Suppressing free expression; one of the core ethos of AUSA

There are many ways which Auckland University is associated with "overrated". For beginners, their childish, ungrateful students do whatever they can to cause chaos in the street because their bottle wasn't filled to the top. The disjointedness of building locations facilitating and aiding 39,000 students in their studies has led to many not feeling a part of the University at all and from the Vice Chancellors side, there seems to be very little done to aid students with transport subsidisation. But now, the Auckland University Students association (AUSA) is doing everything within their efforts to shut down the Pro-Life (Anti-Abortion group).

Modern complainers lack the courage to even come forth and state their points and often plug their ears when someone they disagree with is speaking in rebuttal. Rather unsurprisingly, this complainer was "an anonymous source" who rather than giving specific reasons, resorted to waffling on about the fliers distributed by the group containing "misleading information," and "presents lies about health procedures in New Zealand." http://prolife.org.nz/freespeech/ This source could not be more vague, lacks any hard backing, cannot state any of the "misleading information" and if anything, is lying to many people. Many of the reasons given against the medical procedures of abortion are backed up by medical health studies on the topic. http://prolife.org.nz/righttoknow/. Whoever this coward complainer is cannot dismiss such facts as if they are some sort of mental disorder. If anything, they could give rational reasons for dismissing the findings.

Arena Williams, head of the AUSA saying that the manner in which her Association could have dealt with the complaint straight away, mentioning "it would not have been in favor of what Pro-Life are doing."

An earlier post "Want to be offended? Go ahead and be offended" gives a more in depth perspective towards the dangers on political correctness, so this will merely be a summary. A rendition of King vs Pawn is out again, with no fair chance for the Pro-Life group to defend themselves, no prior warning given about the impending doom and destruction of the group by AUSA. It's really just using the most abject and lowest propaganda complaints for the cheapest purposes. As for the "threat to students health, don't be stupid." None of the board members on the student association or anyone backing this anonymous tipster knows or cares about the mental health risks associated with reading a leaflet. Here's a more sensible question to ask. If this was the "Environmental Justice Group" or the "Women's Welfare Group" would Ms. Williams and her brigade be so oppressive and intolerant towards them? No. Because this group goes against a mainstream idea generally accepted as right (which is very questionable), then many people would prefer to see it's demise.

What needs to be done? Firstly, whoever is supporting the club's removal without trial ought to hold their breaths for a moment and let the Club leader(s) defend themselves against the accusations. Easier said than done. Second, the cowardice complainer ought to speak up and associate them-self with the rather vague and sputtered comment. If they believe what they said, they ought to defend it with clear reasoning. Third, Auckland University Students Association need learn to be a bit more impartial and less biased towards clubs which do not hold politically correct opinions. Again, easy to say, hard to implement.

Nobody wants to live in a society where they are not allowed to defend themselves or express their opinions, however unpopular of offensive they may be. So why let this suppression trickle down from mainstream society into Universities? This movement must be met with scorn and avoided at all costs because it offends masses by not allowing groups to voice opinions. The Pro-Life club must be supported here, (if not for their stance) for their right to free expression

Self Service Kiosks? Just another reason to avoid KFC

Is there anybody who thinks KFC produces real high quality fast food? Does their menu even consist of anything real at all? Perhaps in small scant areas. Hardly worthy of any mention in recent times, the executives have had to implement extreme tactics to pull people through the door. Now, after a trial in France, self service kiosks are being brought into KFC's in New Zealand, starting on the North Shore. In addition to discouraging face to face interaction, these clunky machines will put people out of work and cause clutter. No new surprises that KFC is just becoming more and more unattractive nutritionally, hygienically and socially.

Last year the incredibly unhealthy double down was introduced, with the core appeal being its unhealthiness. This year Rusell Creedy and his business partners have introduced the KFC pie. Mr. Creedy says "I can cofirm I had a few and it's an excellent product," then adding "It's New Zealand-made as well" as if saying so makes it ten times more attractive http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/financial-results/7017466/KFC-launches-pie-Double-Down-returns. Health groups will be alarmed and so should anyone thinking about making a trip to KFC about how dangerous these foods for the arteries and general well being. A double down has 540 calories, 288 of those calories coming from fat on top of the gigantic sodium top off. http://www.kfc.com/doubledown/. Mr. Creedy must have little regard for his health by wolfing down these New Zealand made pies, which pack together 40g of fat (50-65% of suggested daily fat intake), 115mg of cholesterol, and just for kicks, 1680mg of sodium. KFC has emerged as a dangerous place to spend money, to eat food, anything of the kind and if diners there were aware of just how dangerous this food is for their health, they wouldn't be seen within 100 metres of it.

In addition to serving bad food (made popular by the oblivious media), there is the poor level of hygiene and general cleanliness within the restaurants. Throughout the multiple reviews of KFC restaurants throughout the world, there is moral outrage over the poor hygiene shown by everyone, team members and managers alike. One person writes that "KFC Lancaster is probably the worst in the world" continuing on to say "Cleanliness and Hygiene - There is not enough room to even begin typing in here the disgraceful haphazard manner with which cleaning is carried out." More locally in New Plymouth a reviewer writes "The bean salad had been previously dropped...and the now bearly recognisable bread roll had been stuffed in the only remaining space in the box and was flat." If KFC really wants to begin making claims to be a great family place to be the first two things which can be done are to improve the food quality to "eatable" and make the staff have a bit more pride in themselves and their workplace. Clearly, this element is lacking, which is disappointing as it's relatively easy to fix.

Now there is increased hype and craze over fast food allegedly becoming even faster due to self serve kiosks. Mr. Creedy begins to spin a web of lies by saying "If anything, you tend to increase staff because you get more customers through the door." Note how slyly this would be said (almost like Mr. Slippery whenever he has to come up with more lies), because having big bulky machines does not increase sales at all, nor will it make KFC capable of employing more staff, unless huge renovations are conducted at the respective joints these machines are going to be http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10818500. Basic Economics. Face to face communication is something Mr. Creedy wants to rid in his store, preferring to have KFC customers be anti social and prevent them from receiving a complementary smile and "Thank you" or "Have a nice day" from a human being, rather than an emotionless machine.David Hare has a famous quote saying "Smiles are the language of love." Very few people out there prefer a virtual smile to a real one.


One day KFC might radically change their menu, adding healthier foods into the menu, presenting customers with a clean environment and well presented food. Here's to hoping these self service kiosks don't last. If they do, it's just another reason to avoid KFC.

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.