beginning to piss me off).
          
     Ever since then, I have never discounted the role of luck in my life. Although these days I do choose opportunities with more discrimination than “she’s hot”:) 
   • KJT 8.2

     24 April 2012 at 7:25 pm

     This is just another variation on the poor are poor because of character defects.

     Any watcher of reality TV can confirm that the really rich do not live diligent, hardworking, honourable lives.

     We have just had finance company failures, fraud, the NACT Government and the crony pay rises between boards and managers to remind us that many of the rich are there because they are sociopaths.

     I thought that myth was exploded in WW1 when most of the scions of generational wealth were shown up for the unintelligent, inbred, incompetents they really were.

     Centuries of a culture of not caring about others poverty, making sure the rest of society cannot get a leg up to challenge your wealth, working the old boy network, accumulating more and more and using wealth to subvert Government does not make the wealthy deserving.

     Someone who thinks that 20% of our kids should live in poverty so they can pay 2% less tax or that they really “earn” 750K and 17% raises, when their workforce has none, for running a monopoly into the ground are not “in a culture that “is the result of generations and centuries of cultural influence that result from living decent hard-working diligent honourable lives”.
     • vto 8.2.1

       24 April 2012 at 7:53 pm

       My post was not a variation on ‘the poor are poor because of character defects’. If you noticed, I did not talk about the poor. I spoke of characteristics of various groups in society and how those characteristics came to be – through hard work, being honest and decent and fair to your fellow manwoman.

       Your reply KJT here … “Any watcher of reality TV can confirm that the really rich do not live diligent, hardworking, honourable lives. We have just had finance company failures, fraud, the NACT Government and the crony pay rises between boards and managers to remind us that many of the rich are there because they are sociopaths. I thought that myth was exploded in WW1 when most of the scions of generational wealth were shown up for the unintelligent, inbred, incompetents they really were.” …. I agree with, but I was not referring to the really rich at all. I understand what you are saying there.

       And here … “Centuries of a culture of not caring about others poverty,” … I disagree with. Think of various of the second wave of arrivals in aotearoa and what they were fleeing. My own heritage, like many NZers, is filled with people fleeing the wrongs of the rich and powerful in other lands. The “culture” I refer to is separate from that you refer to, although it lived in the same lands. Our heritage is very much and absolutely of caring about poverty and acting on it. The other, to which you refer, is not. But even then I suggest that those who do not care are in greater number today and more removed from poverty’s daily machinations.

       To take it to a daily example – think of an average family who has ‘won some divisional prize’ as the post puts it. It is not just luck, it is the result of what their parents actually did on a daily weekly basis year after year, and a result of the same things that their parents parents did and the familis before them and so it goes back. And it is a result of not just family acts and intents, it is a result of a whole bunch of families and communities and their particular cultures doing those same things season after season after season. It is not luck.

       Back then communities and people were heavily connected to each other on a daily basis, several and more families making up a community, and communities making up a wider culture. They were dependent on each other. They were not in touch with other cultures to anything like the level that it happens in our disconnected world of today. They were not in touch with that “rich and powerful” culture that you refer to. They were separate. And it was not very long ago – I would suggest that the tenets of those cultures was ingrained right up to the WWII generation. It can still be sensed in the old people today. It is not luck.

       It is that which I refer to and it is that which I suspect that Rosy’s post is referring to. If so, imo, she has missed it – as I said, a simplistic post of little use. Good entertainment though and a good bucket to dump a few throwaway prejudices in…
       • KJT 8.2.1.1

         24 April 2012 at 8:21 pm

         I may have misread you a bit.

         But.
         Take my own family.

         My Grandmother was a working class widow. very little money.
         She did value education enough to keep my father in school beyound the leaving age of 14.
         Sort of confirms your take on culture.

         My father was able to go to one of New Zealand’s best schools.
         Luck. Because in NZ today and most other countries then and now that option would not be open.

         Luck again. I was one of three in a hundred chosen for an apprenticeship in a highly skilled career. Again something no longer available.

         Sure hard work, application and skill had a lot to do with it, but there was also the luck of being born in a country where upward mobility was still possible.

         30 years of pandering to the already wealthy means the opportunities we had no longer exist in New Zealand.
         • vto 8.2.1.1.1

           24 April 2012 at 8:27 pm

           Sometimes I don’t explain myself very well …….

           I see Draco above refers to the old adage of “takes a village to raise the child” and the fact that that is far weaker in today’s common society. He is right that that isd a major loss. In a quick nutshell – due to massive population and its growth mostly, unfortunately.

           The communities most New Zedalanders of all shades have sprung from had those old and strong and proved attributes which led to the strength in the community and the caring for others. As I said, not very long ago at all.

           Not sure what the solution is but at least if it is kept front of mind then the awareness may well spark a bright spark.

           (ignore the mr umption below – my typically too quick reflexes).
           • KJT 8.2.1.1.1.1

             25 April 2012 at 10:32 am

             “It takes a village to raise a child”.

             Yes.

             From my point of view when I was Teaching in a decile one school, “the village” had failed many of the kids.
             Just a bit more time and resources when they were at the early years would have “saved’ many of those kids.
             Properly funding already proven programs, like remedial reading, for all that needed it in years 1 to 6 avoids a lot of future problems.
             Even the RWNJ’s should be able to see that $6000 spent on someone at age 7 is much better than 130k at age 20 to keep them in jail.
             The 30 odd million now going to tell us what we already know, would have paid for a lot of remedial reading and special needs help.

             Very frustrating trying to help those who are behind ,due to Government meanness, in a high school tech class of 30. Way to late to re-engage them. Effectively you have 6 minutes per week/per child.
       • rosy 8.2.1.2

         24 April 2012 at 8:48 pm

         vto, I do agree that it’s generations of hard work, caring and connectedness are an important base for a lot of the ‘luck’ that people have. It wasn’t missed in the post though, the post was not written to address it.

         I think you need to see it in the context of why it was written. I was butting in on a conversation between Nick C and McFlock. Nick C didn’t get that some people were born into position to achieve more easily and were often lucky that things went their way (where as I see it as self-evident – without discounting hard work, instilled values and the like). He suggests all people (if they don’t make bad choices) then all people being born middle class have the same likelihood of success.

         But a whole lot of people are middle class! The whole point of the winning thing is that only a tiny minority get it.

         This post was simply a comment expanding on a good analogy from McFlock. The idea was highlight that if you get a good start in life and mishaps don’t get to you along the way you just might do better. That’s all. I fail to see where the bucket for throwaway prejudices is – there are many steps along the way to being successful, however you might like to define success.

         These days being born in into a middle class family makes it easier to be in a position to pick up all those other bits of good fortune along the way and how that, and avoiding some of the bad leads to winning in the game of life. Otherwise Nick C would be right – individual responsibility and working hard would be the only prerequisites for doing well.
         • vto 8.2.1.2.1

           24 April 2012 at 9:09 pm

           Noted and agreed Rosy, perhaps I missed a bit of the context.

           Your post was also an opportunity to put forward those thoughts of mine, which don’t arise that often (the opportunity, not the thought, he he), and those points I make about the heritage, history and culture of much of New Zealand is little discussed and recalled today. Which is a shame because they are powerful features and were very strong until just very recently. I enjoy trying to reach back to sense them when in the company of the old.

           Luck, and fate, are heavy determinants too agreed. Sheesh, most everyone we know has suffered luck and fate in each direction. Unfortunately, the truism about one’s response to the fall of the cards is too true.
           • rosy 8.2.1.2.1.1

             25 April 2012 at 12:53 am

             Fair enough vto, heritage, history and culture are the foundations on which we build. I’ve read a bit lately on men’s cultural responses. The obvious references are Jock Philips ‘A Man’s Country?’ and John Mulgan ‘Man Alone’.

             I bought the recent version of ‘Man Alone’ for my boys. I hope they get around to reading it so they get a bit of perspective on their grandfathers’ lives. The images resonate with me, but so much has changed since the ’80s I’m not at all sure they understand this bit of their cultural heritage (being brought up in a family of strong female role models ;-))
         • prism 8.2.1.2.2

           24 April 2012 at 9:11 pm

           @rosy
           This class opportunity thing is very relevant. But social and political commenters say that under the free market, the middle class is being decimated. Yet we are hanging our hopes for more trade with China and Indonesia’s growing middle class says Jokey Hen.

           The aspirational will find it harder to move up in lifestyle choices in this country while a few sectors trade with the rising classes overseas. Do the politicians recognise that they are pushing our end of the see saw downwards?
           • rosy 8.2.1.2.2.1

             24 April 2012 at 9:43 pm

             They either don’t recognise it, or are ignoring it.

             There’s a fair bit of evidence out there that the wealthy sectors in a country have more affinity with the wealthy internationally than they do with less wealthy in their own country – despite cultural differences, especially if they have worked internationally. Key and Co are simply trading with their own kind. The middle classes – nah, not interested.

             I could get on to another of the pet rants about the separation of class here. Years ago we had mixed suburbs, mixed work environments, mixed sports and cultural environments. Now with housing covenants, market segmentation and market efficiencies the chances of coming into contact with people outside your own positive or negative reinforcing social groups is really limited. Stepper at #9 touches ever so gently on that point too, I think.
   • KJT 8.3

     24 April 2012 at 7:39 pm

     But. Keep on calming you conscience by telling yourself that you are wealthy just because you are superior to everyone else.

     Though I suspect like most right wing commentators on this site who attempt to justify selfishness and greed, you are just another wannabee “Authoritarian” sycophant.
     • vto 8.3.1

       24 April 2012 at 7:57 pm

       .

       Take your assumptions and shove them up your ass umption.
9. The Stepper 9

   24 April 2012 at 7:36 pm

   Good post.

   I’m no doubt about to expose myself to some vitriol here but by all accounts I’m Division One. Professional with a decent paying job, reasonably well-off parents, good education and all the trappings. Effectively a “born to rule prick”.

   That said, I think that the biggest benefit is that from the day I was born I have never been told or shown that anything is beyond my horizon, nor have I had a great upheaval that has disrupted my life. For that I am truly grateful. I sincerely think that my skills have got me to where I am (in that no family connections have been used – or are available), but my upbringing has meant that I see (and take) opportunities where they are offered, and I’m confident enough to do so.

   From that perspective, I think that it is a matter of ‘educating’ Division Ones. Personally I have been exposed to some of what you talk about, but the larger part of my contemporaries haven’t ever really turned their minds to it. That isn’t through a lack of empathy or intelligence, but lack of experience. In essence, it’s very easy to ignore.

   What escapes me is how to bring about that empathy. Political campaigning doesn’t help in the slightest as that comes across as whatever a prospective Government will take from the rich to give to the poor in order to win the poor votes. Why it is a good idea has never been effectively communicated. Crack that and you’re on to a winner. Simply saying ‘this is a problem’ won’t work because it isn’t staring Division Ones in the face every day. (Nearly) all Division Ones have a conscience. It’s a matter of activating it.

   Homeless in every home? I imagine it would be remarkably successful in getting some action at least!
   • felix 9.1

     24 April 2012 at 7:54 pm

     That’s a thoughtful comment. I’m curious as to what you mean by this though:

     “Simply saying ‘this is a problem’ won’t work because it isn’t staring Division Ones in the face every day.”

     “Division One” in this analogy is a very, very small group of people. What exactly is to be gained electorally by appealing to their sense of empathy?
     • The Stepper 9.1.1

       24 April 2012 at 8:29 pm

       Fair comment felix.

       In terms of direct votes, probably not that much. It might be a “very, very small group of people”, but it is a group with a disproportionate amount of influence. That influence is primarily not in an electoral sense, but it shapes a remarkable amount of political thought (from both sides of the spectrum) along with the attitude of society in general – essentially subliminally – through the actions of companies, the legal system, medicine and almost every institution. Insidious, but highly effective. It is particularly so when you can advertise a certain lifestyle, which you too can achieve if only you work hard enough and play the game.

       It is usually only when the sentiment of the public seeps into a new generation of Division Ones that anything happens, and that new generation is quickly captured by the comforts of the Division One lifestyle (myself included) and become ever more conservative. It’s very easy (and, granted, lazy) to think people just can’t shift themselves and so anything that happens to them is their fault when you have never had to face true adversity in your life, or worry where the next meal is coming from. I think the challenge of anyone who wants to bring about lasting change needs to make Division Ones see why there needs to be a change and, more importantly, the part they can play in bringing that change about.
       • just saying 9.1.1.1

         24 April 2012 at 9:34 pm

         Stepper I see what you are saying but I believe the opposite is true. I think political movements have spent far too much time trying to appeal to the one percenters’ better natures, and trying to persuade that minority of the legitimacy of the needs of the many. I think this approach is part of the problem, not the solution. The problem will not be solved by buying into finding ways of saying “please” really really nicely, and stroke those egos in just the right ways.

         I don’t know of any example of those where focussing on trying to persuade those with disproportionate power, influence wealth etc. to share for the greater good has has ever led to any substantial change. Sure there are isolated examples where individual consciences have been won over, but the big picture will always remains the same with that approach.

         I do see a little hint of a big sense of entitlement in this worldview for people in your position. That it really is all about you and people like you. In saying this I mean no disrespect. It’s just the way the world is.
         • The Stepper 9.1.1.1.1

           24 April 2012 at 10:10 pm

           I don’t disagree, though I would say that I don’t think (from my experience) it’s that explicit. There’s not a sense that ‘the world owes me a good life’, it’s more that ‘the world gives me a good life’. It’s more a sense of expectation than entitlement, and that expectation is borne out.

           I think you’re right in that political movements don’t get far pandering to the 1%. And generally, in elections, they don’t (pander that is – that waits until after the election). There’s very little that any political movement can do that can change the view or material position of the wealthy, barring taxes which turn off the voters who aspire to be wealthy and make radical change unpalatable. In fact, the Division Ones I know don’t have strong political views. It’s all the same to them.

           So the answer? Buggered if I know. Push too hard and the wealthy take their toys and play in someone else’s sandpit. Don’t push hard enough and nothing happens. How about we remove it from political machinations altogether? Everybody take one wealthy person and invite them to change one thing about their lives for the benefit of others? Worth a shot?
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1

             25 April 2012 at 1:48 am

             Push too hard and the wealthy take their toys and play in someone else’s sandpit.

             So what?

             Let them go. Bye bye.

             They’re not interested in this country anyway, just what they can take from it.
           • Carol 9.1.1.1.1.2

             25 April 2012 at 7:56 am

             There’s not a sense that ‘the world owes me a good life’, it’s more that ‘the world gives me a good life’. It’s more a sense of expectation than entitlement, and that expectation is borne out.

             That sounds like a sense of entitlement to me. “Entitlement” needn’t be (and most likely isn’t) a conscious thing. Expecting a good life, assumes entitlement, so fundamental that it is never explicitly stated.
           • locus 9.1.1.1.1.3

             25 April 2012 at 9:23 am

             It’s time to change the paradigm. Time for the rich who recognise that they are taking more and more of society’s wealth at the expense of others, to stand up and be counted. Every time you think you’re doing well because you’ve got a % pay rise, consider your base salary and compare that with the % pay rise on a minimum wage. Every time you get a % tax cut, think how much more it is in $ for you than the % tax cut for those on a low income. Every time you put your cup of coffee on to expenses to save a bit of tax, remember your PA can’t. Every time you scam a student allowance because your money’s hidden in trusts. Every time a private school gets a government handout, that means some poorer kids down the road are missing out.

             Societies have always had leaders and followers, strong and weak, advantaged and disadvantaged. But the societies that have won more for their citizens are those that recognise people have far more in common by their humanity than by their shared culture, social status, politics or wealth. Good societies are sharing societies where the measure of a person’s worth is the degree of consideration that they show for others.

             And consideration for others is not a virtue of the rich or the poor, the left or the right. Considerate people exist everywhere in society from the poorest homes in Mangere to the penthouses in Herne Bay. Considerate people shine amongst the dross of a world increasingly dominated by neo-liberalism. They shine because they value the rights of others as much as their own, and they have the courage to speak out and act against the selfish and mean spirited who believe they earnt their privilege and wealth – because they made the right choices and worked hard.
   • KJT 9.2

     24 April 2012 at 7:58 pm

     From another, mostly, lotto winner. Though a long period of severe ill health clipped my ticket a lot.

     True that some people are like Mary Antoinette. They have no conception or empathy towards other peoples lives.

     I am now ashamed of some of my attitudes when I was very young.

     And it is very true that not all the Rich are “rich pricks”.

     When I describe the individual circumstances of a single beneficiaries life to most right wingers they agree they should be helped.

     To many of us living in Remuera, Takapuna or Whitby we do not see poorer people as individuals like ourselves.

     The ones I really feel disgust for are the John Keys and Paula Bennets. After experiencing what it is like, they are still mean spirited enough to pull the ladder up after themselves.
10. Hateatea 10

    24 April 2012 at 10:08 pm

    Thank you, Rosie. While the nitpickers and nay sayers are having their fun with your post, I just want to commend you on finding an analogy that those with the will to, can understand.
     
    Apart from the analogies with my own life experience, I saw the lives of the many children I have fostered over the years writ large. Sadly, many of them will struggle to make Division 4 but not because people haven’t tried to help out but because by the time they reach those carers, the damage has been done.
     
    The long term effects of exposure to addiction, dysfunction, malnutrition, inadequate housing, poor parenting, below par health care, indifferent and / or transient schooling ill prepare such children for success. Some make it, against the odds, many more become those screwed up tickets discarded within minutes of the draw.
     
    I wish that your post would reach more people as it might stimulate some thinking by those who influence and change our legislated attitudes to so many things negatively impinging on the less advantaged in our society.
     
    Once again, thank you. Ka haere tonu ngā mihi mahana ki a koe mō ōu whakaaro rangatira.
    • rosy 10.1

      25 April 2012 at 5:38 am

      Thanks Hateatea, it’s heartening you, who has experienced some of the rougher side of life, can see what I was trying to get at. And you foster children as well – truly a wonderful thing to do! I’ve thought about but I know my conflict resolution skills aren’t up to it. It’s not fight or flight, but flight or passively get walked over. At least these days I have 2 young men who call me their ‘other mother’. Makes up a little for a lovely lady who was there for me when I was young. And although it might not seem likely, and it might take years but what you’ve done for these kids will have a positive effect somewhere along the road.
11. Puddleglum 11

    24 April 2012 at 11:21 pm

    I don’t like to plug my own blog – so ‘sorry’ in advance – but this one on Choices – good and bad has some resonance with rosy’s post. It may be of interest.

    Well said, rosy.
12. BLiP 12

    25 April 2012 at 12:51 am

    Nice one, Rosy. MOAR.
13. John72 13

    25 April 2012 at 11:20 am

    Rosy, it has been refreshing reading the nature of the posts stimulated buy your “Lotto” anology. I did not realise that this sort of person bothered to read “The Standard”. At last, Prisim, The Stepper etc. offers logical thought, sticks to the subject, admits they are not perfect and does not stoop to personal abuse. As one of a generation that was taught to marry a virgin for life and always be faithful to her, it is encouraging to think that there is hope for this generation. No one was perfect 50 years ago but the posts did seem to reflct a deteriation.
    While at school I set myself 2 long term goals in life and have achieved both. That has been satifying. Many other doors have opened and they have given life value. Bit by bit, having a faith in God has given me peace. Something money and the adventures could not. I have passed my “use by” date, but still have pleanty to do. Even read “The Standard”. Must go, I am wasting your time and mine. It is a beautiful day, have boxing to finish and concrete to pour. Regards, J72

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS