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?