Why despise the dear leader and then adopt his dumbest policy?

The Olympics had not even begun and a post from Greek athlete Paraskevi Papahristou got her kicked out and sent home before the opening flame had been lit. Ms. Papahristou wrote on her twitter page "With so many Africans in Greece .. At least the mosquitoes of West Nile .. will eat homemade food!!!!" http://www.sbnation.com/london-olympics-2012/2012/7/25/3186140/greek-athlete-racist-tweet-Paraskevi-Papahristou Despite her numerous apologies over the matter, being axed was the only politically correct way to spare the hurt feelings of "outraged followers." Think such occurrences are rare in Sports? Think again. Association Football (Soccer) player John Terry faces criminal charges for "allegedly" (yes there's no concrete proof) calling Anton Ferdinand a "Fucking Black Cunt." Terry has since been found not guilty in court but faces further charges over "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour." As stupid, unfunny and insulting as these remarks are, neither athlete should be branded in such an austere way for sharing an expression, however miserable it may be (these two certainly were). As has been mentioned on this blog (and will continued to be) freedom of speech is a universal human right. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Bad jokes (it was nothing more than that) by Miss. Papahristou should not be labelled. Every view is different. Free speech remains the same.

For anyone unschooled in the proper definition, the core definition is a philosophy all people of a certain race possess certain characteristics. The second definition is the prejudice and discrimination. So, with that aside, being racist is a point of view. A view which, under free speech can be expressed. Many- New Zealanders think Asians are bad drivers, Australians are very oppressive towards Aboriginals, Americans secretly loathe Hispanics, atheist Daniel Dennett says God is "not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in." Free speech has given him the right to speak, enabling Christian apologists William Lane Craig and John Lennox the chance to engage in formal civil debate with him. Just as each person has a right to express views which are unpopular. People who cover others with slime, often reverting to name calling pretend they do not enjoy political correctness but act in an obstreperous way towards anyone disagreeing with them, calling it "offensive" "bigoted" "intolerant" or anyone who disagrees with them. The other examples mentioned still stand yet remain hidden, (not very well though). The United States Government doesn't even allow people to criticise them, unless they enjoy being harassed incessantly by shady Government officials, as Alexander Ronzhes found out here. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5054887075933965458#editor/target=post;postID=4957909100449835168

The totalitarianism which many western countries are creeping towards is alarming if banning athletes and seeking to criminalise anyone from sharing their point of view. Countries refusing entry to Holacaust deniers, people picketing against gay marriage getting arrested for alleged hate speech, whilst homosexual rights campaigners get away with assaulting them. There's supposed to be an impartial law governing all yet one side appears to hold favor with the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond
Pretend as much as possible that this matter will go away. Secretly these undemocratic, unjust, intolerant, free speech suppressors enjoy having high levels of power, spurting out lies that it's all about equality, when mind control is their main agenda; no view but their's can be accepted. So long as legislation continues to pass through (society have little or no input) then rights are trampled upon.

A lasting memorial of what side effects nations who impose such suppression endure need only look towards North Korea to see how disastrous these Utopias full of suppression end up. Kim Il Sung founded this single party state as the dear leader over everything in 1953, when cease fire in the Korean war occurred. He managed to subterfuge everyone into believing such a government will benefit everybody. Since then, nobody has been allowed to speak against the dear leader or risk arrest, there can be nothing but talk of the dear leader (now Kim Jong Un although Kim Il Sung remains president). Go visit North Korea today or see it on television and try believing what is shown. Are these people actually convinced a real life incarnation of (George Orwell's) Big Brother holds all the answers or are they merely asserting he's the man out of fear they may get locked up for treason?

The Soviet Union also encouraged children to spy on their parents and report them for any controversial comments they made whilst Joseph Stalin sat pretty. Such endorsements continue to happen again in America, where children are being brainwashed into believing monitoring their parents is beneficial in fighting against the war on terror. Such a ridiculous war, which to be clear was started by George Bush and Anthony Blair is now stripping parents of a right to a quiet life. Such banter must be swiftly dealt with, or else unsurprisingly there may be less parents having children in areas where such propaganda overrules the First Amendment.

People do not have to agree on everything and certainly not with noisemakers who are unwilling to engage in a civil debate. Independence of mind is fast disappearing. Hopefully people can see the message now and speak up before the transformation is complete. Time to stop pretending nothing is happening. In the words of Voltaire "I disagree with what you say but will defend to death your right to say it."

The pretentious word for today-PARTNER

Are romantic couples in cohabitation really fooling anyone when referring to their boyfriend or girlfriend as their "partner?" Small groups may fall for this trickery but many who can read between the lines are aware how inept anyone using this word is when answering what exactly makes them a partner. Most times, these groups admit the word partner means boyfriend or girlfriend rather than husband or wife. Merely using the words makes them seem more sophisticated and committed to the relationship than they probably are. Something seems amazingly adrift when married couples begin referring to their spouses as partners, as if using the words husband and wife is beneath them. Probably no surprise as less people choose to get married now days, drifting in and out of several relationships, unable to settle comfortably. Simply put, the word partner today stands for "current lover; good until I tire of you and/or find someone else."

The word partner can be used in many contexts. A partner in business, a dance partner, a partner in crime and of course a marital spouse. All appropriate and specific. Why jump aboard and offer sloppy colloquial alternatives in describing one's current lover? Pretend married couples (boyfriend and girlfriend) use "partner" to give themselves an elevated feeling of esteem to feel better knowing the fact they aren't actually committed to being in a lifelong relationship with each other but pretend to be so others think higher of them. After all, it sounds a lot more mature and secure than an immature bf/gf scenario. One cannot help but shudder sullenly but if people revert to using such literary iniquities to describe their partner, instead of using simple words "boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, husband, wife." Someone ought to ask next time, to anyone using this vague word, to mention the proper status they share with this "partner."

South Africa: Beautiful, diverse, wild, sprawling and unique

There are few countries in the world which are as diverse as Sotuh Africa. From the heavily urbanised province of Gauteng, to the mass desert landscape of the Northern Cape. Very few people are lucky enough to experience everything this beautiful country has to offer, either being unaware of it, or not having the required funds to whiz around in a car or plane due to the country's vast size (its 25th worldwide for land mass). If a trip to South Africa has been planned for the future, save up; a chance to visit such a country means the most must be made with the time available to see every pulchritudinous feature within.

Should South Africa only be a stopover destination, try booking a transit flight through Cape Town, the country's "most livable city." Built around the majestic Table Mountain, Cape Town offers many attractions which could entrap any uncanny tourist for weeks, even months. A trip on the Gondola up the flat mountain will leave many people marveling over how dulcet, along with soothing the ride is. Once the ascension is complete, a 360 degree view of the city allows for countless photos everywhere.

Perhaps among the finer photos which can be taken is the Indian and Atlantic Ocean merging together at the Cape of Good Hope, the concrete playground engulfing an ironically beautiful City Bowl, or the barren land surrounding the city, impeded by a meager long stretching road. Cape Town in not just dependent on mass hoards of crowds shooting up Table Mountain to keep it going tourist wise. Daily visits to Robben Island are made, where people can experience for themselves, the torrid life Nelson Mandela had to endure whilst imprisoned, from his microscopic prison cell to the courtyard where he baked under the sun performing hard labouring tasks. Inspiring and uplifting it leaves many people appreciative of how lucky they are. Former Springbok Captain Francois Pienaar said "It amazes me how someone could spend so long in here and come out so ready to forgive." Travelling further down, nothing is more intimidating than a small area near seal island. No, seals in masses isn't very scary but the lurking finned dangers which Steven Spielberg used to great effect in Jaws. Yes those Sharks have been known to put on a grandiose show whenever those helpless seals dare lurk out into their territory.

Spectacular and terrifying are the only words needed. Truly a gem of South Africa, the marvelous beaches full Golden sand, warm weather, great crowds and lively waves make them a must. Bear in mind, that if you're on the Atlantic side) going for a swim may prove a tad cool, with the water temperature often hovering between 14-18 degrees annually. Ratanga junction provides an amusement park of fun for the whole family, whilst the boardwalk provides shopping and dining experiences aplenty, bringing local culture to life.

The other cities have their attractions. Johannesburg by far, is the least interesting of the big cities, providing mere glimpses of mass poverty than anyth

ing else. It has its charms though. If history is what you seek, a trip to Apartheid museum provides an interesting glimpse into the racial segregation regime that oppressed non-whites. The northern suburb of Sandton is a must go for any serious shopping tourist, with Sandton City and Nelson Mandela Square occupying 144,000 square metres of shopping space, making it one of the largest shopping centres in the southern hemisphere.

Aside from those attractions, Johannesburg or Joburg just lacks everything else (except a high crime rate of course, so be very wary). Should a more old fashioned cultural experience be required, bartering with the locals at the Durban market is definitely the place to go. Negotiations can be made over hand made crafts, conga drums and local cuisine. Durban, like Jozi, has also found itself with a monstrous shopping mall, with every single shopping store possible, including food court after food court after food court.

Being the southernmost coutnry on the African continent, and among the most western and urbanised, South Africa still carries some of the finest Wild Game parks in the world.

Kruger National park, the biggest and most popular of these, has far reaching tours and trips for all types of people and budgets. Whether that is the casual day visitor who wants to go game spotting, or the serious outdoors man/woman needing the full African experience, Kruger is very flexible. Chances of seeing wild game within the park are 100%; many animals develop an intriguing infatuation with the moving hunks of metal. Outside of Port Elizabeth is Scotia, another wild life park offering half day Safari tours.

Elephants, Giraffes, Rhinos, Lions, Springbok, Kudu, Wildebeest, Leopards, Hippos, Crocodiles, Hyenas, Snakes and many more animals lurk around both parks. Each different experience and encounter with the animals is fascinating and unique. Any predisposition about their wild, outrageous behaviour will be removed by careful observance and a well detailed by the tour guides about the nature and personalities with each animal. One good example is with Lions, who go through five different stages before making any such attack on a human. Also interesting to note is the deadly nature of the hippopotamus, who kill more people each year than crocodiles. Taking these Safari tours gives one a profound appreciation and respect for the natural environment and the animals which roam within it and once did so freely before man began urbanising vast spaces.

Are mountains more appealing? Take a hiking tour on the Drakensburg mountain range. Carrying a profound reputation for being largely untouched by human activity, these mountains remain as beautiful and natural today since when they first came into existence. Hiker Ian Shooter provides opportunities to spend days exploring this uniquely spread mountain range and even the chance to ascend up its highest peaks (provided you're crazy enough).

Prefer a more tranquil and relaxed rafting experience? Look no further than the Breede river, a river popular for holding river rafting tours. Tourists are able to spend the night camping in rooms right next to the river, with excellent service and local friendliness shown to every person.

The next day, in the morning the journey down the river begins; barring an hours pause for lunch, plain sailing with the current amazes and reveals the natural green and yellow desert and forest landscape. Small rapids come and go, which may relieve many sweating participant. Temperatures remain hot annually, making a wee dip refreshing and rejuvenating.

South Africa is the most diverse country in the world. Unlike New Zealand or Switzerland, where most of the major activities and attractions can be done within a four week holiday, someone could travel through South Africa for four months and still run out of time to do the major activities and sights.

The 2010 Soccer World Cup brought through a new generation of tourists, who have since returned home to tell their families about how diverse the country is. South Africa is the most diverse country in the world and should definitely be atop the list of places to visit in any tourists looking to experience a "unique" holiday.

Mainstream music's screechy symphony

*Warning the following article contains profanity

Ever since the emergence of rap music in the 1970's, mainstream music has turned into a circus of whom can sing the most outrageous song. People unwilling to join this boggy movement repeatedly say "why are you listening to these songs? The message is terrible" to which the masses respond "Because it sounds good or You can't tell me what to listen to." Many songs today contain empty messages of self indulgence, hedonism and lies. Most musicians preaching these messages pretend they are good people but there is no fooling anyone when such words are leaving their mouth, irrespective of whether there's a catchy beat.

Mainstream music has spiraled into a prose of abject humiliation. Rather than adding beauty and elegance to the world, these degrading, obscure, and lackluster tunes stream through the radios again and again. Messages that it's ok to do whatever you like and nobody (especially your teachers, parents or the police) can tell you what to do holds firm as a high priority. Take Nicky Minaj in her lyrically ghastly song Starships.

"But Fuck who you want and fuck who you like
Dance how I like, there's no end in sight"

Apart from brief moments of butchering "Twinkle, Twinkle Little star" Minaj seems intent on promoting hedonism. Wait, putting a catchy instrumental score behind it suddenly allows vulgar sentiments to not only be accepted, but praised as "true music." People feebly make efforts to defend these singers, stating these artists are putting personal matters out into public foray as if that's all it takes to be forgiven. Ed Sheeran believes the best way to feel "just a little love" after splitting with his girlfriend (in the song) is by retrogression.

"Should I, should I?
Maybe I'll get drunk again
I'll be drunk again
I'll be drunk again
To feel a little love"

Full of the nostalgia, which may or may not find favour with the public, Sheeran appears to be promoting drunkenness as acceptable when these low points in life come by. Such a puerile belief must not be praised and should instead be met with narrow eyes. People ought to be encouraged not to pursue such unhealthy actions, for their own good.


Too many of Rihanna's songs advocate strong sexual immorality. Even the title of her 2007 Album "Good girl gone bad" shows how proud she is to be thought of in this way. Take the chorus from S&M.

"Cus I may be bad but I'm perfectly good at it
Sex in the air I don't care I love the smell of it
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But chains and whips excite me."

Rihanna, much like Nicky Minaj likes to pretend she's a role model for young girls and teenagers. She is in fact the champion for promiscuity and only a genuine role model in the eyes of pornography owners and immoral lynchpins. Is this really the kind of person parents want their children to listen to on the radio, at concerts, in the car, on the bus?

A young woman who is proud to dance around on stage with just about no clothes on, talking about sex like men talk about sports, mentioning it frequently in interviews, putting it in just about every single song and encouraging people to go ahead and do it without thinking about the consequences. It remains a very meretricious message. Sexual intercourse, has and remains the highest form of intimacy which men and women can use to embrace each other, something which should take place if the intimacy is there. Rihanna has poisoned and polluted the message and meaning of sex and she shouldn't be surprised that so many stalkers and sexual predators are lusting after her like ravenous wolves.


No, the decline in mainstream music does not end there. Many other singers and bands continue to make more unpleasant music. Many metal bands perform on stage as if each member is having an epileptic fit, with all of the singers in dire need of a lozenge to clear their throats. Other artists, who can't even sing but are pretty faces, fitting the "image" of a modern singer, record every single album song under auto tone, only to bumble along in a patchy live performance. Hardly a surprise old school performers like Lionel Richie sounds no different live than they do on record. The same cannot be said for singers like Katy Perry and Justin Bieber, who are merely eye candy for their large contingents of fans.

With American Idol, X-Factor, (Country name here)'s got Talent shows coming through and drawing respectable audiences, the best answer for people following these shows is with a hope for talents to break through who not only sound fantastic live and recorded but who can sing a song without talking encouraging drug consumption, promiscuity, or swearing. Taylor Swift, whilst very repetitive and monotonous, stands out as one of the few examples of a modern singer with any dignity.

Hopefully more singers with an honest heart and good intentions will come through soon. They're long overdue.

It's not about equality anymore

Time and time again there are voices from rash feminists who are forever complaining about men having far too much input in society, occupying too many of the high paying jobs, responsible for "ruining everything" that's supposedly good for a society. Anyone who speaks up against them is labelled intolerant, rigid, bigoted; such women are unable to see how they've described themselves perfectly. How amazing are Western countries, where feminism still runs rife, with the leaders of these bullying gangs repeatedly complaining about inequality between the genders, backing up their reasoning with statistics which are often bogus and out of context. The main problem with these feminists is that they live in a selfish mindset, putting themselves and their ideas above the welfare of others.

Think carefully about how many female only gyms there are which exist within towns and cities throughout the world. There are a plenty, occupying many street corners and busy districts, regularly advertising the appeal of being inside a safe, secure women's environment with a focus on female dynamics. Now think about the men. How many male only gym's exist compared to female only gyms? A sensible guess would be 10:1. Very scant and minute. In Auckland, there are Contours and Configure with a Curves too, and a Women Fighter's Mania too finish off the slew. Does Auckland have a male equivalent to Contours? No. Are there any male only gyms at all in Auckland. If you try, like many already have, a google search will bear no results. Any sense of moral outrage for men not being entitled to have their own fitness centres has been made passive. Scornful feminists happily enjoy the perks of going to women only gyms, only to scoff at the idea that their male counterparts can even think about running a similar operation. "How dare they!" many exclaim. "It's sexist and it's wrong." There are many physical activities and workouts suited more for men, just like other activities suit women better. Men are entitled to the same rights to open and franchise. Feminist scorn and complaints about inequality just doesn't budge.

Feminists in particular are complaining that as a whole, women in society are not earning as much as men. This is true. A study shows women, on average earn 3-35% less then men. http://www.neon.org.nz/eeoissues/payequity/. On a job to job basis, no form of discrimination should be used to reduce the wages of an employee; the gender excuse is far too tacky. The case which is made against pay inequality is heavily misconstrued and never properly put into context. Women who have children often put their careers on a temporary hold to raise and foster their child until they become toddlers (on most occasions.) Many young mothers seek jobs which offer work flexibility, allowing them to work jobs which comfortably allows them to spend as much time as possible playing with the kiddies. Often unmentioned by raging vernacular feminists preaching information which is wholly misleading and ultimately wrong. The average women in society on average earns less then men because most men continue working straight after their child or children are born, not requiring any time for maternity leave, instead providing for the family. Former author and essayist Christopher Hitchens endured a small grilling when he said he'd rather have his wife stay at home and look after the children, as if he were some deluded mad man for saying such a thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA7pfR0FIc. One cannot begin realising these women are fighting to dominate wherever they can.

It's difficult to mention one Hitchens brother (now dead) without bringing up the other. Peter Hitchens (who has an informative Mail on Sunday column) wrote about Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt saying "She thinks it a waste of well-educated women to bring up their own children." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2109744/PETER-HITCHENS-Fireman-Sam-day-freedom-went-smoke.html#ixzz2141rLb8w.
It seems as like "Thorning-Schmidt" has little regard for anyone but herself. The biggest danger with feminism is that it's not about equality anymore. Women in western society have had that for the last twenty five years. Their agenda is all about encouraging individual achievement, all in the name of women. It's about feeding through affirmative action to the (once again as Peter Hitchens puts it) "Headquarters of Political Correctness, the Human Right's commission" that women are not represented well enough and ought to be. Many men (and women) have had enough of the feminist movement. The simple answer to alleviate them of their woes is to set these feminists free into their Utopia. Go off and seek equal pay; put yourself first, work long hard hours climbing up the corporate or political ladder and get to the pay level most wealthy men have right now, sacrifice 60-70 hours a week, long periods of time away from home on Business trips, secretly despise men at every opportunity. Then they can be free to complain about men having it easier in life.

A few things need to be addressed. Men ought to be entitled to open gyms rightly for them. Women deserve equal pay but should not have feminists confusing average pay vs actual pay (there's still a gap but it's not as big as many say it is. Women must only be given more senior positions if they have the right skills (just like with any man). Forget the affirmative action dogma which riddles society and is beginning to discriminate against men in Scandinavian countries. The feminists agenda must be looked at closer and any lies they tell must be exposed if liberty and justice are to remain core tenants of the Western countries.

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.