Mystery rant

32 comments on “Mystery rant ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lew 1

   8 September 2010 at 10:12 am

   Anyone who claims to have guessed this right cheated.

   L
   • Mr Magoo 1.1

     8 September 2010 at 1:02 pm

     You wont believe me but I guessed it after the first paragraph. (one can never be 100% sure and the poke at the fact it was not a typical lefty helped)

     I have read several of Paul’s latest rants and they are very similar. Who would have thunk that his bent would be left with age?

     Almost inspiring.
2. the sprout 2

   8 September 2010 at 10:14 am

   Good one R0B.
   Shows just what a cup of cold sick the SCF rort is to all kinds of sentient NZers.
   • Roflcopter 2.1

     8 September 2010 at 10:55 am

     Must be a bitter pill to swallow knowing it was Labour that allowed them to continue to be so cavalier.
     • the sprout 2.1.1

       8 September 2010 at 11:24 am

       It was National that renewed SCF’s guarantee while in receipt of information that it was already on the rocks, not Labour.
       And it was National that decided to include foreign investors too, not Labour.
       • Roflcopter 2.1.1.1

         8 September 2010 at 3:40 pm

         Keep trying… SCF were already screwed before the guarantee was in place.
         • the sprout 2.1.1.1.1

           8 September 2010 at 4:59 pm

           yeah that’s part of my point. pay attention.
3. prism 3

   8 September 2010 at 10:19 am

   Terrific! The drama, the passion, the emotion, the truth. But what happens after all that vented energy? How can we channel it and apply it to getting better policies, regulations, performance of whatever? Otherwise it is a continuing cycle of bad events and impotent anger and disappointment and a different bad event and…..
4. r0b 4

   8 September 2010 at 10:23 am

   They make nothing and produce nothing. They clip the ticket and some may swallow it whole.

   That applies to so much of the “financial sector”. Stockbrokers. Speculators. Currency dealers…
5. F.Y 5

   8 September 2010 at 10:26 am

   Using my powers of deduction (and reading the tags) is it Paul Holmes?
   • Vicky32 5.1

     8 September 2010 at 5:50 pm

     Oh, so that’s who it is! Cool…
     Deb
6. Lanthanide 6

   8 September 2010 at 10:28 am

   The tags kind of give it away.
   • r0b 6.1

     8 September 2010 at 10:32 am

     Yeah I know – but how many people read the tags?

     It was interesting to me that Holmes would write such a piece. Also interesting that a major paper would run it, when it reads more like an angry blogger than anything else…
     • Rex Widerstrom 6.1.1

       8 September 2010 at 1:42 pm

       Are you saying bloggers (even when angry) are somehow less literate than your average newspaper columnist?

       Before answering that, let me remind you Micael Lhaws writes a newspaper column 😛

       Seriously though, the best stuff in the blogosphere is as good as anything you’ll find in the “quality” papers, let alone the tabloids (or “tabloids in broadsheet size”). And the thing is, you find it in the unlikeliest of places, such as the Standard 😀

       Sure, the ease with which the “publish” button can be hit versus rolling the presses, the unlimited “space” a blog can occupy versus the strict editorial-to-advertising formulae that constrain newspapers, and the lack of an editorial process on blogs (not that the presence of one makes much difference to the Hrelad) means the ratio is lower, but still…
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

         8 September 2010 at 3:43 pm

         You mean that he’s a sycophant.
         • Rex Widerstrom 6.1.1.1.1

           8 September 2010 at 7:10 pm

           I think that response was meant for my other comment, down there a ways… 😀

           But yeah, to a degree. I think like many drawn to the media (and I include myself in this) Paul is at heart a bit insecure. The public recognition, the ratings and so forth provide a huge degree of validation. So, alas, can a famous pollie who invites you to their home or comes to your wedding.

           I’m not sure why some people would scoff at that sort of overture from, say, Tom Cruise – seeing it for the shallow schmoozing it was – yet fall for it from a local politician.

           And I’m not saying that to put down Paul in any way, having been, if anything, at least as guilty of it myself in the past.
7. Carol 7

   8 September 2010 at 10:36 am

   I didn’t read the tags, but at first thought it could be a Bomber rant, or even a Tim Selwyn. But then decided that there is something about the language that doesn’t seem like either of them. I think it was round abour here, that I decided it wasn’t any leftie blogger I’m familar with:

   I detest the people who start them, the suckers who invest in them and the creeps such as Hotchin and Watson and Bryers and all the other wide boys with the flash cars and the tarts and the designer watches.

   It sounds like a bit of “old” money, ranting about upwardly mobile “new” money pretenders, along with a touch of sexism.

   But I didn’t guess who actually wrote it before I googled. And I’m still not sure of the motivation of the author. But does it signal a shift away from the neoliberal, ultra consumerist capitalism, where people try to make money from air, derivatives and speculation?
8. mickysavage 8

   8 September 2010 at 10:45 am

   Whale and Cactus Kate have been saying similar stuff but I am pretty sure it is not them. I cannot fault the comments.

   I will just have a peek at google …

   Hmm. When these people are turning against the Government then anything is possible.
   • Rex Widerstrom 8.1

     8 September 2010 at 1:52 pm

     When these people are turning against the Government then anything is possible.

     You’re painting Paul as some sort of NACT groupie? Have you that on one hand forgotten Jim Bolger was a guest at his wedding? But on the other, the nausea-inducing (and I say that as someone who admires most of his work) pieces in the Herald on “How I actually had dinner at home with Helen and Peter”? And plenty of other examples of similar behaviour?

     IMHO Paul’s problem is that he can become too easily enamoured with, and seduced by, the few people who are at least as well known, and who wield more power, than he does. As a journalist you simply can’t form friendships with the people you’re meant to be holding to account. You can be friendly with them, have a few drinks, even share a restaurant meal, but there’s a line…

     I think Paul’s removal from daily domination of radio and TV – and thus the reduced focus by those in power on sucking up to him – has turned him into a better journalist.
9. F.Y 9

   8 September 2010 at 11:04 am

   Hmm. When these people are turning against the Government then anything is possible.

   and also:

   But does it signal a shift away from the neoliberal, ultra consumerist capitalism, where people try to make money from air, derivatives and speculation?

   Unfortuantely, once you discover the author, it doesn’t mean much. He’s taking shots from a protected position. Within certain circles, once you’re socially viable, you can do as you please. Call people cheeky darkies if you like. Even if you say that some women who target sportsmen for sex must accept responsibility for being raped, you might only lose a non-paying media figure-head position. Makes no difference to your real situation though and the womens weekly might even pay for your story. Not a good indication of what average man is thinking.
   • Carol 9.1

     8 September 2010 at 11:13 am

     Well, there’s nothing in the rant that critiques the system, or power relations that produced the SFC bail-out. It’s a rant against individuals who try to “cheat” the system they believe in.
     • Rosy 9.1.1

       8 September 2010 at 4:08 pm

       🙂 That would require analysis instead of ranting. Not sure he’s capable of that.
10. nzfp 10

    8 September 2010 at 11:08 am

    Wow – I wasn’t expecting that…
11. BLiP 11

    8 September 2010 at 3:07 pm

    He’s been getting a bit antsy lately – he had a quite interesting piece on the National Ltd™ claims of an economic recovery from his perspective as an olive oil hawker at a recent trade show which, after a flow of positive feedback, he followed up with another swipe at our economic masters.

    The cynic in me believes that he may or may not actually believe what he is saying but, as with most tabloid columnists, so long as he gets a significant reaction from the readers then that’s all that matters.
12. OleOlebiscuitBarrell 12

    8 September 2010 at 3:58 pm

    I do not know form where you get the idea that bailing out finance companies is a right wing thing. Proper right wingers are against it for so many reasons.
    • Marty G 12.1

      9 September 2010 at 12:22 am

      ‘privatise the profits – socialise the losses’ is national’s motto
13. prism 13

    8 September 2010 at 4:04 pm

    It seems to me that Holmesie (don’t all well-known people trying to exude a mateish relationship have ‘sie’ added on ie Banksie) is a weathercock, changing position under the power of the most prevailing wind. And full of hot wind as well. His remarks are no doubt tailored to any momentary topic. As Blip writes ‘so long as he gets a significant reaction from the readers that’s all that matters’.

    I think I have seen both he and Paul Henry receiving women’s magazine fawnery, coupled with their mothers. Mothers with limitless support of their offspring have a lot to answer for.
14. Jenny 14

    8 September 2010 at 8:35 pm

    ‘L’ is the last letter in the word PERIL.

    That a respected member of the status quo, is currently questioning the legitimacy of a system that rewards the rich to the detriment of the rest of society, is surely a sign of the times we live in.

    According to the P.E.R.I.L theses:

    Today, for the first time since its birth 500 years ago, global capitalism is facing the convergence of five system-level crises embracing nature as well as society:

    Profitability crisis.

    Ecological crisis.

    Resource crisis.

    Imperial crisis.

    Legitimacy crisis.

    (From the essay ‘Beware! The end is nigh! by Grant Morgan.)
15. Drakula 15

    8 September 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Does it have to be a NZ celebrity? Apart from the tag, It could be a NZ version of a George Soros.
    On the surface of it, I agree with the content.

    I heard on the radio the other day that finance companies were only 6% of the whole financial market and by enlarge anyone including the kid who leaves school, can set up business and call themselves ‘financial consultants’.
    And those who invest with such outfits? Should we sympathise? And should the tax-payer bail them out?
    Respectfully

    Drakula
16. Cactus Kate 16

    9 September 2010 at 12:36 am

    It is all about consistency.

    I don’t believe in welfare. Corporate or otherwise. Why would I want a bailout for any “investor” when I strongly oppose giving beneficiaries money for no apparent reason?

    I also don’t believe in government intervention in a marketplace. Again, why would I ever support transferring wealth from those who cannot even afford to deposit money with SCF to those who can?
    • Loota 16.1

      9 September 2010 at 12:54 am

      Once a member of the community is no longer fit enough to chew the leather any more, why should they be allowed to share in the tribe’s provisions, is that it? That’ll be a society worth living in and contributing to.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 7 September 2010 at 10:01 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS