New Zealand to be friendly to murderers

Will Winston bring up the gulags? or will he do what almost all diplomats do, simper and say nothing - like they did in the 1930s when dealing with Germany or Japan?

^

Or does Winston think it is more important to worry about who owns an airport than the enslavement, torture and execution of children?

^

Well the Greens care far more about the airport, they have introduced a fucking Bill. These sanctimonious self-serving self-styled defenders of peace and justice are anything but.

^

He is reported saying "I want to see for myself how New Zealand might contribute to international efforts to assist development in North Korea."

^

It's called do nothing until the gulags are all opened and the people set free or given asylum outside North Korea (and China). North Korea makes apartheid look like a holiday, and it speaks volumes than virtually nobody who fought apartheid gives a moth's droppings about the Korean gulag archipelago.

^

If New Zealand has an independent foreign policy that means anything (and you leftwing lot out there think that being anti-nuclear is so bloody moral) then Winston go to North Korea, demand that the gulags be opened, and that North Korea at the very least stops imprisoning children along with their parents for political crimes. You might then guarantee you wont be reported in the North Korean media as another patsy coming to pay homage to Kim Jong Il et al, and you might show that your not simply an opportunistic bauble seeking lazy populist.

^

So come on Winston, show you have some spine, ignore the wimpering MFAT advisors who will want a "success" which will no doubt be reported in North Korea as another victory against the Japanese/US imperialist forces as North Korea makes new friends. Ask your new friends about Camp 22. Yes it will embarrass, but frankly FUCK that - would you be embarrassed telling Nazis you found the Holocaust unacceptable, preferring to negotiate a peaceful way of coexisting?

^

and the Greens? Your belief in human rights and what is important in the world isn't worth pissing on. I guess North Korea's carbon footprint is so low, and they've said they'll dismantle their nuclear facilities so they are probably better than the USA aren't they? Arseholes. There is NO fucking excuse for this.

^

Why am I angry? Well it's another day and 5 people probably died in Camp 22 today of starvation or violence, some of them children.

^

Go watch this Winston, see who you're new friends are, and tell me you can be "tough on crime" and be concerned about child abuse in New Zealand, when you cozy up to a regime that abuses children directly on a daily basis. 200,000 people in gulags in North Korea, thousands of them children down to the age of infants.

^

So come on Winston, Keith Locke and all you others who pretend to give a fuck... this is more important that who the fuck owns Auckland airport!

^

oh and it might be nice if Rodney Hide and John Key said something to, so go on.

^

and frankly if this doesn't get any NZ politicians agitated then the lot of them are so fucking useless they deserve to get the abuse hurled at them. It is nothing compared to what the children of Camp 22 put up with every single day - and every single day there is appeasement, they stay there.

Politically correct sledgehammer

So the next time my mother enters hospital, she'll be asked:

^

- Has anybody hurt or threatened you?

- Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?

- Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn't want to do?

^

Perhaps if it is asked of someone who enters hospital with injuries that could be attributed to violence then yes, but to ask every woman? What utter nonsense.

^

For starters, many people have had those things happen from those outside family. I've certainly felt the first a few times (threatened more than hurt, and what does "hurt" mean), and as for the third - well how many adults haven't had that?

^

Imagine this. A couple are being intimate, snogging, touching, playing, and one of them asks "could I insert a dildo into your bum?" the other says "no". Does this mean that the one saying no, being a woman, must report this to the hospital if she happens to be going in after having broken a leg in a skiing accident?

^

I understand the idea, but it must be targeted, targeted at those seen to be "at risk", not every woman.

^

I have another idea, let's ban all those convicted of serious violent offences from claiming welfare. Who can morally justify that, why should they live funded by others?

Nat MPs boycott junket

Refreshing it is. A schedule that is lazy as reported by the NZ Herald involving basically 5 hours work on Monday, 5 hours on Tuesday (I'm sure question time doesn't involve NZ MPs working), 6.5 hours on Wednesday (if a meeting is confirmed), 6.5 on Thursday and 1.5 hours on Friday. Staying at the Hilton (very nice) and flying Biz Class which according to Labour MP Lynne Pillay is "irrelevant".

^

Good, she can swap her ticket with someone who is paying for it all (a taxpayer) flying on the same flight down the back, if it is "irrelevant". Besides, most MPs have so many bloody airpoints they can use them to buy the upgrade for "free".

^

Good for National MPs Chris Finlayson, Chris Auchinvole and Nicky Wagner refusing to go along with it.

^

The problem is that most Labour MPs couldn't ever get a job to earn enough that it would pay for such a trip!

It is time to play the blame game

The CE of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, Heather Henare - regarding the abominable instances of brutal assault against children was recently in a press release saying:

^

"Just playing the blame game will achieve absolutely nothing. Nor will evermore punitive sanctions, which will only serve to further alienate individuals from their whanau"

^

Blame is an inflammatory word which means attributing responsibility, and while some are of a political bent to not ever make anyone responsible for anything (other than government or business or any group perceived as having "power") responsibility for the abuse of children lies primarily with one party.

^

The abuser is to blame first, and any accessory to the abuser is also culpable. Serious abusers (the systematic and brutal) should be sentenced with a permanent prohibition on having custody of children or living in the same premises as children. The real need to protect children from abuse has been distracted by campaigns for sex offender registers, plenty of abusers do not sexually offend. If you are brutal towards children you should never be allowed to live with any.

^

However, there is also responsibility when another adult responsible for the child does nothing. Being an accessory means doing nothing while the child is being abused, a few revel in it, many fear repercussions in confronting it or leaving. However, remaining with any person abusing your child should be considered criminal negligence, unless you report the person to the Police. In this case the Police must be effectice and competent in providing protection and apprehending suspects.

^

Yes, I know that some feminists will excuse this negligence by women because of fear, but frankly any mother who is so scared of someone that she simply refuses to protect her child is not worthy of the custody of that child. Who else is meant to do it? Is the state meant to monitor everyone (like Cindy Kiro seems to want)? What is being a parent about if it is not first and foremost to protect your child? When do those who peddle "no blame and no responsibility" for anyone about anything accept that there IS responsibility here? Any parent worthy of that title and certainly almost all the ones I know would sacrifice themselves to save their child's life, it is not just instinctual, it is a rational reaction to the love for that child.

^

Her nice words such as "We need to make sure we are not alienating whanau and that increased support goes into preventing such abuse from happening".

^

Oh, "alienating whanau", the only ones that should feel alienated are whanau who sit by and do nothing, who cover up for the abuse of each other, who collectively parent and hold no individual responsibility. Children are being battered, abused and killed, and she worries about upsetting people - well Heather, there is a reason for getting upset - brutality upsets and if it doesn't upset any particular whanau then what the hell are they? They are part of the problem. It is not a race issue, except that apparently more Maori abuse their children than non-Maori, and that is nobody else's fault other than the abusers. Anything else is direct denial of the facts.

^

The "support" needed are a combination of law enforcement, support for womens' refuges (which perform an invaluable role) and appropriate means so that abused children and adults can turn to someone to get redress. It's about breaking down the walls of large families who look after each other, including the abusers and who refuse to confront the cancer within. That refusal is costing lives, and I don't care who the hell gets upset in the process.

^

and Heather you're wrong when you say "people must accept violence and abuse are issues for every part of society to confront". As a collectivist, you talk about parts of society. There is a part of society that doesn't need to confront it - those of us who don't abuse. We're not the problem.

^

By contrast, Family First NZ (hardly an organisation I'd have much philosophical support for) has presented a programme which, on the face of it, isn't a bad start:

1. establishing a non-political Commission of Inquiry comprising community leaders who are working with at-risk families to identify causes of child abuse and effective solutions, and examining specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, race-based issues and poverty in these high rates. Well I'd want more than community leaders, I'd want some decent expertise across the intellectual, philosophical spectrum but it may be helpful;

^

2. an immediate increase of support and resourcing to grass-root community organisations who are working with at-risk families attempting to stop abuse in the first place - for example HIPPY Foundation, Early Start, Family Help Trust and other early childhood home-based programmes. In principle, this could be helpful too, though I'd be careful about what organisations to support, and in the longer term this should be through donation not state funding.

^

3. an increased investment in parenting organisations such as Parents Inc and other community based positive parenting programmes. More sceptical of this, although by donation this could also be helpful. Indeed, supporting non-partisan, secular parenting support organisations may be a far better use of taxes than welfare.

^

4. a media-based anti-child abuse campaign, in the same way road safety ‘shock’ campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging ‘positive’ parenting and identifying what is abuse. The UK National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children already does this, there should be the same in NZ, and people should contribute towards a fund to support this.

^

5. sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially increased to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children. Like I've said, there should be a clear increase in sentences at the severe end of the spectrum. Recidivists should be the priority. Anyone who is convicted a second time for any violent/sexual offence against children should be considered for preventive detention or denial of custody sentencing.

^

There is a severe problem in New Zealand of systemic child abuse, particularly in lower income Maori families. The problem is not poverty, most poor people don't abuse their kids. There is no excuse for the vile behaviour spread across the media as of late - it's just a shame that some want to evade individual responsibility as the sole cause.

David Benson Pope - good riddance

I have one simple reason for cheering this, is goes beyond the scandals behind this man, it is his sheer hypocrisy on one thing.

^

His press release on his resignation states "I have had more than my fair share of personal abuse and attack from the opposition, their fellow travellers and parts of the media. No one should underestimate the toll that this has on family members. I would urge opposition politicians to focus on policy not personality"

^

Would you David? So when you sat on the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, and taunted the Libertarianz spokesmen who were presenting a submission on the bill on dog control by saying "Why are you a party? if you believe in individualism how can you form a political party? Are you a party? Do you have any members?" constantly interrupting the submission, talking over the spokesmen attempting to answer his questions until the Chair requested that he let the spokesmen talk, were you focusing on policy not personality?

^

Of course not you rude prick, now fuck off you obnoxious hypocritical bully!

The National Puritan Party

You can almost always rely on the National Party to roll out some do-gooding busy body who wants to regulate what people do in their privates lives.

The incessant demands for prohibition of party pills from Jacqui Dean are a tiresome example, reflecting a peculiar middle class conservative opposition to all drugs except alcohol - with a stereotype that everyone taking anything like party pills is probably poor, unemployed, in bad health, committing crimes and needing to be looked after. It also reflects an even more peculiar stereotype that banning it makes the problems lessen. The idea that, in fact, people might occasionally take certain drugs and suffer no damaging effects is about as far away from that philosophy as womens' rights are to the Taliban.

The latest campaign is the one against a teacher who, disgustingly, Katherine Rich refers to as "porn site teacher". It is pretty much a cheap shot at someone who has done nothing illegal and indeed there is barely evidence at all that he sought to do anything illegal. However, it involves sex and it involves having an unconventional sex life, so that makes this teacher fair game in the world of politics.

The facts appear to be:

• The teacher in question posted nude pictures of himself on an online dating website. This website only allows registration of users 18 years and over. Katherine Rich calls them "hard core pornographic" involving himself and two women. Some were probably of him having a stiffie, the sort of image half the population gets to see in person most days, and a good part of the rest of the population gets to see a little less often. Other would involve him committing legal acts with the women. Nothing illegal about it, and hardly immoral given that the vast majority of the population "commits" them regularly (and the remainder usually want to). Online dating websites are NOT porn sites, though some get perilously close;
• The only people that would get to see these photos are other adults registered on the dating website who searched for someone with the teacher's profile;
• He sought other women to commit legal acts with, presumably consensually, although Katherine Rich has focused upon the phrase "the younger the better" to imply that he is a pedophile, or seeking underage sex. While he COULD have said 18 plus, the implication is that given it is a legal dating site, given that the dating site has strict rules about these things, that it is borderline.

The teacher appears to have committed no offences, or even attempted to do so. He has not solicited anyone underage, there is no evidence of handling illegal pornography and no evidence of any untoward activity towards students.

The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that he should continue teaching, presumably because there IS insufficient evidence to support that this teacher is any more a risk than say, a quiet demure understated man who doesn't show his cock online. Indeed, an adult swinger may well be LESS of a risk than the quiet lonely male who never seems to have much of a profile. Two out of five on the tribunal dissented, but then again that is not enough to end someone's career,

The fact that the teacher's ad could be accessed by past present and future students is truly irrelevant. Are teachers meant to live an ascetic life, or maybe the National Party stereotype of heterosexual married couples breeding happily, without threesomes entering into their lives, or large age gaps?

When can people have private lives when they have committed no crime, have not even done anything sufficient to be charged of the attempt of a crime without politicians taking cheap shots?

Would I be comfortable with this teacher teaching my children (if I had any)? Well frankly, I either wouldn't know or I wouldn't care that he advertises for other women, including young legal age ones if there are NO outstanding allegations about actual behaviour towards students or sex crimes more generally. It is no different to the scaremongering over gay teachers not too long ago that implied that a gay man in front of a class of boys was probably wanting to fondle them. Does "the younger the better" mean illegal? Well, the question you have to ask is, do you want to give someone, for whom you have no other evidence, the benefit of the doubt or do you want to engage in a witch hunt?

If he had been caught asking for schoolgirls, or flirting with them, or been caught with any, then fine - this is all justified. However, there are hundreds and hundreds of teachers who, secretly, will fantasise occasionally about their students, and I mean particularly younger teachers with the oldest students. You will never know who they are, because 99% of the time you never get to know who fantasises about whom. As long as it remains so, it is nobody else's business. As long as teachers pursue sex lives that do not break the law or do not involve students, then it should not be anyone else's business.

Winston in a time warp

NZ First press releases can be funny, they read like North Korean ones at times. Statements like "New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters said today that despite misinformation campaigns being undertaken by some in the media, the fact remains that our major strategic assets and land cannot be allowed to fall into foreign control."

^

No Winston, a misinformation campaign is not defined as those who have a different political view of the world compared to you. "The fact remains" does not make anything a fact, it is a political point of view. What sheer utter arrogant nonsense to think that an alternative political view from Winston is not a fact, and is simply a "misinformation campaign". Colin Espiner can write what he likes, but clearly he has annoyed Winston who seeks to win votes from an anti-foreign investment line.

^

What's funnier though is this statement "Auckland Airport is a strategic asset. It was clearly defined as such in the coalition agreement of 1996, and nothing has happened between then and now to change its status in our view".

^

In the what agreement??

^

So the fact that:

1. The coalition agreement terminated in force when the coalition with National broke up in 1998;
2. The remains of that government was voted out in 1999 and remains so;
3. The confidence and supply agreement with Labour does not cross reference the 1996 coalition agreement as a basis for policy;
4. The coalition agreement is not the word of some sage, it's a political document of convenience.

means nothing?

Sorry Winston, reread the calendar it is 2007, not 1997.

Yes, if you had a gun and a bullet and could get away with it

you might remove these oxygen thieves from the planet as well:

^

The Rotorua ones

and the British ones.

^

and the Rotorua ones are only charged with assault, so far.

^

Yes I know people have abused children since time immemorial, and I know yobs have been the gutter trash of Britain for decades, but what is this culture that scares people into retaliating, the culture that denies ambulance workers the means to defend themselves?

^

Here's a simple response:

- If found guilty, the Rotorua accused are permanently denied custody of children;

- The yobs in Manchester are denied access to the ambulance service unless they pay the full cost.

Peter Dunne does occasionally have common sense

Well, just this once.

^

On Auckland airport the NZ Herald quotes him saying "the sale of the airport was a matter to be sorted out by its shareholders"

^

Amazing Peter, such common sense!

^

JohnKey on the other hand is pandering to a group that Winston thrives on by saying according to the NZ Herald that "in principle he would like to see the airport remain in New Zealand hands". Fine John, you put together a consortium!

^

Winston meanwhile is satisfied that national security issues will be taken into account.

^

Of course he is pandering to the racist, bigoted, largely monolingual constituency who drag their knuckles to vote for him, because you see Dubai... well they're foreign aint they it's Iran isn't it? They want nukes and they stop girls going to school you know. They ummm are ummm Muslims u know they have beards, they're not like us, they're probably bloody terrorists those Iraqis who want our airport, they like camel riding, well I wont use the word, but you know. They have funny ways and that weird music, you know, for belly dancing and stuff. They are not like us those Arab types, they eat funny spicy food that isnt our sorta thing not like steak and chips, real tucker. you know they'll bomb our planes those Palestinians you know, they're just going to use it to train terrorists, they'll hire their own kind, they do that.. probably bring their families over and fill up our schools and hospitals then where we'll be? We fought them in Gallipoli those Turks too.

^

Hysteria, seen also in the Greens who say on their website that "Auckland International Airport is the single most important piece of monopoly transport infrastructure in the country".

^

1- It's a monopoly partly because you don't want Whenuapai developed as a competitor;

2- Given it is more important that the rail and road networks, can't we sell those too now? (foaming at the mouth foreseen) (I mean give away the rail network, since it was bought for $81,000,001.

They're taking the piss... aren't they?

What things are government good at? Solving crime? Prosecuting fraud?

^

No, I know - recipes!!

^

That's what taxes are for, to force you to pay for the food industry to study better recipes for making chips to make them healthier.

^

I kid you not. This is Nanny State par excellence.

^

Who has demanded this? Consumers? Well, if they have then the food industry should pay for it themselves. Surprisingly, it seems to respond to what people want.

^

"No Minister" calls the Ministry of Health food nazis. They are!!! When did anything delicious and desirable come out of the Ministry of Health? (besides the odd staff member) Will there be research into healthy chocolate cake? How about funding pies that are healthier? How about a nice cup of fuck off?

^

and by the way, just to help them out. Tomato sauce is one of the best sources of antioxidants (better than fresh tomatoes), but a lot of people already appreciate this.

^

A proper Minister would tell the food industry to figure out healthy chips on their own. Of course Sue Kedgley will be frothing at the mouth with excitement at the idea that the government is paying to make some food healthier - imagine a restaurant that Sue Kedgley designed recipes for, with help from the Ministry of Health. Mmmmmm NOT!

Chavez turns the screws, once more

According to the Guardian, Venezuela's soon to be dictator, Hugo Chavez has announced that any foreigners in Venezuela that "denigrate" his leadership will be deported.

^

He ordered cabinet ministers to monitor statements made by visitors to Venezuela and then, without a hint of irony is quoted as having said:

^

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?"... "No foreigner, whoever he may be, can come here and attack us. Whoever comes, we must remove him from the country. Here is your bag, sir, go."

^

Like most socialists, Chavez makes the mistake of thinking that he is Venezuela, by saying "attack us" instead of "attack me". So if you say he's a tyrant and he acts like a tyrant then....

^

The Guardian also notes that this follows "an acceleration of his self-described revolution by ordering the armed services to reflect socialist values and telling education officials to purge the "perversity of capitalism" from school textbooks."

^

but that's ok the fawning sycophants of the self styled "liberal" western left will still say he's better than Bush.

^

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (you do have to wonder about that title) said "Venezuela is not moving towards an authoritarian regime. It's just that when he speaks Chávez doesn't have a pause button. These sort of remarks cause enormous misapprehension and misunderstanding but don't really represent his convictions."

^

So i guess the nationalisation, the closing of a TV channel and the press release about deporting foreigners critical of the regime don't really represent his convictions. However as the Council on Hemispheric Affairs treats statistics Cuba sends to the UN on its healthcare system as being fact, when there is no way for Cubans (or anyone else) to verify conditions or criticise the figures with empirical analysis), it would be fair to say that it is another sycophant of Chavez.

A game

Which political party said the following? (and yes I know it is easy to search for it, but read it first and ask yourself who would probably agree with virtually all of this)

^
“By achieving a relatively self-sufficient economy, it is possible to greatly cut back the amount of energy and resources that are needed to provide the goods and services that people need. By using local economies and small local factories, we largely eliminate the need for transport and heavy packaging. It also becomes much easier to recycle all waste products into fresh goods, given that manufacture takes place locally and recycled materials do not need to travel far. Local economies will also provide a much fairer distribution of wealth. Enormous factories and economic outlets have a tendency to concentrate wealth into the hands of just a few people.”
^
“Ultimately it is quality of life that matters most. A truly localised economy, which blends the benefits of modern technology with the more friendly, quiet and socially integrated communities of yesteryear, could offer people the best of both worlds. The advantages that such a society would bring, in terms of quality of life, care for the elderly, greener and quieter surroundings, freedom from crime and traffic, better health, safety for our children”
^
“Empirical data show that a good supply of domestic capital is still more likely to lead to investment, as capital doesn't flow perfectly across borders (nor should it).
Dependency on foreign capital means we have to run our economy like a tart on the streets of global capitalism, always primping to be attractive for other people's money, and setting everything from interest rates to worker-protection laws to please them.
This means turning ownership, and thus control, of much of our economy to foreigners. When their economic interests coincide with ours, this is tolerable, but they often won't, and on fundamentals, they never will"

Grey grizzling anti-wog brigade and the xenophobic economic infants

You know them as NZ First and the Greens. Not PC has written well on this,
^
On Auckland airport, have you ever read such sheer nonsense?
^
The Bigoted wog haters (when has NZ First ever been positive about immigration?) talk of it being the selling of “another New Zealand plum” to a foreign owned company. What rot. The Bigoted Wog Haters could always buy it out if they wanted. “New Zealand” doesn’t own it, so stop using deceptive language that some collective entity called New Zealand has any rights to it. Anyway, what do they think Dubai Aerospace are going to do? Put rockets on it and send it to the Middle East, or destroy it? Have another sherry or five and go watch TV1 and fall asleep. This is the economic illiteracy that nearly bankrupted NZ under Muldoon.
^
The xenophobic economic infants are funnier still. Apparently there will be monopoly issues because of the change of ownership!! Air New Zealand will wonder what it has been going on about for years then, and I guess the Commerce Commission investigations had too many big words for the economic infants to read. Changing ownership makes NO difference. Such xenophobes rant and foam at the mouth saying “Coming on top of the attempt to buy up Tourism Holdings Limited, tourists to New Zealand could be landing at a foreign owned airport, travelling in foreign owned campervans, and visiting foreign owned iconic tourist sites and spending money which will simply go back to the overseas owners.” We'll all be branded with 666s and those foreigners will be so mean and cruel to us. I'm so scared of the foreigners, they eat babies and drink the blood of virgins! The foreigners will only hire their own kind after all, who wont spend a cent in New Zealand, but repatriate it all, they wont eat our food or rent our buildings or spend money in our shops - and then they'll stop us using the airport because monopolies like to stop people using their facilities, and then they'll buy our homes, our clothes, our children, then it will be hell, and the little elephants in the sky will land on our houses and eat gingerbread trees and...

^
The answer to the bigoted wog haters and the xenophobic economic infants is:
^
BUY THE F**KING AIRPORT YOURSELF!
^
However they wont, it’s SOOO strategically important they want to stop others using their money to buy it and others to realise their investments by selling it, but like most good old socialist whingers they wont cough up a cent to risk by investment. Of course they'll blether on about "we used to own it". Oh really? Did you get dividends, vote on the directors, could you sell what you owned if you thought the management performed poorly? Of course not, you owned nothing - the state owned it and took risks with your money, and spent the dividends on what IT wanted.

^

Anyway that was the past. NZ First and Green party members should put together an offer and buy the strategically important and valuable Auckland airport shares, or put up and shut up.

Etiquette lessons of the month

Cellphone use:

1. Older people, mostly men. Put your cellphone in your pocket (or on your desk if you're the prat sitting 5 metres away) put it on vibrate and turn it onto silent or meeting. Many of us can tell by the fact you keep the default ringtone on, and on a loud setting, that you barely have a clue how to use this device, and more importantly you don't know how fucking annoying it is to here that ringtone time and time again. I don't want to know that your phone has rung, frankly it isn't important.
2. Talk quietly on the phone or go away somewhere to talk on it. I have as much interest in your phone conversation as I have in the contents of your stomach. Doing this in queues is the worst thing of all, it doesn't show you're important, it shows that you are too lazy or stupid to check voicemail and can't stand not having phone calls.
3. There is something on trains in several countries called "quiet" carriages. In those you should turn your phone on vibrate and answer it only in the vestibule. If that's too hard, don't sit in the quiet carriage. I will sarcastically tell you off if you don't obey, which is nothing compared to my desire to take your phone and break it.
4. Women. Don't put your cellphone in your handbag on a loud ring and spend the next 5 seconds rummaging around for the infernal thing so that in the last second it is so loud we all notice. Put it somewhere else and put it on vibrate, it will make us both happier.
5. Beep Beep Beep Beep. Similar to 1. if you're too much of a retard to change the notification for text messages to a single silent vibrate, then you don't deserve the phone. One beep will do, but beep beep.... beep beep is unnecessary and rude.
6. Airlines. Whatever airlines choose to allow people to receive phone calls or text messages should be boycotted. The Daily Telegraph has a campaign on this. If you are on a short flight, then you can cope spending an hour or two without the world being able to reach you or vice versa. On a long flight, people are likely to sleep, work or relax, and again what the hell are you going to do differently when you're on a flight? Ryanair and Air France are keen, well I wouldn't fly Ryanair anyway as it is the airline that has done more to lower service standards than any other, and Air France is disappointing, but then it accentuates the stereotype of French rudeness.
7. Airline passengers. For fuck's sake wait till you're through the terminal before you use it. Who the fuck cares that "I've landed" while you're standing up waiting for the front door to open? If someone is picking you up, let them use their fucking eyes and look at the arrivals screen to determine if your plane is in or not. You have to be quite an absolute cock to suddenly turn your phone on when the seatbelt sign goes off, as if you have lost oxygen and you desperately need it. If you feel like that, get help.

In short, cellphones have one main use. The ability to call someone in an emergency or for business purposes (people working remotely). The secondary use is to text messages silently. Calls received should go to voicemail and people can pick them up later. It is possible to live productively without them going off infernally in public all the time.

and don't tell me your whinge and moan story about how much business you do with your phone. Fine, great, fantastic, just don't have the conversation in my ear and turn off your fucking ring tone. Got it? If you're that clever you can put it on vibrate.

Life's hard for Winston

According to the NZ Herald, Minister for Collecting Airpoints - Winston Peters doesn't think that his role is glamorous or that easy.

How sad.

He said "There are some in my office who would have me constantly sitting in meetings," ... "Some would want me reviewing policy options, Cabinet papers and the like, and there are others who would have me travelling offshore all the time."

Presumably he doesn't do most of these things, personally I think it is far safer for him to be travelling than to do anything else, particularly those retards who, according to him are in this category "Others still would want me to concentrate more on my role as Minister of Racing, or Associate Minister of Senior Citizens; and there are those who want me to do more as leader of New Zealand First."

There is no need for a Minister of Racing, or an Associate Minister of Senior Citizens, and indeed the more you do nothing as leader of New Zealand First, the less your lackeys do, because they are terrified of getting it wrong.

Keep flying Winston, New Zealand is safer when you're collecting Airpoints, and if it's all too hard then you know you can always resign. It's not like there aren't others who wouldn't have your job.

Greens cuddle up to Galloway

Socialist Islamist sympathiser MP George Galloway's visit to meet the loony leftwing Residents' Action Movement (RAM) has now been backed by Keith Locke of the Greens.

Besides talking nonsense like "Locke said he understood Mr Galloway represented a constituency that had a sizeable Muslim population and they were very supportive of him during elections". As George has stood for ONE election in his constituency, and he won the seat with a majority of 823, with 35.9% of the vote. Hmmm.

He has been quoted by Stuff as saying "We are very much impressed with him in his stand on Iraq."

Which stand is that then? Is it...

saying to Saddam Hussein "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability" which he repeatedly claims is a misquote.
^
or maybe his meeting with Uday Hussein reported by the Sun with photos of the video reviewing this. Given the numerous allegations around Uday murdering, torturing and raping, you have to wonder at Galloway being friendly to this late thug, and Keith Locke wanting to be associated with that (but hey, anyone who's anti American may be his friend).
^
Or if not Iraq, how about his support for the Syrian invasion and occupation of Lebanon reported in the Lebanon Daily Star? "Syrian troops in Lebanon maintain stability and protect the country from Israel."
^
or does Keith sympathise with his statement to the Guardian that "If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life"

Nice friends he has.

Debating global warming

Having pointed out that something is more tragic, deadly and important than global warming, it is important to note that it IS important to discuss, but how about answering some questions first. In order to assuage those who believe it is happening, let's assume that a human enhanced greenhouse effect is underway. Unfortunately the scientific argument on this has almost become a case of absolute belief or absolute disbelief - neither are likely to be accurate. It is difficult to deny that there is climate change happening, but it is also difficult to believe the hysteria around it and the evangelism around it. Seriously, not driving tomorrow will not make one iota of difference.

^

So here are questions I'd like answered.

^

1. What is a realistic range of costs AND benefits of global warming? Few talk about the benefits, and some will benefit. Should they pay others for those benefits, given the call for many to pay for the costs? The Stern report was hardly realistic.

^

2. If there are costs, who bears those, and who bears the benefits. Not glib statements about the poor and the rich, but something geographical.

^

3. What is the cost of measures to reduce the impact, what are the net benefits of doing so, what else could that money be used for? (e.g. the argument it is better for people to buy better health care than to spend a lot of money on reducing emissions).

^

4. What public policy that would improve economic outcomes and reduce emissions could be undertaken? (e.g. remove of price controls on electricity, ending subsidies for all transport modes, ending subsidies for any industrial or agricultural production).

^

In other words it shouldn't be about "global warming will kill us" hysteria, but a sober appreciation of steps that can be taken in the right direction of economic prosperity and reform that WILL see less waste. It is also about recognising the costs of that. My list of steps that could be taken that would not hurt economic growth, AND would reduce CO2 emissions are:

^

- End price control and subsidies for any part of the energy sector. If energy companies could charge as they wish, the price would go up, demand would drop and voila so would emissions. New forms of energy would be incentivised by the market to appear. It might be wind, it might be biofuel, it might be nuclear, it might be hydrogen fuel cells. However you can be sure there is no way in hell that this lot, or this lot or even this lot know what is best.

^

- Cease subsidising any industries. Why give preferences to any activities that use energy and are clearly less economically efficient.

^

- Cease subsidising breeding. End any welfare or tax credits for people who have children. The most environmentally destructive activity anyone can do is breed, so the government shouldn't incentivise it.

^

- Get the government out of subsidising and running transport. Ceasing subsidies for any transport, and privatise roads. You might find when people pay for what they use, more will walk and cycle, and people will drive less at peak times because road owners can charge a lot more for peak time use. Congestion would significantly reduce too.

^

Funnily enough the loudest advocates of doing anything for climate change want to subsidise energy, subsidise businesses, increase welfare for breeding and spend a fortune on subsidising transport that few people will use.

Greens continue to ignore Camp 22

So the Greens had a "day of action against genocide" on Bastille Day.

^

How absolutely disgusting.

^

How dare Metiria Turei claim that current policy on aborigines is akin to the Holocaust, akin to the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, akin to the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi, akin to Saddam's slaughter of Kurds, akin to Year Zero in Cambodia (not strictly genocide, but was mass murder of people according to a stereotypical group), or even akin to policies towards Aborigines in the 19th century? She diminishes what the word "genocide" means - the deliberate or reckless killing of a large number of people of a particular ethnic group.

^

and how can she remain ignorant of Camp 22, No. 14 Gaechun camp, No. 18 Bukchang camp, No. 15 Yoduk camp, No. 16 Hwasong camp and No. 25 Chongjin camp - all slave labour camps, enslaving children as political prisoners? The silence from the Greens is deafening.

^

So go on, email them all. Start with metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz and then Jeanette.Fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz nandor.tanczos@parliament.govt.nz and sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz

^

While you're at it, get Rodney Hide and Heather Roy to support this too, they have every reason to do so. The North Korean gulags are an atrocity that should not be tolerated in the 21st century, and we should not let concern over its nuclear weapons arsenal blind us to this. I don't expect Winston Peters to give a damn as foreign Minister, I mean honestly, you really think MFAT would dare ruffle feathers by allowing him to send a formal protest to Pyongyang about it?

^

More importantly, would those who proclaim NZ's "independent foreign policy" on something as virtually meaningless in real terms as nuclear armed ship visits, want to stick their neck out and have New Zealand demand the closure of North Korea's gulag? If not, why not?

Boris for Mayor of London?

I am pleased Boris Johnson is going to have a stab at being the Mayor of London. Not least because his profile gives him a chance of unseating the angry Marxist embarrassment known as Ken Livingstone. Boris is far from perfect, frequently amusing, but is bound to be better than Ken.

I have no idea what Boris would bring, other than a healthy dose of skepticism about Nanny State. After all when criticising Jamie Oliver he said "I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn't they push pies through the railings. I would ban sweets from school - but this pressure to bring in healthy food is too much" later describing Jamie Oliver as a "national saint" and "messiah" given David Cameron's glorification of him.

I want a few things from a Johnson mayoralty - but what it boils down to is less government, less spending and more accountability.

Residents Action Movement invites friend of dictators

Residents' Action Movement or RAM portrays itself as some genuine community based organisation that represents the concerns of the average Aucklander. RAM is anything but.

^

RAM is basically a reborn version of the Alliance, and is nothing short of foaming at the mouth raving socialists. I know this, I spoke to one prominent RAM member on the phone a few years ago who was convinced that tolling the motorway extension north of Orewa was an international capitalist conspiracy whereby Transit, the World Bank and others were going to make big money out of it. This isn't just wrong, it's delusional.

^

This madness is now seen by RAM inviting self-proclaimed fan of the Soviet Union, and former sycophant of Saddam Hussein - George Galloway - to talk about peace.

^

Galloway once said to Saddam Hussein "I salute you", while Iraq was occupying Kuwait. Yes, Galloway warms to peace lovers. The Guardian quotes him saying "Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life"- that bastion of peace that invaded all of eastern europe, Afghanistan and waged proxy wars worldwide. In 1999, he met with the murderous rapist Uday Hussein and joked with him. On top of that, Galloway is anti-abortion.

^

Meetings are being held on 27-29 July with Galloway. Perhaps someone who cares about peace would ask him why he met Uday Hussein, and why he misses the Soviet Union, which enslaved people, denied freedom of speech and executed political opponents at will.

^

Galloway is a vile apologist for murderous regimes, meeting Uday for a nice talk given the numerous reports about him (including from the leftwing Guardian) is repulsive. His sympathy for the Soviet Union after all of the horrors committed by it is despicable.

^

It speaks volumes about RAM that it is inviting him, and I hope Aucklanders will note this when they vote later this year.