a brief investigative report on new zealand's infamous "best bird" competition
a new rule has entered the chat.
another year, another controversy plaguing new zealand’s “bird of the year” competition. last year, as we all remember, a bat won bird of the year all because the boss of the news decided chaos must reign supreme. (go ahead, click on that news source. go ahead and refresh yourself about this scandal and how it ACTUALLY came to be).
you’d think that the new zealand forest and bird organization would want to lay low and stay away from any controversy after such a bold move—or, hell, give the 2022 award to a praying mantis. instead, they have dipped their little toes into yet another scandal, and this time it’s because one particular bird “kept winning.”
it kept winning! it kept winning, so they said sorry—you cannot win anymore, you greedy piece of shit. get this parrot OUT of here, it’s too popular. people need to like something else for a change! however, after further investigation, i discovered that this bird won…twice.
it won two fucking times: in 2008 and in 2020. now, that’s not a lot of years if you really think about it AND if you don’t. here i am, like a fuckin’ goof, thinking this bird has been crowned “best bird,” like, twelve years in a row, but no, just twice, and MANY years apart. are you not allowed to be good at something two times, 12 years apart? like, oh, i was good at something (being a bird) in 2008 and then many years went by where i was just average and then i made a comeback in 2020 and was the best one again. this seems regular! does this bird not deserve a redemption arc? it didn’t win in 2021—a bat did. a bat won “bird of the year.” you gave the title of BIRD OF THE YEAR to a bat, but NOW you have rules?
ah, wait a minute. i’m onto you! i see what you’re doing, you sneaky motherfuckers. you didn’t want the same bird to sandwich the time a bat won. you didn’t want a kakapo-bat sandwich. because if, say, you were audited in the next year up until the next competition and the bird contest auditor specifically asked, “for representation’s sake, what birds have won in the past three years?” you would have to answer, “uh, well, a parrot, a bat, and then the same parrot again.” and the auditor (the bird contest auditor) would start laughing.
this is the only explanation possible therefore making it the right one. and new zealand, you are only harming yourself because now that people can see the chaos going on behind the scenes that is spilling out into the public eye, they WILL try to take advantage of you.
hell, they are already doing this.
i mean, if a bat can win “bird of the year,” why can’t a dead bird? surely it being no longer living shouldn’t disqualify it. if species does not matter for “best bird” eligibility, why should being alive?
this is exactly why it is imperative for an organization to hold true to its values. don’t back down, just be who you are—unapologetically. and new zealand forest and bird, you have shown us over and over again that you are a lawless group of renegades. a bat can win? okay. you owned that. the same bird can win, twice? fuck to all—yes it can. you owned THAT, as well.
but then, suddenly, whoa, hey, whoa, a bird can’t win THREE times, that’s too much! sorry buddy, but we got rules here, okay? …what? you…do? are you sure? what’s going on here? what are these qualifications? 2008 was so long ago it only barely exists at this point. no one remembers what happened in 2008, not me, not anyone on earth. so, okay, your terms are set: any species can win, but it can’t win more than two times. got it.
except, hang on…
[sighs so deeply it rattles the ground and tips my apartment building over slightly] you have got to be kidding me. this statement would make sense if the parrot actually kept winning every year, but (and imagine this is in the largest font humanly possible) it doesn’t. it doesn’t keep winning!!!!!!!! IT WON TWO TIMES, TWELVES YEARS APART. all right, so the new terms are [checks notes] any species can win, but only if they’re currently alive, and by no means can the same bird win three times…however, y’know, it can win later, just…not right now.
???????????????????????????????????????
it’s clear that something is off. this rule is too arbitrary, and therefore, new zealand’s forest and bird seems wobbly. villains can sense this kind of vulnerability. and before you know it, bam, you’re getting sued. you’re getting, fucking, lmao, you’re getting lawsuit threats because you don’t let a bird that died over 100 years ago enter the bird competition that, only one year ago, was won by a bat. because, guess what, anything goes at this point. you invited in chaos one year ago and then kicked it out and slammed the door, right in the face of a familiar parrot that, only two years ago, you loved so much you gave it a crown. this is a circus and you just shined a bat signal in the air to invite any and very sort of uproar possible.
and you brought it on yourself. then again, perhaps it has always been a tent of pure anarchy disguised as a bird competition. after all, in 2018, there were a reported 300 fraudulent votes coming from australia, and in 2019, over a hundred from russia, which tells me only one thing as a serious investigative reporter: so many people are either passionately bored or very hilarious. most likely both. but when the cracks are visible and arbitrary rules are suddenly thrown around, the passionately hilarious will rise and wreak havoc. your bird election WILL be overthrown. in 2023, a red panda will win best bird, and by 2024, the best bird will be, simply, the ocean.
this cannot be undone. the path ahead of us is murky. where we’re going, we don’t need birds, because birds can be anything, actually.
birds can be anything.