The most abject form of art

Some manly men met up and talked about what had been happening in their lives lately. One lit a cigarette and rolled up his shirt sleeve, revealing an inked picture of a Tahiti tribal design, which impressed the other friend. If you're still unsure about who these two men are, Jamie Fox is the admirer and Colin Farrell is the man showing off the tattoo. What a weird world to live in, where people walk about showing others drawings in their skin. Celebrities and sports stars can't get enough of them but there's a good reason no one should be fooled by this passing trend of bodily graffiti.

What exactly has society seen in tattoos which wins such a high level of approval? Self expression of course. People who are full of them regularly tell anyone willing to listen (which is the main reason they probably got them in the first place) it's an outward expression of their personality. Out of every option of expression available, this was the best way of showing the world a uniqueness of character.

Here's a reflective thought for just how vile a tattoo is. Remember those days when you were at school, wandering around happy and optimistic. Class time spent on art work often involved the fantastic colours and pictures landing on the clothes and skin, rather than the white canvass. Tattoos are merely an evolution of these carefree art days, except you've got some labouring lout drawing the picture into your skin.

The thought of getting a permanent drawing in your skin, which you pay some stranger to do, in full knowledge this alleged "artwork" will never wash off. The next gets better. Everyone needs to see it; everyone must know about it. For what a great tragedy such art isn't shown to the masses. Everyone must be impressed by it because in today's society, getting drawn on like a graffiti wall is cool and hip. Lest you be accused of being odd or strange, accept it and marvel at it. If anything it'll encourage children to think it's OK to deface their own skin. After all, thousands of people have done it already. Tattoos add a certain hideousness to a person's appearance. It removes more beauty than it adds, degrades one's skin and however small, alters appearance.

A study conducted found that a majority of people get a tattoo because it makes them feel rebellious, look sexy or make them feel attractive and strong. http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_facts.htm. If people want to go and "ink their skin" to look like a fragmented piece of the Berlin Wall, they can by all means do so. If regret seeps in, which it seems to be doing now, then it's a costly fix. Dr. Scott Karempelis of Atlanta Dermatology Associates says that over thirty people a day visit him wanting to remove their tattoos. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/09/10/hm.tattoo.removal/index.html. Costly and expensive, maybe the message will be sent clearly through to anyone wanting to deface their skin.


Many people may cite cultural, spiritual or personal reasons for getting a tattoo. Anyone who does it can't just say "Because it's cultural." Far greater ways to show appreciation to pay tribute to one's culture, personality, family or God exist than getting pictures drawn all over the body. Poetry, in whatever form has a much greater potential to soften the heart and draw out the beauty of self expression. Personal letters (which are disappearing alarmingly fast), sculptures, paintings, even meditation touch the hearts of others and the self more so than the most abject form of art.

Just like many passing fashions beforehand, tattoos will one day cease to be unfashionable. Hopefully soon. The tolerance many people have of friends and families showing off the ghastly drawings is fast diminishing.

Kim Dotcom: Guilty until proven innocent

Kim Dotcom ought to fly over voluntarily to the United States. He will not need to stay long to prove how unjust the case against him is, certainly won't need a lot of time proving his innocence and can get back to enjoying life in his massive Coatesville Mansion with his wife and children. To think the Plastic States (yes they've earned this nickname, for their phony justice system too which will be discussed in more detail through the post) want to put away someone who has had his company endorsed by many music icons, movie stars and socialites. The following video has some of the many endorsers of Megaupload in a song singing their praises of Dotcom's website. The core problem is not the charges being made against Dotcom, it's the manner in which the United States is strutting about, arrogantly demanding the New Zealand government comply with their every demand. Thus far, the small island government has happily been the lap dog. Just as well New Zealanders are throwing their weight behind a man who is guilty until proven innocent.

All the drama began in January 2012, when the Police raided the Multimillionaire's mansion, smashing down doors, confiscating a large portion of his assets, freezing his bank accounts, shutting down the website and putting the man and his supposed co-conspirators in jail. Immediately, the United States Government wanted to extradite him on accounts of alleged online piracy, copyright infringements, and money laundering. http://www.3news.co.nz/Megauploads-Kim-Schmitz-arrested-in-Auckland-site-shut-down/tabid/412/articleID/240007/Default.aspx. Recently, High Court Judge Justice Helen Winkelmann deemed the search warrants to conduct the raid "invalid" and "that moves by the FBI to copy data from Dotcom's computer and take it offshore were also unlawful." Hardly a surprise, considering the FBI conducts many big time raids each week with invalid warrants. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9361759/Kim-Dotcom-raid-illegal-New-Zealand-court-rules.html.

Further ways to make Kim Dotcom the ignoble perpetrator of some mass crime has come up short of foolhardy. An allegation that he was responsible for $500 million of lost revenue, is the CORE reason they want him extradited. Money certainly talks. Whinging studio executives annoyed about an undelivered bonus. Small pittance for conniving, selfish oxygen thieves. Something which has not been mentioned much, and which Dotcom rightfully addressed in his interview on Campbell Live, was how little he heard from these executives and copyright holders when these files were being shared on his website. In fact, only one dispute was put forth and settled for a fee since it's inception as a file sharing website. "We have a regime of taking things down which are reported to us, which we have done over all these years. We are protected according to the law." And indeed Megaupload is, under the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Youtube ran into a similar situation in 2010, coming up against Viacom, which claimed Youtube founders knew their up-loaders were engaged in copyright infringement.http://gigaom.com/video/youtube-wins-viacom-court-case/. Good reason suggests if Kim Dotcom proves his innocence here (or if need be in the United States) a similar outcome will be given.

Nothing is more heinous than suggesting Kim Dotcom serve time in jail at all. He's clearly found a smart way to legally allow copyrighted information to be shared. Where is the credit when it's most needed. The man clearly realised potential for it in the online market and has legally got every right to continue operating this website, without the need to be hassled by the Fickle Boy Investigators (FBI). The Plastic States justice system is alarmingly inconsistent. Here is where many people, American and Kiwi are up in arms of fury that Dotcom may see more jail time than many mass murderers, rapists, child molesters and torturers. If justice of this capricious nature is due, then before looking at someone like Dotcom, how about locking up the scungy, greedy, pathetic Wall Street dwellers and investment bankers who nearly sent the world into economic meltdown. Bernie Madoff got a just sentence and it's about time many of those other crooks get sentenced to fifty years before the United States Government even tries moving in on a man who hasn't even been proven to have broken any copyright laws.

As soon as the New Zealand government grows some arms and legs and makes its own decisions, rather than allowing the Plastic States Fickle Boy Investigators to think for them, the sooner Kim Dotcom will be proven innnocent...and righfully so. Thankfully, justice is starting to speak and Dotcom is brave and shrewd enough to continually prove he's done nothing wrong.

The Plastic States of America

Living in the United States for a few years, one of the most frequent expressions which comes from people is "It was nice but it felt so fake." This could not be more true to the point. A large proportion of American people are indeed plastic. What you see and what you hear is certainly not what you get. And isn't that so sad to see because so many of them act friendly and polite and seem genuine, only to befuddle and confuse you later on with their fickle ways. Exceptions do exist, but for the most part, it's quite a consistent thing.

To begin with there's the core foundation of their friendships. A British lady spent three years living in California, before moving overseas again. For three years she kept in touch with these alleged friends who were constantly inviting her over to visit. The woman eventually made the journey, expecting great American hospitality and superb rekindling and discourse. What she got in return was quite the contrary. "I seemed like a pest to my friend. I couldn't believe it because she used to be the most generous person ever but suddenly money was a worry, my presence was unwelcome and my friend and her family would go through several mood swings with each conversation, sometimes in each sentence." A rare case? No. Many expatriates who have lived in "the land of the brave, home of the free" expressed their frustration at the erratic attitudes of everyone around them. This which Americans would vehemently deny and argue until the sun goes down but sub conscious cues in body language and tone of voice have convinced many international University students studying in the United States the domestic students are hiding something. Two students from Denmark expressed their frustration over being continually let down by class mates in relation to a study group. "There were three girls who consistently said 'Let's go study over coffee' and 'Let's go celebrate summer next month.' So often they just threw these phrases out to look good but after a while, we knew they didn't mean it 90% of the time." Other students said the tones the local students spoke in were hollow. Still think this is a mere coincidence?

Considering these two examples, the question comes up. Why do they act fake then? Although many Americans deny being racist, politically correct, and non-judgmental on the basis of class, truth be told they do. Hence, it seems that the main idea which has sprung forth from this foggy topic is it makes them feel better about themselves. They may not deliver on the promise- whatever it may be- but as long as they said something would be done, in their mind, nothing else matters. Petty and pathetic as it sounds, that is An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore should be addressing. South Africa is forever slammed for having their Apartheid regime which only began to disintegrate when Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1990. Speaking with many adults who grew up during these years of segregation, not a single one held any animosity towards the black people. Hatred and intolerance towards non-whites still exists, almost universally, not only in towns and cities, but in major International Airports. These alleged random pat downs, X-Ray scanner machines and random drug tests are almost always carried out on Muslims (even if they're US citizens), Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics. A young New Zealand man travelling through America was umbrageous towards border security members who incessantly chose his Latin American girlfriend for pat downs. Five times she was chosen, while he barely warranted more than a raised eyebrow. Deny it as they may, there can be no doubt their supposed racial tolerance is also fake.

More often than not, living a postiche lifestyle is what Americans seem to desire. They make movies with people in relationships that simply don't exist in real life, revel in following the lives/struggles of the heavily scripted reality television programs and cannot stand. Store clerks are forever asking questions many people would rather not answer but still do anyway- knowing deep down these people aren't really interested in their answer- out of politeness. The perspective of the American Dream today has been proven to be a false allusion. Class most certainly isn't a measuring stick for success and money certainly can't buy you happiness. Exceptions to all of this most definitely exist and some Americans have proven themselves as outstandingly consistent again and again. Sadly, those people are rarely seen enough to be properly admired.

The United States has been a plastic country for a while. Rave reviews are often given to their northern and southern neighbours more than them. Maybe this will kick them into rethinking their attitude.

Angry about State Asset Sales? Mr. Slippery will be so happy

Barely a day goes by without more people beginning to realise that the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr. Slippery is as sly as they come. Promised not to raise GST. Back tracked on that. Guaranteed to reverse the anti-smacking law. Never quite got around to that (and almost supports it now.) He voted against the civil unions bill but has again confused everyone by claiming he isn't against gay marriage. Now though, a proposal more unpopular, more controversial and certainly more ridiculous has been passed, allowing the Government to sell state assets to bogon buyers overseas for ridiculously cheap prices. Using the world partial sales to disguise it all as minor desperation for raising capital, there in fact is nothing partial about the percentages being talked about. Mighty River Power, company number one up for sale shall have up to 49% of its company share sold. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815746. Many other high earning enterprises are going to be sold too, which does nothing more than create temporary capital. New Zealanders against these Asset Sales aren't oblivious to what is happening like Mr Slippery would have you believe. They simply want the Government, who are there to serve them (just to remind them because they're quick to forget) and who they voted in to maintain control of these Assets rather than have some overseas investor snap them all up for a bargain, most likely by the Chinese Government.

John "Sly" Key then crawls out his fox hole and is audacious enough to profess that the income generated from these Asset sales will be used to buy more Assets. http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-confident-asset-sales-law-passed-week-4944424
Is he telling the truth here? Maybe but unlikely. Only, what Assets are there left to buy if one is getting rid of their best assets to cover up the fact their gambling problem in the current account has gone on far too long. He reaffirms his reason by comparing the State Asset sales with the anti-smacking Bill (which has been addressed in an earlier post). Both are very undemocratic moves by the current National government, who continue to scoff at their voters as soppy incompetent sheep whom they must herd, in much the same way as the Lousy Labour Government before them. At the very least Labour knows State Asset sales aren't the solution, short term or long term.

Only time can determine how much money the Economy shall cry out from this deal. New Zealand investors, as shrewd as they may be ultimately won't be able to match the offers foreign Chinese and American investors make on ownership of these companies. No kiwi citizen wants a large proportion of their tax funded enterprises in the hands of foreign owners, even if it's alleged "partial ownership." Enough damage to be done already and despite the huge level of dissent about these sales among the public and in Parliament (remember the Bill passed 61 for 60 against in Parliament), Mr. Slippery remains rigid that those against it are ill informed about it. He think people will warm to it like they allegedly have with the anti-smacking bill (which he secretly admires). But people won't. State Asset Sales were met with disdain when David Lange's fourth Labour government did it and nothing suggests it'll be different this time either.

Ultimately Mr. Slippery can let off hot air all he likes about the benefits these sales will do. It will allow debts to be paid off temporarily; expect it to plateau within months. And expect New Zealand to still be in debt by the time National gets the old heave ho out of Government. They're certainly doing themselves any favors by not being democratic about it.

Childish, selfish and ungrateful

Towards the end of the first semester in New Zealand, the National Party released their budget for 2012, with huge cutbacks and reduced spending in many sectors. Who got the most upset over it? Surely it would be the secondary schools, who continue to be under funded in so many departments. No. How about the lower and working class people struggling to survive because of the disastrous tax reforms from two years earlier? Not at all. The most upset group of people were the young University students pursuing their degrees becoming upset that they cannot have their Post Graduate degrees funded for them. Many students rather took to the Auckland streets, childishly blocking off roads, creating too much noise and getting in squabbles with police. It is concerning that so many students are selfishly casting aside the cares of others in the pursuit of themselves. Saying "I help others" won't cut it. Holding needless protests only goes to show just how ungrateful these students are. If only Bill English could have come up with a wittier remark than "they need some Greeks to show them how to do it." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6985746/Urewera-four-members-join-Budget-protests

Any protest which is led by Sue Bradford should and must be looked at with scathing suspicion. Her rather lame chant of "they say cut back we say fight back" is nothing new for such a vainglorious individual. Being led by her must give the students some false hope New Zealand MP's actually care about the people's voice (which they don't). The way in which they're pulling the protest is childish at best. Who should feel the full effects of their scorn and immaturity? The very people whose tax dollars fund such a wonderful interest free loans. Despite their best efforts to claim these were all done peacefully, video footage suggests otherwise. Here, one can clearly see student hooligans dragging rubbish bins around, stopping the flow of traffic and causing general chaos to traffic flow, not to mention carrying signs and placards full of derogatory language. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/budget-protest-students-call-no-education-cuts-4899789. So what's their solution? Tax the rich more. Socialism to a T. What these childish socialist students don't realise is how angry these students will be in twenty years time when a fair proportion of them will be the rich tax bracket providing equity for interest free student loans.

Where these students are losing out so much is the biggest mystery. Of course, having been wired to be chauvinist like their governing bodies, any attempt to take away their many privileges as a student are met with scorn. The simple reforms which raised such outcry were raising the payback rate from "10 per cent to 12 per cent and cut student allowance entitlements" to 200 weeks of study http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/13840511/auckland-student-protest-ends/.
So, in summary, for up to four years, New Zealand students are allowed to receive a student loan, interest free and from the government, without having to pay back a single cent of interest. The Government has also not reduced the massive subsidies already provided on student's tuition costs, keeping fees relatively low in comparison to the United States, Great Britain and Australia. Oxford University charges £9,000 (NZD$17,766.42) a year for each of their Undergraduate degrees. http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/fees/information/universityrates/. The University of California Los Angeles requires students to pay USD$14,010.13 (NZD$17,689.19) each year. http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/fees/gradfee.htm
Sydney University demands a more modest but equally expensive AUD$5,648 (NZD$7,167.79). Many University (or College for the American) students in the United States take out huge loans and Graduate with a plethora of debt. Australia requires an upfront payment for the fees, as does Oxford. Many of the protesters did not pause to reflect just how luck they are. Many University Students around the world struggle just to make it through their Bachelors degree with as little damage as possible to their name, yet they have the audacity to be ungrateful towards a government which provides subsidies and loans for them, removing huge chunks of debt and strained financial difficulties in the future.

"Not good enough", they say. They have the right to do post graduate study, interest free. How about a little recap of where that has led. Thousands upon thousands of well educated students happily helping themselves to this very generous offer and then running off overseas, leaving the burdens of their actions upon those who remain in New Zealand. No apology, no feelings of contrition, not even a thanks. Thank you to those people, for ruining it. Thank you as well for exposing how (like you) ungrateful these students are. Carefully think about a post graduate degree which is very popular. An MBA. Very difficult to complete when in part time employment and almost always done by people who hold full time jobs. Diligent and focused, these people work hard for that title and very few who undertake it fall short. Post graduate studies should be approached in the same way. Rather than constantly expecting hand outs from the Sugar Daddy Government, how about taking some personal responsibility and pursuing post-graduate part time? If that's not achievable, apply for scholarships. Many are available and with the academic performance needed for post graduate studies, these won't be difficult to obtain. Still unsatisfied. Maybe you should wait for the Socialist Party to make it into government.

Students are free to criticise the government all they like about reforms and tax cuts. The hard line of it all shows the students have a brittle foundation to lean on and their arguments have a vitiated foul smell of arrogance. Hopefully soon, they'll learn to appreciate what they have.

Creaks and Cracks in the New Zealand Navy.

It's not very often when outsiders get to experience the Navy first hand and get an idea an understanding about what makes it tick. Aspiring Naval officer candidates are often fortunate enough to receive access to see the vessels, converse with many sailors and officers and sometimes even spend a few days on a ship too. Nothing of late however shows that the New Zealand Navy is heading anywhere but backwards. Why is that? It doesn't come down to one big failure, but rather a series of micro-failures which have sprung up recently. Not a single submarine in the entire fleet; Officers and Sailors regularly getting drunk and creating strife; an exiguous intake of ordinary sailors who were almost matched 1:1 by the Officers intake, not to mention the overused and overrated Offshore patrol vessels, trying to do a lot without really doing anything. How these failures (which aren't laborious fixes) still exist are embarrassing.

To start with. Not a single submarine in the fleet. Zero, nada, zilch. Surely with a vision of being the best small nation Navy in the world, the very best they can do to try follow through on this rather half-hearted promise is source ways of making their fleet more effective, versatile and adept. Tony Parr, the Chief of Navy still maintains that this goal is slowly being achieved. Having new in shore patrol vessels "provided the RNZN and respective government agencies with greater flexibility to monitor the exclusive economic zone and support the multi-agency approach to border and resource protection." Countless interviews, reports and speeches by Mr. Parr has failed to make a mention all about commissioning a submarine. Very embarrassing but not surprising. For comparison's sake, Australia has six submarines. (http://www.navy.gov.au/Current_Submarines)
Rear Admiral Jack Steer is none the better. Both he and Rear Admiral Parr are in cahoots together. Until one of them start collecting their pensions, don't expect to see any submarines anytime soon. Instead, expect to see sharp incremental additions of ridiculous Inshore and Off Shore Patrol vessels instead. Why New Zealand needs more of these boats remains a mystery to most people in the country, as well as most people in the Navy. It's probably the Senior Officers' way of shutting up the whinging Lieutenants who are craving a promotion (Most of the Commanding Officers of OPV's are Lieutenants).





Anybody who's served in the New Zealand Navy will be very familiar with the rather liberal attitudes many serving members have towards alcohol. Drink when you're on the sea, drink when you've docked overseas, drink when the weekend comes around. Last year a report came out that Commander John Butcher deliberately and willfully guzzled down glasses of wine until he was fully intoxicated; thankfully, he no longer steers the ship. Vanuatu Commander Maritime superintendent John Taleo said "It was very embarrassing. I nearly walked away from the table but I stayed. I think he must have been drinking on board before he came to the function." That's not surprising and nobody should see be surprised by it either. "A Defence Forces official said the navy took issues around alcohol consumption very seriously," but whoever said this can't be taken seriously in any sense. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10742606
A vast majority of Navy members are getting drunk regularly and if each drunken occasion was met with disciplinary actions, there would hardly be a Navy. An ensign studying at University regularly mentions all the peer pressure he receives to drink till you sink, particularly from a commander of one of the Fleet's ships. Here's the link, try and guess who it is. http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/overview/default.htm

Whilst these two problems remain scary, the problem which is even more frightening than anything else is the lack of recruitment for sailors. And do not forget the horribly disproportionate intake ratio for officers to sailors. In the January intake, there were 30 people chosen to begin Junior Officer Common training. Not bad numbers at all and definitely filling the necessity for "new blood." Consider this though. There were 40 people who began Basic Common training and by the pictures shown on the Navy page, that number dropped down to around 34. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nznavy/sets/72157629250801365/
That is an intake ratio of nearly 1:1. Whatever sort of hands on management by these aspiring officers is going to fall flat and collapse. If more recruitment is needed, they ought to cut back on Officer numbers and certainly not sailor numbers. Sailors will always need to be more plentiful than Officers for a simple reason. Their arms and feet push the ship forward, the Officers are the brains and leaders who tell them how to do it. This is an issue which must be dealt to soon. Recruiting and blooding more common Sailors is imperative if they're planning to increase their fleet size and operational expertise. Whoever mismanaged the intake needs to go. Making a mistake this big will haunt the Navy down the track when there's one officer to squawk orders to every individual sailor.

Solutions do exist. Unfortunately the Navy is going about fixing these problems in the wrong way. Time is running out for them, it won't be long they're seen as a Joke Navy. It quite literally is sink or swim.

Want to be offended? Go ahead and be offended

It's not very often where I'll talk from a first person point of view. This is no accident and removes any emotional bias I may hold on the matter and allow the rational facts to support the position: a search for the truth. The following topic however is very important to me and a very contentious topic on debate as well. Throughout western media, freedom of speech supposedly stands strong, separating it from some countries like North Korea and Saudi Arabia. How sure can we be of this though? Isn't one of the many problems these days that people find a reason to be offended by anything and everything. Many of my fellow countrymen from South Africa, stand accused of being "racists;" my fellow churchgoers and I get accused of being homophobic simply because we do not support gay marriage, and let's not forget the feminists who dislike me merely because I'm a man. Plenty more examples exist, which I'll get to in the article. The further one goes into the subject, the more we see squabblers in action doing what they can to suppress free speech, a right which is allegedly universal. Unless we start standing up and fighting against these non-offending lying, sensationalist, politically correct groups who seek to suppress free speech, it'll be unlikely I shall be able to discuss the issue one day, lest I be accused of being some sort of radical extremist.

In September 2005, some cartoons were released in an afternoon Danish newspaper. It was a series of cartoons satarising a major issue which was and continues troubling the world now; radical Islamic terrorism. What reaction were these cartoons met with? Enormous threats to blackmail the Denmark economy, lynch mobs and bullying gangs throughout the world burning flags and carrying threatening signs like "Kill those who insult Islam," not to mention the death threats each cartoonist received. It annoys me when anyone attacks my religion, criticizing it or sardonically misrepresenting it. Not for a second though will I run around making threats to kill people or disagree with my views because they have as much of a right to voice their opinion as I do with mine. Many Muslims who were involved in these protests happily live in western countries and enjoy the many liberties of western life their home countries limits or does not offer. If they want to voice their discontent, they are free to do so and can... in a civilized manner. Making death threats because of one's religion, towards cartoonists is a step too far and a detrimental attack on the free press, which thankfully many journalists like Christopher and Peter Hitchens have worked hard to uphold.

If you move onto the issue to racism and gender, this is a rather simple matter. If a black person goes around spurting out racial innuendo's, then it's alright. Poking fun at the white boys trying to look tough and the Korean boys who look like "disco asians," and let's not forget the frequent use of the word "nigger" among these circles. Why then should the United States minister of security get slammed when he voices concern about the alarmingly high proportion of African Americans who are in prison. It's politically incorrect to offend a racial group like that! How dare you say that? But here's a cup of reality. It's true. 1 in 11 African Americans are sitting in prison; to shrug it off as "racist" and "bigoted" is laughable and nothing more than lazy smack talk. What ever happened to telling the truth? Obviously many people are happier with hearing white lies, which lead to even more disappointment in the long run. Moving onto gender, I can remember one time when an interviewer (it may have been Paul Henry, no stranger to the politically correct brigade) interviewing a female member of parliament and she talked rather openly about celebrities she thought were good looking and sexy. Hardly a fuss was raised about it. Up steps John Key and ranks Liz Hurley and Jessica Alba as dream dates. Don't think he was going to get off easily. As much as I dislike John Key's political track record, he has as much right as the female politician to express his views. Green MP Sue Kedgley wouldn't dare stand for it and indirectly sought an apology with her rather stupid comments. Well Ms. Kedgely, along with all the other people who cannot stand your rigid request to remove free speech seek an apology. Don't go hating on men simply because you cannot accept his right to an opinion, just like anyone else. And don't you dare try suppress it either.




Which brings me to the main reason I decided to discuss this using examples from the three of the most contentious issues in society today. Religion, race and gender. Very delicate issues indeed, but not for one moment should any of these issues prevent us from telling the truth, even if it breaks the glass hearts of the politically correct. For thousands of years, honesty was always the best policy. Only within the last twenty years has this been revoked by people with glass hearts. We are fast in danger of losing our right to free speech from people who just do not want to hear an opinion that may be unpopular. The politically correct brigade search hard and fast to suppress these people, making personal attacks towards these people, branding them as bigots, racists, and offensive. Well if you want to be offended by being told a certain opinion or being informed with the sad truth, by all means be offended. Do not try to trample on the right to free speech, it has become the cornerstone of great democracies. Anyone encouraging people to be politically correct about everything they do should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves.

The sooner I see the back of political correctness, the less I'll write about these issues. I get fed up of white lies being told to avoid offending minorities, the huge amounts of censorship, name calling and blackmail shown towards people who voice these opinions and tell the truth. Do not be afraid to tell the truth. Do not be afraid if people claim to be offended. They know if they try come at you with their politically correct dogma, it won't stand any chance of winning the argument on which is better.