web analytics

Open mike 31/12/2013

Written By: - Date published: 7:32 am, December 31st, 2013 - 161 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step right up to the mike …

161 comments on “Open mike 31/12/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    31 December 2013 at 7:50 am

    So NSA can and does hack specific computers globally – said to target the most threatening of individuals and groups. Could be used for cyber warfare.

    Stuff:

    A German magazine has lifted the lid on the operations of the US National Security Agency’s hacking unit, reporting that American spies intercept computer deliveries, exploit hardware vulnerabilities, and even hijack Microsoft’s internal reporting system to spy on their targets.

    Der Spiegel’s revelations relate to a division of the NSA known as Tailored Access Operations, or TAO, which is painted as an elite team of hackers specialising in stealing data from the toughest of targets.

    Citing internal NSA documents, the magazine said at the weekend that TAO’s mission was “Getting the ungettable,” and quoted an unnamed intelligence official as saying that TAO had gathered “some of the most significant intelligence our country has ever seen.”

    Der Spiegel said TAO had a catalog of high-tech gadgets for particularly hard-to-crack cases, including computer monitor cables specially modified to record what is being typed across the screen, USB sticks secretly fitted with radio transmitters to broadcast stolen data over the airwaves, and fake base stations intended to intercept mobile phone signals on the go.

    The NSA doesn’t just rely on James Bond-style spy gear, the magazine said. Some of the attacks described by Der Spiegel exploit weaknesses in the architecture of the Internet to deliver malicious software to specific computers. Others take advantage of weaknesses in hardware or software distributed by some of the world’s leading information technology companies, including Cisco Systems, Inc. and China’s Huawei Technologies, the magazine reported.

  2. Aww 2
    31 December 2013 at 7:50 am

    Isn’t it time we recouped the billion dollar accommodation supplement by placing additional taxes on LL’s?

    • karol 2.1
      31 December 2013 at 7:56 am

      And then Landords would just raise the rent – needs rent cap, too. Or just stop the supplement & providew more state housing.

      • Murray Olsen 2.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 7:37 pm

        State housing is the answer to many problems. We need so much of it that private landlords end up begging on the street for tenants. Or I would accept just begging on the street.

  3. phillip ure 3
    31 December 2013 at 8:57 am

    “..The How to Win the Class War satirist turns the spotlight on the shadowy global ‘plot’ –

    – to claw back working-class gains..”

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/30/susan-george-secret-capitalist-cabal-behind-european-austerity

    phillip ure..

  4. phillip ure 4
    31 December 2013 at 9:00 am

    “..Record highs of the public supporting legal cannabis for adult consumption..”

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/it-was-historic-year-marijuana-10-biggest-moments

    phillip ure..

    • chris73 4.1
      31 December 2013 at 10:02 am

      I think all drugs should be decriminalized for personal use, anyone convicted of a crime while under the influence of drugs should be sent to a prison hospital for treatment instead (as well as serving time)

      Prohibition only helps organized crime

      • phillip ure 4.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 10:09 am

        while i admire/agree with yr drug-beliefs/preferred-policies..

        ..is that just ‘cos it is part of yr libertarian/randite package..?.

        phillip ure..

      • weka 4.1.2
        31 December 2013 at 11:07 am

        “I think all drugs should be decriminalized for personal use, anyone convicted of a crime while under the influence of drugs should be sent to a prison hospital for treatment instead (as well as serving time)”

        Not hard to make a case for legal restriction on P, or rohypnol, or opiates, or steroids, or… we could make a long list. This is the problem with basing your ideas on your ideology – not all drugs are the same or have the same impacts. Better to think things through in the real world.

        • phillip ure 4.1.2.1
          31 December 2013 at 11:26 am

          weka..like most/many new zealanders..i could walk out my door..

          ..and get any of those drugs you list..if i so chose..

          ..there are minimal degrees of separation..twixt dealer and consumer..

          ..say..slowly..after..me:..

          ‘prohibition..does..not..work’..

          ..and nobody is advocating weekly specials on ‘p’ @ the supermarket..

          ..but there is a middle ground somewhere between those dual-insanities..

          ..currently we have the utter fucken madness of a drug-war/prohibition..

          ..with the only winners the crims/gangs..and cops who love messing about in helicopters/4wd’s

          ..and as for opiate-addicts/speed-users..?

          ..there is this brilliant schema whereby they are hooked on nazi-smack/methadone..

          ..a drug far more addictive/harder to kick..than the problems it purports to treat..

          ..those ‘insanities’ i referred to are rife/legion around drugs..

          ..and how we as a society deal with them..(pun intentional..)

          phillip ure..

          • weka 4.1.2.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 11:46 am

            You have misunderstood what I meant. I was responding to chris’ ideological stance that all drugs should be decriminalised. I think each drug should be assessed separately and in context. I said nothing about prohibition being effective, so please don’t start projecting your issues with drugs onto me.

            “like most/many new zealanders..i could walk out my door..

            ..and get any of those drugs you list..if i so chose..”

            Nope, that’s a distortion of perception based on your own experience. You know how to access drugs because of the kind of life you lead, therefore you think everyone does. While I know some people where I live who would know where to buy P locally it wouldn’t be easy, and most people would have no idea. And again, talking about drugs as one class of substance doesn’t make any sense. It depends on the drug and on the context. You really think that most people in Winton or Waimate know how to access heroin? That’s just daft.

            • chris73 4.1.2.1.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 12:23 pm

              Its not ideological its simply when you ban something you create a market for it and all that does is benefit the gangs so what I’m saying is keep the sentences if they commit a crime while on drugs but they should spend their time incarcerated getting clean.

              However if the drugs are for personal use thats a different story and they shouldn’t be charged…if someone wants to shoot up with whatever or smoke whatever then thats their business.

              However I’d be more then ok if NZ followed Portugal’s example because what NZ is doing at the moment is not working.

            • phillip ure 4.1.2.1.1.2
              31 December 2013 at 1:02 pm

              the thing with drugs weka..is that those who want them..manage to find them..

              ..i am not suggesting those who don’t want to can..

              ..’that’s just daft’..

              ..and as for finding what you need in the most unusual/unexpected places..?

              ..the ‘wintons’ of this world..?

              ..the stories i could tell..

              ..phillip ure..

              .

              • weka …
                31 December 2013 at 1:10 pm

                Of course YOU can find drugs in Winton, that just proves my point (I probably could too. Those with the know how, can).

                I wasn’t talking about people who don’t want drugs, but you were the one that said anyone in NZ could access whatever drugs and I just pointed out that that is bullshit. If my mother wanted to buy P this week I seriously doubt she would be able to. And I’ve known numerous occasions when cannabis just hasn’t been available despite much wanting. What you actually mean is that serious drug users can access drugs relatively easily, and you might also mean that people starting out using can access some drugs easily. That’s not what you said originally though.

                Now it’s highly unlikely that my mother would want to buy P, granted. But it is untruthful to say that NZ is divided into people who never want to use drugs, and those who are already actively seeking. I don’t think prohibition is smart, and we could have much better harm-minimisation models in place, but prohibition does work at a level ie it restricts access to some people.

                • phillip ure …
                  31 December 2013 at 1:41 pm

                  you really are a total pedant..aren’t you ..

                  ..anyone who ‘wants’ them..geddit..?

                  ..and you don’t half bang on and on about s.f.a/strawman-bullshit..

                  ..do you..?

                  ..and your rejoinders that you ‘don’t know’..and that reason enough for dismissal..?..try fucken google..eh..?

                  ..try googling portugal/drugs..just for fucken starters..eh..?

                  ..just so you can get a faint grasp of the facts..before you fucken pontificate..

                  ..is that too much to ask..?

                  phillip

                  • phillip ure …
                    31 December 2013 at 1:59 pm

                    the time you spent writing yr 1.04pm could have been spent googling portugal/drugs..

                    ..and you would have increased the sum total of yr knowledge..

                    ..eh..?

                    ..don’t be so lazy/sneering..in yr dismissals of a serious subject..

                    phillip ure..

                  • weka …
                    31 December 2013 at 4:33 pm

                    Wow, really classy Phil. Let me join in: you have to be one of the least logic-literate people who comment here. You want me to follow your line on drugs, I put up some counter arguments and all you can do is rant. Whatever. That’s all you seem capable of to be honest. Once we get past the initial “I believe x, y, z” stage, all you can do is post assertion without back up or logic.

                    Chris is well-known for posting shit and then refusing to talk about it in any meaningful way. I can read the wiki page on Portugal’s drug policy, but it won’t tell me what CHRIS thinks, will it? If Chris were engaging in genuine dialogue I probably would be willing to read the wiki page, but since he’s not and since he avoids responding to the substantive points I bring up there doesn’t seem much point.

                    Honest to god, I don’t know why some people expect to come here and post their ideas without them being examined.

                    • chris73 …
                      31 December 2013 at 5:09 pm

                      .” I can read the wiki page on Portugal’s drug policy, but it won’t tell me what CHRIS thinks, will it?”

                      – Well yes it will if you could be bothered to read the link, I really don’t feel like arguing the toss with someone who can’t even bothered to read the link

                    • weka …
                      31 December 2013 at 5:15 pm

                      Fuck off Chris, you weren’t willing to argue the toss even before you posted the link. When you bother to respond to my actual points, I’ll be willing to follow your links. But I am pretty sure that if I go read the wiki page and come back and ask questions or critique your comments, I will just get the same evasive shit from you.

                      btw, the wiki article is fairly long and involved, so it’s not that I just can’t be bothered, it’s that you are asking me to invest substantial time and thought when you can even be arsed explaining yourself in a paragraph or two.

      • Murray Olsen 4.1.3
        31 December 2013 at 7:48 pm

        I agree with you on this one, chris73. To the extent that they are a problem, drugs are a health problem and should be treated as such. I think Phil also hits on an important point about who prohibition serves – the police getting special weapons, tactic, and helicopter rides certainly enjoy them and don’t want to lose them. The drug laws also hand them ready made excuses to violate our privacy at will. I’ve lost count of the number of times cops said “I can smell cannabis smoke and will be searching your car/house/person.” If I’d ever been a young Maori at any stage I imagine it would have been much worse.

  5. amirite 5
    31 December 2013 at 9:14 am

    And the New Year orders have been dished out, pays to be PMs wife’s fashion supplier or to just make shitloads of money on your worker’s expense:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9564756/New-Year-Honours-2014

  6. Sanctuary 6
    31 December 2013 at 9:21 am

    At this time of the year, I would like us all to stop whatever we are doing, pause for a minute, doff our flat caps, clutch them to our chests, and fight back the tears as we consider the crimes inflicted on the true victim of the GFC, the great recession, and National’s war on the poor – Josie Pagani.

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-left-must-stand-up-to-abuse

    Dear oh dear.

    Still, Pete George agrees with her, so at least the two most reasonable people in the country are on the same song sheet. They should form a political party together. Oh, what would be a good name for it? I bet even the fly on the wall of their meetings would drop to the floor quite dead from the nausea induced by all the wallowing self-pity.

    The “broader left” has gone to bed, turned out the lights, and left Josie Pagani sitting in the dark in the lounge and still she doesn’t get it. I am not sure how else the “broader left” can get through to her that her brand of “leftism” is no longer really welcome in that particular broad church. There is no future for a Blairite apologist and a neo-lib sell-out in the “broader left”. It has moved on, Ms. Pagani has not.

    • karol 6.1
      31 December 2013 at 9:53 am

      And a particular swipe at standardistas from Pagani.

      Actually, it wasn’t necessary for Bradbury to take a swipe at Pagani while commenting on the appointment of Espiner to RNZ’s Morning Report

      OTOH, Pagani doesn’t take criticism well.

      • Tim 6.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 10:48 am

        There’s another post on TDB by Trotter (The Heartland Myth). I immediately thought of Pagani.
        It reminded me of all those ‘movers and shakers’ sprinting over the Rimutakas in their Pajeros to get back to nature and away from the hubub (in Martinborough). Having bought their primitive little weekend ‘getaways’, they’re now busy doing their best to develop and enlarge them, with all the modcons, and generally make the place a suburb of Wellington. There’ll be another road tunnel next. (Joyce’s highway to nowhere)

      • Sanctuary 6.1.2
        31 December 2013 at 10:55 am

        It seems to me the main crime of the Standard in the eyes of Josie Pagani (and to be fair, middle class commentators like Russell Brown) is to take class and socialism seriously.

        Firstly, to a whole generation of third way 40-somethings the idea of taking politics seriously as a vital front in a class war is simply an anathema they can’t get their heads around. Remember, anyone white and over 45ish was brought up in the privileged welfare state of pre-revolutionary New Zealand and has largely through connections of job, community and class retained their privileged place in our society. This complacent group seems to have no place for radical politics in their mental image of a bucolic New Zealand and find thinking about it unsettling. They find the idea of actually having political enemies you don’t personally like simply because of what they represent similarly difficult to comprehend.

        Secondly, all of this bourgeoise class formed their political beliefs at a time when third way identity politics WAS the acceptable face of the left. The idea that the left is every bit as much about radical economic reform and redistribution and that the new-right’s class war demands a response first and foremost as a radical economic agenda complete with the potential for violence unsettles them. The idea that the political assumptions of a such a well-informed, intelligent, and self-regarded middle class group as them could turn to be entirely wrong is regarded as absurd.

        Finally, the ruling liberal bourgeoise elite is bound more together in it’s associations and interests than apart in it’s economic agenda. I hate to pick on her, but again Deborah Russell illustrates this point perfectly. Selected as an “ideal” Labour candidate, she started in the Young Nationals at Otago University (and recruited/is a close friend of the ultra-neoliberal David Farrar) and

        “…Started her career as an accountant working for Deloitte and Treasury. She subsequently completed a PhD in Philosophy at the Australian National University. She went on to be a senior tax policy analyst for the IRD, and is now a senior lecturer in taxation at Massey University. Dr Russell chairs the Labour Party Economic Policy Committee…”

        In other words, she is the perfect Paganiist candidate – a technocrat capable of segueing easily between political parties and a perfect middle class manager of the neo-liberal status quo. Deborah Russell, Josie Pagani, (and Russell Brown) would all undoubtably enjoy the company of David Farrar well ahead of their supposed allies on the left. Chardonnay socialists, indeed.

        So really, the Standard is doing a stirling job of kicking against the pricks, and reminding the establishment elites that a whole lot of more radical thinking exists outside the comfortable cocoon of the top 20% of our society. David Cunliffe’s elevation to the top job was at least partially due to the fact sites like the Standard have short circuited the monopoly on communication held by the central cadre establishment elites of the Labour Partty, and Cunliffe’s election on the basis of party support was a rare victory of that membership over the establishment Labour elites of the “left” like Josie Pagani. The lack of performance of senior neoliberal Labour MPs and the selection of candidates like Deborah Russell show the reclaiming of the Labour party by the left is a project that is far from complete, but we are on the way to re-invigorating the Labour party and creating a powerful left that isn’t afraid to confront the privileged elites.

        • karol 6.1.2.1
          31 December 2013 at 11:06 am

          Hmmm… agree with this, Sanctuary:

          It seems to me the main crime of the Standard in the eyes of Josie Pagani (and to be fair, middle class commentators like Russell Brown) is to take class and socialism seriously.

          But not your generalisations about those of us over 45 yrs, identity politics, etc.

          I am 60+ and have long been for both socialism and feminism. I am well educated, but not in the realm of business – and most of my friends and colleagues of my age group have worked more in the public sector, and have little or no connections with right wing poliies and/or commentators.

          And, like many of various age groups, I stopped party voting Labour a few elections ago.

          You original claim is more fitting to a select few in fairly privileged positions amongst “third way”, (allegedly) left wing, politicians, and media commentators.

          • Sanctuary 6.1.2.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 11:16 am

            Like all comments describing broad generational shifts, I agree it is a generalisation. There are plenty of over 45s who never brought into the neo-liberal party, and there were plenty who should have known better (Ken Douglas, anyone?) who succumbed to the innate corruption of power and of luxury.

            But equally, it would be a lie to say the allure of comfortable middle class success as measured by consumption hasn’t turned most of the heads of an entire generation of middle class liberal identity politics warriors, who now retain their social liberalism (as it pertains to them) but are informed by very little else from the left these days, and who who are not really interested in challenging the economic status quo.

            • karol 6.1.2.1.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 11:23 am

              Oh – yes, it is true of a lot of comfortable middle class liberals – whether I would describe them as “an entire generation” is another matter.

              And like RL, I have had the privilege of a middle class education, worked pretty hard, and I feel I would likely be out of place at a Brown or Pagani BBQ.

            • Tim 6.1.2.1.1.2
              31 December 2013 at 12:14 pm

              Yes – to Ken Douglas (and others). Couldn’t frikken believe it! Well, at least not until I discovered a few former members of the Tramways Union who have apparently bought into it all too. It explained a lot!

          • Tim 6.1.2.1.2
            31 December 2013 at 3:33 pm

            The thing about our ‘over 45 years’ cohort is that those of us that bucked the trend and despise neo-liberalism and that 3rdway 4th Reich kaka are/were generally punished in some way for it.
            I can think of a few in academia whose careers seem to have stalled, others in the corporate- public service who never rose to positions they are worthy of, and especially others in banking sector whose careers effectively stalled.

            Sorry if it offends but I ‘generally’ find the likes of Pagani bloody hideous specimens. The only good thing about it is that they sometimes vote Labour rather than Nact. If Labour doesn’t get its shit together very soon by ridding itself of its 80’s mutation, it’ll become a twee little boutique clique propped up by the likes of Pagani and her ilk. It should at least have the decency to give up its name, or get with the programme!

        • RedLogix 6.1.2.2
          31 December 2013 at 11:10 am

          Best comment ever Sanctuary. Needs to be a post.

          Remember, anyone white and over 45ish was brought up in the privileged welfare state of pre-revolutionary New Zealand and has largely through connections of job, community and class retained their privileged place in our society. This complacent group seems to have no place for radical politics in their mental image of a bucolic New Zealand and find thinking about it unsettling. They find the idea of actually having political enemies you don’t personally like simply because of what they represent similarly difficult to comprehend.

          I am exactly one of these people. Yes I’ve worked pretty damned hard most of my life, but that privilege you describe has always been my backstop. I’ve had my ups and downs but I always knew I could stage a recovery. That pre-neolib NZ defines me.

          But the Brown’s and Pagani’s would hate it if I turned up at one of their summer barbecues; they would sense instantly I’m not one of them.

          • Sanctuary 6.1.2.2.1
            31 December 2013 at 11:28 am

            Yeah, for all her mealy mouthed religiousity you can imagine the unanimity of outrage from Josie Pagani and David Farrar if an archbishop said that he “could think of no better use for church property”after a rioting mob ripped up his fence pailings to smash bank windows and attack police in Queen Street.

            • RedLogix 6.1.2.2.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 11:33 am

              Best belly laugh for days 🙂

              Scrimgeour may well be The Standard’s long-lost spiritual Uncle.

          • Tim 6.1.2.2.2
            31 December 2013 at 12:17 pm

            Me too. Let’s do it! I’ll bring along Sir Les Patterson

        • QoT 6.1.2.3
          31 December 2013 at 11:50 am

          I agree with this comment, except for the categorisation of Deborah Russell. Yes, she started out a Young Nat, but that’s hardly the worst thing in a party which still has Phil Goff on the front bench.

          And her political views (and ability to articulate them) are a far fucking cry from the mealy-mouthed waffle spouted by either of the Paganis. I would direct readers to her blogs to make their own assessment:

          http://deborahfrussell.net/posts/ (more economic/tax theory posts)
          http://beefaerie.wordpress.com/ (more feminist/personal posts)

          Disclaimer: Deborah is a friend of mine so I’m obviously biased, even if I do find her ability to be friends with people like David Farrar both baffling and admirably open-minded.

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.3.1
            31 December 2013 at 1:58 pm

            Well, some of her former workmates know her as someone who demands extra privileges and concessions for herself that other workers around her do not get.

            Yes, she started out a Young Nat, but that’s hardly the worst thing in a party which still has Phil Goff on the front bench.

            Glad you see the least bad in situations.

            A simple test for how economically left wing someone is versus how economically establishment they are is the issue of the 40 hour work week. More specifically: should penalty rates apply for those who work overtime. Why not ask her next time you catch up for a coffee.

            No doubt you have already vetted that she’s plenty solid on issues of identity politics, of course, so we can be confident there.

            • QoT 6.1.2.3.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 2:21 pm

              No doubt you have already vetted that she’s plenty solid on issues of identity politics, of course, so we can be confident there.

              God, you’re a sad little man sometimes, CV. Especially taking that jab after an unsubstantiated snipe about her working life.

              What is so hard to understand about the idea that the left can focus on more than one thing at a time, including things that don’t personally benefit you, and that Labour doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting to power in 2014 if it continues down the same, well-trodden, utterly-unsuccessful path of ignoring the votes and voices of women, Maaori, and LGBT folk?

              • Colonial Viper …
                31 December 2013 at 3:00 pm

                Firstly, the intellectual liberal elite Left show only a passing ability to focus on the severe issues affecting broad swathes of the under class and the working class. They get bloody tenacious about issues of identity politics though. Would they be just as keen on the 40 hour working week, criminal liability for worker death, import substitution and picking and supporting winners for new manufacturing industries. Yes I thoroughly support having gender balance on the bridge of the Titanic, but I see other issues as being pressing first and foremost. You can focus on what you like, and if you can multi-task, go for it.

                Secondly, I view Maori socio-economic issues as being quite separate to issues of boutique identity politics. You may want to conflate them; I don’t. The cruel irony is that the destruction of the working class and of blue collar jobs has hurt Maori and PI families amongst the most…there’s some useful observations to be had there as to why the socially liberal neolibs on both the Left and the Right were quite OK with that.

                Thirdly, your analysis of the electorate is just shite. How many voters think that Labour needs to take even stronger stances on feminist and LGBT issues? Perhaps abortion on demand should be put on to the agenda for the 2014 campaign? How about equal female representation in company shareholdings and on corporate boards? I always look forward to the next round of gender based policy suggestions which will efficiently lose Labour the votes of both men AND women in the electorate.

                PS as for your friend Deborah Russell; ask around, Welly is a small town and plenty of people have seen her in action.

                • QoT …
                  31 December 2013 at 5:15 pm

                  It’s okay, I get it. Henceforth the definition of “identity politics” is “anything which is normally called identity politics which Colonial Viper doesn’t like“.

                  The fact that you – much like the current Minister of Women’s Affairs – think that gender representation is all about corporate boards kind of says everything. You don’t have a single fucking clue about identity politics – including the identity politics you agree with – and you’ve never bothered to read a single damn comment anyone has ever made on the topic.

                  Otherwise you would have picked up that identity politics and economic politics are thoroughly interlinked and the only people demanding they be treated separately and unequally are you, the Paganis, and Chris Trotter.

                  • RedLogix …
                    31 December 2013 at 8:17 pm

                    Otherwise you would have picked up that identity politics and economic politics are thoroughly interlinked and the only people demanding they be treated separately and unequally are you, the Paganis, and Chris Trotter.

                    I feel like a ping-pong ball in a clothes-dryer, CV nails it and so do you. You’re both fucking right.

                    It’s not like I’m trying to take some half-arsed bob each way bet here. You each say things that resonate strongly, because identity and economic politics are not just mutually intertwined branches – at root they spring from the same motivation.

                    You are both arguing from positions of knowledge and strength. Neither of you can prove the other wrong; you are both right.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:23 pm

                      They can’t both be right – one’s arguing that economic and non-economic issues can be confronted simultaneously, the other is already writing a speech blaming affirmative action for costing labour the election.

                    • karol …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:33 pm

                      I do agree that many of the parliamentary left have not focused on the crucial issues for the underclass and the working class – many of the thigns CV has mentioned. But what elements of so called “identity poltics” have been focused instead.? eg – recently Labor flagship policies have beeen focused on housing polciy for the middleclasses and their children; raising the age of super, anit asset sales etc – and unde rthe last Labour led government?…. working for families, interest free student loans…. etc.

                      So who are the liberal left elites that CV is criticising, on the back of criticising Deborah Russell – it seems that CV has a bee in his bonnet about gender politics and can’t resist a swipe at it using the diminuitive term “identity politics”.

                      And, you know, if you look back at most of my posts, they focus on issues re- poverty, social security, TPP, criticising the powerful elites, the undermining of democracy, etc – but one mention of gender poltics or sexual poltics, and he gets all agitated.

                      So, it does look like you are having a bob each way, RL.

                      The destracting issues of gender politics come as much from the way the MSM responds to anything feminist or to do with sexual politics – does that mean they should be pandered to?

                      PS: I don’t have much of an opnion on Deborah Russell – not that familiar with her views or writings.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:42 pm

                      CV’s right when he says that if the left leads the next election with a narrow identity issue (however worthwhile) that’s a gimme for smearing like the ‘man-ban’ episode – then the 800,000 will stay home again.

                      CV’s wrong when he thinks the left will set aside their personal motivations and specific interests to swing in behind a full metal jacket marxist anti-capitalism agenda. Same election result.

                      Now you are all a bunch of very clever people (really). Someone must have a sense of how to steer through this.

                    • karol …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:52 pm

                      Well, I must say, I’m less about political strategising than about debating the issues.

                      I don’t have a lot of faith in parliamentary Labour, still – so will continue to vote Green. They are less afraid to state they support state housing and action against poverty.

                      It seems to me parliamentary Labour spends too much time trying to second guess the voters, and not enough focusing on their core values.

                      I noted also that, the woman in question re this thread, Deborah Russell, said in one of her blog posts that she does not support gender quotas – more that people should be mindful of issues like gender inequalities.

                      Must the left always pander to the MSM?

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:54 pm

                      And, you know, if you look back at most of my posts, they focus on issues re- poverty, social security, TPP, criticising the powerful elites, the undermining of democracy, etc

                      Which is true. And I cannot quibble, you’ve done far more than me on this.

                      But do you not share just a little of CV’s frustration? Because while your work is spot on, and vital – somehow there is this lost in translation moment when hits the big world outside of political blogs.

                      I’m vividly aware that I’ve just done a ‘yes but’ on you. Could I ask you not to read that intent in it please?

                    • karol …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:11 pm

                      RL, CV’s frustration seems to me to be misplaced – admittedly he also is critical at the likes of David Parker, Shearer, etc. But he misdirects too much of the blame at gender and sexual politics – eg, you mentioned the “man ban”. To me that was a bit of a side issue among Labour remits, but it got beaten up by the right and the MSM – so why be so timid?

                      Why not say, yes we support gender equality. In our flagship policies, we are strongly focused at the moment on working for those on low pay, unemplotyed, on benefits etc.

                      Where is the conviction politics?

                      And what about the frustration of those of us who also want to talk about some pressing gender and sexuality issues some times, when we keep getting told to STFU about it – what about our frustration?

                      A lot of it actually seems to be about Labour Party insider issues, and is outside the frame of reference for many of us lefties not so positioned.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:12 pm

                      Nobody’s talking about “leading” the campaign with a single narrow identity issue. CV seems to be arguing that non-economic issues should not even be included in the party manifesto for fear of what the cetacean might call it.

                      Personally, I think the best solution is to simply be honest do everything we can.

                      In my opinion the biggest weakness is not a debate even on issues like abortion, the biggest weakness is that labour and the left in general can’t argue economics as well as the tories – because economics is all bullshit. Economic argument isn’t about fact, it’s about faith. Smile&wave trumps graphs of “gdp by government party” over the past 100 years.

                    • weka …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:12 pm

                      “CV’s right when he says that if the left leads the next election with a narrow identity issue (however worthwhile) that’s a gimme for smearing like the ‘man-ban’ episode – then the 800,000 will stay home again.”

                      The ‘left’ won’t be leading anything next election. There will be Labour, the GP and Mana. Do you have any concerns about how the GP and Mana are going to run their election campaign?

                      If Labour leads with an issue that lets the MSM smear them like the manban, then they’re just really fucking stupid and probably don’t deserve to be on govt. And if they do do that, it’s not feminist’s fault, or any other group of people. It’s Labour’s fault. You can’t solve this problem by having a go at so called identity politics. If you want further evidence of Labour’s ability to loose the election consider the retirement age issue (which should be a so called identity issue, but ironically is not).

                      Another question for you: if Labour somehow dropped all identity politics, do you honestly believe that it is all of a sudden going to apologise for neoliberalism and get itself on the right track re its economic policy?

                    • weka …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:16 pm

                      Karol,

                      “it seems that CV has a bee in his bonnet about gender politics and can’t resist a swipe at it using the diminuitive term “identity politics”.”

                      The revelation today that Maori are excluded from the criticism sheds a whole new light on things.

                      RL, CV’s frustration seems to me to be misplaced – admittedly he also is critical at the likes of David Parker, Shearer, etc. But he misdirects too much of the blame at gender and sexual politics – eg, you mentioned the “man ban”. To me that was a bit of a side issue among Labour remits, but it got beaten up by the right and the MSM – so why be so timid?

                      Why not say, yes we support gender equality. In our flagship policies, we are strongly focused at the moment on working for those on low pay, unemplotyed, on benefits etc.

                      Where is the conviction politics?

                      Indeed. And I saw CV say something pretty similar re presenting issues to the MSM earlier today, and he in fact wrote an on to it piece of media work that Labour could use so that Labour controlled the message instead of the bigots and hyenas in the MSM. So why not do this with things like gender equity?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      The destruction of the global civilisation is being completed via the following forces.

                      1) Trans-national corporates including the banks and MSM as the primary drivers turning every aspect of our world into commodities to be leveraged and consumed. Including people, men and women, LGBT or straight, white or coloured.

                      2) Fossil fuel and resource depletion making our current forms of technology, transportation and agriculture completely unsustainable. This will lead to widespread starvation and poverty, of both men and women, LGBT or straight, white or coloured.

                      3) Climate change making our biosphere unlivable for most species including our own, and of course, of both men and women, LGBT or straight, white or coloured.

                      As far as I am concerned, over the next 20 years these are the tier one issues and everything else is tier two and tier three. For the simple reason if the tier one issues aren’t handled, nothing else will matter and the regression of civilisation and civil rights will be severe and unavoidable (it is already happening now).

                      BTW some Marxian analysis is useful to understanding these issues, but “full metal jacket Marx” can’t answer the situation we find ourselves in because Marx didn’t deal with the dynamics of energy depletion, perpetual war and propaganda that we find ourselves in.

                      Another question for you: if Labour somehow dropped all identity politics, do you honestly believe that it is all of a sudden going to apologise for neoliberalism and get itself on the right track re its economic policy?

                      Correct weka. It won’t happen.

                      Establishment political parties were never intended to be the bulk of the Left. They were supposed to be the parliamentary embodiment of mass labour and proletarian movements. Those movements have long since dwindled away while the political embodiment that is the Labour Party continues trundling along.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:32 pm

                      Progress on your “tier two” issues doesn’t mean inactivity on “tier one” issues.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:38 pm

                      Yeah well, we’ll see.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:40 pm

                      Where is the conviction politics?

                      I could be a touch mischievous and note that National just won two elections by hiding it’s real convictions, while hinting just enough to reassure National heartland that their privileges were not going to be touched.

                      The left has a wholly different proposition to sell that we are tempted prop up on the nearest patch of moral high ground; something a cynical media and right wing now exactly how to undermine.

                      Look, the core messages of the left – social and economic justice, fairness and equality are not extremism. They are just plain common sense that make for a better life for everyone. Clean rivers and beaches, safe water and food, safe towns and cities, wilderness and fair public access – these are the ordinary best interests of ordinary people.

                      But sell this as ‘we know best’ and they’ll hate it.

                    • weka …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:41 pm

                      The big failing in your analysis is that women are crucial to the change you want. Absolutely crucial. In fact I would say we are completely and utterly fucked if we don’t start paying heed to women’s voices, particularly the voices of women from cultures where women have had more equity than in the West. If one wants women to be involved we have to let them have some say in setting the agenda. Otherwise it is as it ever was, a white-dude game. Personally I don’t believe the white-dudes can solve this on their own.

                      The movements I am involved in all have committments (ableit to varying degrees) to gender equity, disability rights, queer politics, honouring the Treaty etc. And unlike Labour, they’re active in doing something about the issues you say are tier one. That is in no way a coincidence, because all those areas of politics have just spend decades understanding and addressing the very power issues that have created the global problems and they did so by examining their own oppression and privilege.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 December 2013 at 10:04 pm

                      women are crucial to the change you want.

                      As always. But this time the change is bigger than ever before. This time it reaches beyond abolition, beyond suffrage, beyond equality – this time suppressing one of the symptoms of the patriarchy will not be enough.

                      This time an entire mode of behaviour, the root cause of everything CV identifies as Tier 1 issues, must be confronted.

                    • weka …
                      31 December 2013 at 10:57 pm

                      The things that CV names are the result of cultures that are inherently patriarchal/domination based. That isn’t a coincidence. It’s not only a matter of women (and others) deserving ‘equality’. It’s about acknowledging that the fundamental power structures have come out of men’s culture. We have a far better chance of finding good responses to the crisis if we allow all voices to be heard, instead of this idea that we can use current systems and power structures to deal with them. You can’t dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools.

                      And to be clear, this isn’t me blaming men (most men have had a raw deal from the past 5,000 years too). And it’s not me saying that women are better than men. It’s about analysing the core power structures, the ‘root cause’ if you like, something that CV fails to do, and then being able to see other ways for humans to be and organise.

                      Women bring a great deal to the table in terms of solutions, so it’s esp ironic seeing CV arguing for prioritising of tier one at the same time as trying to silence the voices of those who are best in a position to make the needed change.

          • Sanctuary 6.1.2.3.2
            31 December 2013 at 4:03 pm

            Well, I will take your word for it and try to give her the benefit of the doubt. After the ease of the betrayal of New Zealand’s welfare state by people with exactly the same sort of CV as Ms Russell I am deeply suspicious of her class. I guess that I put the onus of proof of her loyalty to a socialist prescription on her. She has to earn my trust, not expect my respect.

            • weka 6.1.2.3.2.1
              31 December 2013 at 4:12 pm

              Maybe she can be invited to guest post on ts in the new year and people can check her out then.

              • thechangeling …
                31 December 2013 at 4:22 pm

                Honestly that would be wonderful. I want to know what my local candidate really thinks about various economic, social and political ideas because these will be translated into policy later on. There have been clues, and I have come to some conclusions, but I hope they are wrong.

            • QoT 6.1.2.3.2.2
              31 December 2013 at 5:16 pm

              I doubt she “expects your respect”, and I don’t insist you think any particular way about her. That’s why I provided links to her blogging, so you can see for yourself what topics she’s addressed and from what perspectives.

              • Sanctuary …
                31 December 2013 at 6:13 pm

                I have already read that stuff. As Colonial Viper notes, her credentials as a flag bearer of feminist identity politics are not in doubt.

                But what are her economic views? It is impossible to tell from her writings. Her stuff on tax is the sort of technocratic writing you would expect from the modern academic/bureaucratic expert. What is missing is any hint she might be a socialist. Is she a socialist? Is she even a social democrat? For example, I note that before her selection she was already chair of the Labour Party Economic Policy Committee. Now, Labour keeps wheeling out it’s plan to raise the retirement age to 67, despite this being a more or less ACToid policy that is deeply unpopular with the electorate. David Parker is a particularly keen defender of this policy. The enthusiasm for this policy must come from somewhere within the party policy formation process. What, then, is Ms. Russells views on this? It would be impossible for her not to have an opinion on this matter given her role as as chair of the Labour Party Economic Policy Committee. If she is also a supporter of this policy it would provide to me a valuable insight on whether or not she is just another upper middle class neoliberal cuckoo in the socialist nest.

                It would be great if she (along with other candidates) would make a guest post giving a general description of their economic and social philosophies. A failure for her to do so, given the general interest in her as a litmus candidate for the future of Labour, would be worrying, given the number of Labour supporters who read this site – and by extension those who, so recently, expressed their new found power to over-rule and direct the central party elites on the matter of the party leadership.

                Ms Russell looks like a fine expert quite capable of translating broad social democratic directives into complex legislation in areas like tax. But I am not so sure the wider Labour party membership is any longer of a mind to unquestioningly accept direction from such technocrats on matters of policy. Bob Semple’s first day as minister of works in 1935 was spent with officials telling him how Labours plans were unaffordable and would lead to inflation. He heard them out and at end of the day, he told them “..to crank up the printing presses, because we start on Monday”. The experts are often not right. We need MPs capable of facing down the technocrats, not identifying with them.

                • karol …
                  31 December 2013 at 6:21 pm

                  This post begins with a quote from Marx.

                  Though I would say, following Marx, a worker should be paid more than just what is needed to survive physically.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  31 December 2013 at 8:34 pm

                  The experts are often not right. We need MPs capable of facing down the technocrats, not identifying with them.

                  QFT

                  And that is especially true ATM because our entire financial system is determined by the private banks for their own benefit and not by the government for the benefit of the people.

            • Anne 6.1.2.3.2.3
              31 December 2013 at 9:39 pm

              “CV’s right when he says that if the left leads the next election with a narrow identity issue (however worthwhile) that’s a gimme for smearing like the ‘man-ban’ episode – then the 800,000 will stay home again.”

              Absolutely weka.

              It’s not a case of the so-called man ban being wrong, it’s a case of Labour falling into the same old trap time and again. I’ve had this argument with a couple of Labour women who just refuse to see it. That remit could have been worded in such a way that the intent would have been more than clear. But by introducing the authoritarian sounding quota system into the mix, it was obvious to many members what would happen. It did happen with bells on and it could so easily have been avoided.

              Labour has already gained two further women into the caucus so it is now only a few percentage points off the target anyway. It brought Shearer down and despite my support for Cunliffe I found that a sad way for Shearer to end his leadership.

              • stargazer …
                1 January 2014 at 1:28 am

                wow anne, “authoritarian sounding quota system”? so you’re calling a proposal whereby any LEC could have voluntarily chosen (without any coercion whatsoever from anyone outside the LEC) to consider women-only candidates, and they would have had to implement that by a democratic vote by the LEC, “authoritarian sounding”. let me repeat, a voluntary choice brought in by a democratic vote by a particular LEC. no quota involved.

                for goodness sake, at least get the actual policy correct. i have no problems with criticisms of the policy or the way the caucus leadership at the time handled it, but at least criticise what was proposed, not some policy that exists only in your head.

                • Anne …
                  1 January 2014 at 9:16 am

                  You stargazer are no doubt referring to the remit that was passed at the last conference – a conference I didn’t attend. I am talking about the original remit from the previous conference, and that was the one that played straight into the hands of NAct. So, before you start profiling me as some sort of anti-feminist type:

                  No-one was/is against the laudable aim to have a 50% gender balance. Savvy?

                  No-one is stopping any LEC voluntarily choosing a specific candidate of a specific gender – or ethnicity for that matter – if that is the wish of the delegates. It happens all the time.

                  What was originally proposed were mandatory-like settings (don’t ask me what they were because I’ve forgotten and don’t care any more) that were to be achieved by certain time limits. It read almost like a commandment – thou shalt do this by such and such a time, and thou shalt do that by such and such a time.

                  I knew the intention was a genuine effort to raise the profile of women politicians, but there were delegates like me who have been around politics for years and some of us knew that the MSM would react in a negative way. And that is what happened. No-one dared say anything at the time because we would have been shouted down.

                  I want to see a Labour/Green government in power and, in the first instance, that transcends any individual boutique issues no matter how important they may be.

                  • karol …
                    1 January 2014 at 9:25 am

                    Anne, I understand you are talking strategy and dealing with MSM spin, but you are also playing into the hands of anti-feminists… and behind them misogynists, especially evident with the use of this anti-feminist dog whistle:

                    individual boutique issues

                    This is just pandering to the gender conservatives.

                    • Anne …
                      1 January 2014 at 10:17 am

                      I understand you are talking strategy and dealing with MSM spin, but you are also playing into the hands of anti-feminists…

                      No I’m not karol.

                      The aim of those in the Labour Party who want to see a 50% gender ratio is going to become reality very soon. That’s a given. We’re almost there. After the 2011 election there was a small drop in women MPs but that was simply the way the axe fell on election night. It had nothing to do with a lack of women candidates. That drop has been partly rectified with the election of two women Labour MPs in the past few months. All going well, I predict that the ratio will be close to 50% if not 50% after the next election. That is why I personally felt that the authors of the original remit may have over-reacted to that drop in 2011.

                      Yes: boutique issue was a bad choice of words. Note to self – don’t do what you’ve just criticised others for doing. Couldn’t think of a more appropriate way to put it…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 January 2014 at 10:54 am

                      The term “boutique identity politics” is certainly prejudicial. I use it to describe politics which is divorced from helping the bottom 50% of society and which will finally, concretely change the lives of only a few percent (if that) of the population and with basically zero challenge to our political economic status quo.

                      An example is the the new target % for females in the Labour Caucus. Going to 45% would garner one or two more women in the current caucus, or thereabouts. The cost: Labour Conference caused not a bump for Labour in the Roy Morgan, but a fall which was clearly bigger than the margin of error. Each of those potential new MPs cost in the Roy Morgan three or so percentage points of polling loss relative to National. Labour support was lost across the board from both men and women. Of course, it’s just a single poll. But the loss of polling momentum at year end after Conference was palpable exactly when things should have been accelerating.

                      NZ First nor the Greens had to take this politically costly approach to get their caucus gender balance right. In the end, I fully support the aim of having a caucus which fairly represents the demographics of the nation, but it could have and should have been done in a different way. One which cost less political capital and avoided losing votes from both men and women in the electorate.

                    • Anne …
                      1 January 2014 at 6:47 pm

                      @ CV
                      I don’t know whether this will end up in the right place, but thanks a million for your comment at 10 54am. You have put it so much better than I did.

                      What the hell is the use of having progressive economic and social policies that are going to improve the lives of so many more people, if a Labour led govt. can never be elected to implement them. Whether we like it or not that is the reality of the situation.

                      As you have intimated, it’s a case of being very careful how you present policy (especially social policy) so as not to allow our opponents and the MSM misrepresenting them in such a way as to alienate a large portion of the population.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 January 2014 at 6:56 pm

                      Thank you Anne. It is, and continues to be, a pleasure to serve.

        • Murray Olsen 6.1.2.4
          31 December 2013 at 8:33 pm

          Careerist politicians like Deborah Russell remind me of WWF wrestlers. Once they’ve learned the basics of play acting enough to get in the ring, they do it for the first party that offers them a contract. They can just as easily play cloth cap class warrior as they can play Randian super hero, then all wander off together to the same barbecues once the performance is over. They don’t take it personally because it’s all just role playing.

          But yeah, Sanctuary, please be careful about the issue karol raised. I’m a couple of years off sixty and never saw the third way as anything but treachery. I got sick of Bomber’s ravings about baby boomers as well. I take your point about generalisations, but I think the Labour caucus has been the prime mover in destroying class consciousness. Many people my age may have gone along with it because it was the path of least resistance, but they didn’t start it.

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.4.1
            31 December 2013 at 9:37 pm

            IIRC Roger Douglas, David Caygill and Mike Moore could all give rousing pro worker Marxist style speeches when they needed to and if it was expected at a Labour Party membership meeting.

            I’m sure many of you remember. It was a totally fine front of falsehood.

            • tinfoilhat 6.1.2.4.1.1
              1 January 2014 at 7:40 pm

              I don’t know why you persist with Labour CV, come over to the Greens we’d be more than happy to have you.

    • Anne 6.2
      31 December 2013 at 9:55 am

      Dear oh dear Sanctuary.

      Josie must have seen your comment on yesterday’s Open Mike and the little clutch of responses including mine. Actually I thought they were mild…

      Sanctuary 4
      30 December 2013 at 9:09 am

      If you want a giggle, pop over to pundit and read another confused piece from Josie Pagani about religion. Honestly, that women is the very definition of the immodestly clueless.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30122013/

      Edit: agree karol. Bomber does go over the top sometimes. Still, there’s no need for Pagani to lump us all in the boat. Asking for negative comment.

    • chris73 6.3
      31 December 2013 at 10:06 am

      A succinct and well-written post from Josie that those on the left would do well to heed coming into an election year 🙂

      • Anne 6.3.1
        31 December 2013 at 10:34 am

        Yes Chris 73 it would be succinct and well written if it was correct. She’s succumbed to the same over-extended verbal precocity for which she’s criticising Bomber. If she wants to be part of public political commentary then she has to accept strong criticism from time to time and even learn from it.

        You don’t go into a deep sulk every time some leftie commenter disagrees with you as happens here on a daily basis. You take it on the chin because, for the most part, you know it isn’t personal.

    • phillip ure 6.4
      31 December 2013 at 10:26 am

      i finally went and had a look at this pile of self-serving/whining/saying-nothing piece from pagani..

      ..and there are laughs-out-loud to be had fromn the tutt-tutt-fest pagani and george have in the comments-thread..

      ..but for pagani to even call herself ‘left’ is a joke..

      ..she is a neo-lib..thru and thru..and the neo-lib labour is where she thrived..

      ..a marker of her neo-libness/lack of labour was her constant attacks on the one (pathetic in scope) anti-poverty move labour ’11 announced..

      ..that sad excuse for anything policy of promising to include beneficiary families in working for families..incrementally…by 2018..(!!)..

      ..(it worked out at about $3.50 a week..each year..until 2018..i called it the cup of cappucino bribe..)

      ..pagani was rending her clothes and gnashing her teeth at this ‘foolhardy’-policy..

      ..as far as pagani is concerned…those one n four nz children living in poverty can just ‘rot’..

      ..pagani is a hideous excuse for/of a ‘labour-activist/voice’..

      ..she represents everything that is/was wrong with neo-lib labour..

      ..she belongs with the tories..

      ..and the sooner the better..

      ..or maybe with dunne..?..her and p.g. are so simpicato..

      ..they could flap their hands about and do nothing..together..

      ..phillip ure..

    • RedBaronCV 6.5
      31 December 2013 at 10:41 am

      I read it, read it and reread it.
      What is her main point, that a single blogger called her and Espiner as less than left wing, which is an opinion only? And following on from that opinion, the way Pagani & Espiner approach their media duties may reflect these views? And somehow, holding this view is abuse or intolerance or lacks respect of what, them, their opinions, something else? TS somehow perpetuates this abuse by allowing us to post? All criticism of them is abuse?

      But hey, somehow it’s okay when the media subject Len Brown to torrent of negative criticism for $300. Okay for Jackson & JT to slag off a young woman’s views? Colour me confused.

      Pagani of all people should know about the creation of a narrative. Look at single mothers, abused by a media narrative that paints them as loose moraled, unwilling to work, vaccinate their kids etc etc.
      The reality – they are young women looking after children, usually on very limited incomes, doing all the hard work of raising said children, taking the huge economic hit on their careers and earnings, doing far more than virtually any other group of adults in society whilst being vilified as if they were responsible for all society’s ills.
      That sort of narrative is abuse Josie, not having an opinion on whether or not a media person has right or left wing views

      • phillip ure 6.5.1
        31 December 2013 at 10:55 am

        “..Pagani of all people should know about the creation of a narrative. Look at single mothers, abused by a media narrative that paints them as loose moraled, unwilling to work, vaccinate their kids etc etc.
        The reality – they are young women looking after children, usually on very limited incomes, doing all the hard work of raising said children, taking the huge economic hit on their careers and earnings, doing far more than virtually any other group of adults in society whilst being vilified as if they were responsible for all society’s ills…”

        i would like to nominate the above for political-paragraph-of-the-year..

        ..i haven’t seen it said better..

        ..phillip ure..

        • RedBaronCV 6.5.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 11:08 am

          Thank you Phillip – I’m deeply touched.

          • greywarbler 6.5.1.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 3:09 pm

            RedB
            I like two!
            Well said, and perhaps along the lines of what has recently been discussed about propaganda and Bernay? single and solo parents (solo have had partners, spouses) could be flavour of the month by mid next year. It was interesting to read how he turned cigarette smoking for ‘nice’ women from a blot on society to a brave and smart display of emancipashun. From consternation to fascination in five-ten easy steps!

            Anyone to join a kitchen cabinet on ideas and method?

          • Colonial Viper 6.5.1.1.2
            31 December 2013 at 3:16 pm

            TS somehow perpetuates this abuse by allowing us to post? All criticism of them is abuse?

            Indeed. Attitudes of the privileged elite.

            The underclass and working class are fair game of course. But them? No, that would be unacceptable and anti-social!

      • Draco T Bastard 6.5.2
        31 December 2013 at 12:24 pm

        Pagani of all people should know about the creation of a narrative.

        Yep, she does – she’s trying very hard to create one and is getting upset that she’s being called on it.

    • Rogue Trooper 6.6
      31 December 2013 at 2:04 pm

      great writer that Sanctuary

    • mickysavage 6.7
      31 December 2013 at 7:55 pm

      I must say that the quality of all the comments under Sanctuary’s at 6.0 show how wrong Pagani is about the Standard.

  7. Sanctuary 7
    31 December 2013 at 9:24 am

    P.S. Happy New Year to all the Standardistas, may next year be marked by a glorious turfing out of the National party wide boys and with it their nihilist political culture that would make the most boorish Philistine blush.

  8. karol 8
    31 December 2013 at 9:48 am

    It’s a struggle today to respond to comments – maybe my Chrome browser? keep getting a message at the top of my browser that flash plugin has stopped working or isn’t loading. Slow response to my keyboard strokes.

    • Sacha 8.1
      31 December 2013 at 10:35 am

      Your first comment has drawn the attention of the NSA. 🙂

      • Anne 8.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 10:40 am

        Without a doubt. 👿

      • karol 8.1.2
        31 December 2013 at 11:11 am

        Heh. A google search indicates there’s a conflict between two versions of shockwave flash installed on my computer- one for windows & one for google chrome specifically. I couldn’t see where in my programmes to delete the chrome version – so disabled it. But that didn’t seem to fix it. It’s still there and crashing.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2.1
          31 December 2013 at 12:37 pm

          Uninstall and re-install Chrome.

          • karol 8.1.2.1.1
            1 January 2014 at 8:32 am

            yes, I tried that yesterday – not sure if I did it correctly as it continued to be a struggle (made obvious for me making a lot of typos/spelling errors yesterday).

            Today it seems to be working fine.

  9. Morrissey 9
    31 December 2013 at 10:21 am

    Mr Brown’s Boys

    Part 2 of 3

    “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.”—JEAN GIRAUDOUX

    Part 1…. http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30122013/#comment-750859

    THE STORY SO FAR: The long-suffering headmaster of the Public Address Academy, Mr Russell Brown, has made yet another of his notorious misjudgments. This time he has invited the notorious National Party race-baiter Matthew Hooton into the Hard News class to deliver an outrageously insincere speech about how he allegedly feels after the death of Nelson Mandela. The decision to allow Hooton to hijack the show is a controversial one, and causes great anger. However, Mr Brown can always count on a core group of sycophants, bullies and class monitors to obey even his most absurd diktats. So when he instructs the class to “Please be respectful of each other”, this core group of sycophants, bullies and monitors takes it as its duty to “make nice” to Hooton, and pretend that he is genuine, rather than a disgusting impostor. We join the action just as Hooton is starting to deliver his infamous speech…..

    MATTHEW HOOTON: Isn’t it a strange, melancholy and nostalgic day? Mandela really was the greatest figure of the 20th century.
    
SEVERAL VOICES: Fuck off, racist!…. He’s a friend of John Ansell, for Chrissakes!… Fuck off, you lying little turd!… SHUSH! He’s starting to speak…

    HOOTON: In the way I view the world, being a child of the 1980s, he was alongside Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachev in the sense of bringing tyranny to an end.
    OUTRAGE AND UPROAR FROM CLASS: What the FUCK!!!?!?!!?…. W-w-w-what did that smirking, smarmy prick just say?!!???!

    MR BROWN: [apoplectic, veins throbbing in forehead, beard twitching] I have repeatedly asked everyone here to show good faith and respect. If you can’t do that, please leave the discussion!

    Thus temporarily suppressed, the dissenters in the class subside into either a resentful silence or uttering sotto voce wisecracks. For the next few minutes, MATTHEW HOOTON is free to say whatever he likes, and to bask in the praise of the bewildered, the drug-impaired and the sanctimonious….

    HOOTON: But he stood so much further above them because he personally had been persecuted and imprisoned, and yet he forgave.
    RICHARD ASTON: [perfervidly] There is a hole in the fabric of things where Mandala once was.

    ….That bizarre contribution elicits a burst of snickering, snorting and tittering, even from the most sanctimonious git in the room, CRAIG RANAPIA. Mr Brown enters a memo into his PalmPilot: “Set drug dogs onto Aston ASAP.”….

    MORRISSEY BREEN: [sotto voce] What the FUCK is Aston smoking?
    HOOTON: If it means anything as a 9 year old, I suppose I was pro-tour but I also remember being very impressed with the bravery of those who stood on the field in Hamilton, and watching all that unfold on television.
    MORRISSEY BREEN: [sotto voce] Bu-u-u-u-u-ulllll-SHIT.
    SIMON G: [warmly] This is a very nice speech, Matthew.
    HOOTON: In retrospect, I think the very conservatism of the white population helped with the transition to democracy – these old school lads were taught to respect their state president no matter who he was.

    ….Much nodding of heads, and several cries of affirmation: “Good point”…”Yes it was the WHITES who freed South Africa.”…. “I hadn’t thought of that before, Matthew” …. “He’s from the LIBERAL part of the National Party isn’t he!”… “I don’t trust him.”…. “Shush, don’t be negative TODAY OF ALL DAYS!!”…”I don’t trust him”…. “Neither do I”…” He’s a notorious liar”…”Shush! This is not the time for that sort of talk!”…”Sorry Craig”…”Sorry Craig, I’ll shut up now”….

    HOOTON: His wonderful book, Long Walk to Freedom, and other accounts of his life, show he was not some sort of innocent saint but a hard-nosed pol. He was the sort of leader who would think about what suit to wear when leaving prison. Mandela was a guy who would do attack ads with the best (or worst!) of them. To me, that is much better than being a mere saint. But whatever it is to be a saint, he was also one of them.
    DRIPPY “LIBERAL”: Thanks, Matthew! You’ve nailed it!
    HOOTON: [with a show of sincerity and humility] Sorry for talking so long. I hope Mr Brown doesn’t mind. I am not sure why I have wanted to bash all this out. Or why Public Address seems the right place to say it.
    MARK THOMAS: Great speech Matthew. Thanks.
    ADAM POPE Thanks Matthew for having the courage to say that. Public Address was absolutely the right place to say it.
    PAUL WILLIAMS: Thanks Matthew. I’m glad of this opportunity for us to display our grief. I also have a profound sense of loss today.
    SIMON G: I think one of Mandela’s remarkable achievements was the number of minds he changed – not just official stances for public consumption, not just the re-writing of history, but people genuinely “getting it”. Yes, it can be done.
    DRIPPY “LIBERALS” AND SYCOPHANTS: Yeah, RIGHT ON. Matthew’s changed his mind, he really has!…. He’s a GENUINE GUY, he really is! …. Oh yes…. It’s the new, caring, sharing right wing….
    HEBE: For Nelson Mandela, today we’ll let you in the club Matthew. I was going to write more later but I won’t: you’ve said much of it, and eloquently.

    .…And then, as suddenly as it was imposed, the enforced silencing of dissent disappears. One of the more astute members of the class has not been at all impressed by Hooton’s vaudeville display of mock sincerity….

    WILLIAM BLAKE: Only Matthew Hooton could use Mandelas’ death to give respect to Reagan, Thatcher and de Klerk.
    MR BROWN: [scowling] I did ask you to show respect for each other.
    HOOTON: [sneering] You really have missed the point.
    TONY J RICKETS: I guess one of the things about him is the way he brings out the best in people (de Klerk, Bolger, Matthew for example). Some folks just do that.

    The head prefect and class bully quickly moves to seize back control….

    CRAIG RANAPIA: [sanctimoniously] You know what, William, I know a lot of expat South Africans who were absolutely convinced that apartheid’s end was inevitable – in an unspeakably brutal civil war. Everyone who played a part in avoiding what would have been a humanitarian disaster deserves our gratitude. And a little of Mandela’s grace.
    DRIPPY “LIBERALS”, NINNIES AND SYCOPHANTS: Yeah! …. Everyone played a part, especially the white South Africans! …. Yeah! …. Matthew and Craig are so ON TO IT!..And today is NOT THE DAY to argue and to be NEGATIVE!

    ….Despite the best efforts of head prefect Ranapia and class monitor Rickets, however, the disgust at Hooton’s antics cannot be entirely suppressed…..

    KRACKLITE: Oh great, Hooton sees an opportunity to tell us all about how he likes to think of himself. Get over yourself and show some respect Hoots, this isn’t about you.
    MR BROWN Yeah, it is. It’s a place where people share their experience. That’s the heartbeat of it.
    SACHA: [glowering at KRACKLITE with a look that could split a rock] Not called for. You can do better.

    END OF PART 2.
    http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/mandela/
    To be continued…..

    • Sacha 9.1
      31 December 2013 at 10:52 am

      “MORRISSEY BREEN: [sotto voce]”

      If only you’d actually been part of the conversation, eh, rather than bravely reimagining its sequence some time later. Fortunately people can go read it for themselves.

      To give some context, it’s rare for any of the post authors at Public Address to ask for particular behaviour from commenters like this instance, and the place self-moderates quite successfully. Like many, I was surprised to see Hooten write a comment there – and like many, criticised aspects of it without invective. As a fellow aspie, I especially didn’t want to see Kracklite/Rhinocrates heading in that direction.

      Nothing exceptional there, but whatever blows your skirt up I guess. It’s like reading your regular distortions of Question Time or radio broadcasts, Morrissey. I should just remember to read your writing as drama rather than documentary, and encourage others to do the same.

      • Morrissey 9.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 11:07 am

        1.) If only you’d actually been part of the conversation, eh, rather than bravely reimagining its sequence some time later.
        Errrr, I WAS a part of the conversation. I actually made my debut on Public Address to refute Hooton’s appalling abuse of Russell Brown’s goodwill….
        http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-mandela/?p=303247#post303247

        2.) Fortunately people can go read it for themselves.
        Indeed they can. That’s why I have provided a link in both parts of the drama so far.

        3.) To give some context, it’s rare for any of the post authors at Public Address to ask for particular behaviour from commenters like this instance, and the place self-moderates quite successfully.
        Really? So how come Matthew Hooton was free to make the most absurd and provocative statements about Mandela? What “self-moderation” was operating there?

        4.) Like many, I was surprised to see Hooten write a comment there – and like many, criticised aspects of it without invective.
        To call out a hypocrite and a liar is not invective, it is simply rigour and honesty. Kracklite, and several others, commented acerbically and accurately about the bizarreness and untruthfulness of Hooton’s post; they did not employ invective at all.

        5.) As a fellow aspie, I especially didn’t want to see Kracklite/Rhinocrates heading in that direction.
        What? So Kracklite/Rhinocrates is to be forbidden or discouraged from entering into robust debate? Have you (caringly) informed him of this?

        6.) Nothing exceptional there, but whatever blows your skirt up I guess.
        What?

        7.) It’s like reading your regular distortions of Question Time or radio broadcasts, Morrissey.
        Ahhhh, here we are, at the nub of the issue. What’s your problem? The fact I send up Hekia Parata occasionally? My lack of respect for Public Address heroes like Barack Obama? Or the fact I pinned down Chris Trotter for his windy endorsement of Deep South lynch law?

        8.) I should just remember to read your writing as drama rather than documentary, and encourage others to do the same.
        Dramatised documentary in this case. And I don’t think you’re really an astute viewing or listening guide.

        • Sacha 9.1.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 11:13 am

          “they did not employ invective at all”
          You may have missed reading Kracklite’s original comments before he edited them.

          “What’s your problem?”
          Misrepresentation of fact is fine in drama. Again, fortunately people can read/watch Question Time or rely on more credible commentators to find out what really happened if they’re not just seeking entertainment.

          “And I don’t think you’re really an astute viewing or listening guide.”
          Hilarious.

          • Morrissey 9.1.1.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 11:29 am

            “they did not employ invective at all”
            You may have missed reading Kracklite’s original comments before he edited them.
            I read Kracklite’s comments. Like anyone with a conscience, he was disgusted by what Hooton was up to, and genuinely concerned that Russell Brown did not seem to appreciate just how foolish Hooton was making him look. To challenge a cynical impostor like that needs firm and unequivocal language—but Kracklite did not use invective. If you want to experience invective in all its ugliness and mindlessness, go and visit the sites of some of Hooton’s close friends—like John Ansell.

            “What’s your problem?”
            Misrepresentation of fact is fine in drama.
            No it’s not. It’s no more acceptable in a third-rate movie like Argo or that recent hatchet job on Julian Assange (the Benedict Blunderpatch vehicle that tanked at the box office) than it is on the lips of a politician or a cynical pollster.

            Again, fortunately people can read/watch Question Time or rely on more credible commentators to find out what really happened if they’re not just seeking entertainment.
            “More credible commentators”—like Matthew Hooton or Fran O’Sullivan or John Armstrong or Colin Espiner or Chris Trotter? My honesty and integrity is better than any of theirs, and you know it. And what on earth is your obsession with Question Time? I have hardly ever even mentioned it, leave alone transcribed it; that’s because Parliament’s stenographers do the job for me.

            “And I don’t think you’re really an astute viewing or listening guide.”
            Hilarious.
            Actually, the standard of your commentary is the very opposite of hilarious.

      • greywarbler 9.1.2
        31 December 2013 at 2:59 pm

        Sacha
        😀

        • Morrissey 9.1.2.1
          31 December 2013 at 4:38 pm

          Ahhh, my old friend greywarbler—the man who couldn’t understand how South African and South American liberation movements have anything in common.

          Where have you been lately, mate? Reading? (Though, judging by your ill-advised gesture of support for poor old Sacha, I would doubt that.)

      • rhinocrates 9.1.3
        31 December 2013 at 5:52 pm

        As a fellow aspie, I especially didn’t want to see Kracklite/Rhinocrates heading in that direction.

        Sorry Sacha, I have a great deal of affection and respect for you, but I’m also a Scot and I don’t need your husbandry. In short: do NOT patronise me.

        That anthropomorphic oil slick Hooton can gild his tongue all he likes, but he shouldn’t be welcomed purely for that alone. “Good manners” are only superficial and often deceptive, so it’s idiotic to think that their simulation is synonymous with “good faith”. I am amazed that people are taken in by that bullshit and I would be ashamed to associate with fools who think mere puppetry means something more.

        I also find it rather odd that Craig Ranapia’s frequent use of obscenity and abuse of people who disagree with him is taken so lightly. His claim that PA was a “safe” place when so many had commented that they found his behaviour intimidating – as it is intended to be – is rather… “odd”.

        Actually, “hypocritical” is a word I would use, a quality he shows in abundance when accusing others of the same.

        As for my increasing estrangement from Public Address: Hard News, it is something that stirs me more to sorrow than anger.

        • Morrissey 9.1.3.1
          31 December 2013 at 6:00 pm

          Rhinocrates/Kracklite, I hope you enjoyed your brief speaking part at the end of Part 2. Along with this writer (i.e., moi), Craig Ranapia, and the increasingly tense and harried Mr Brown, you’ll feature more prominently in Part 3, which is coming soon….

          By the way: I can think of no better description of our friend Hooton than “anthropomorphic oil slick”. Brilliant stuff!—although Sacha will not be happy that you’re “going down that road”.

  10. chris73 10
    31 December 2013 at 12:28 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/9566351/Hollywood-struggles-against-new-film-meccas

    – “There’s no place in the world that we could make these sequels more cost effectively,” says producer Jon Landau. It is neither the archipelago’s volcanoes nor its glaciers that are attractive, because the Avatar movies will be shot indoors. Sure, Peter Jackson’s award-winning special effects infrastructure is there, but the deciding factor was the money. “We looked at other places,” says Landau. But in the end, “it was this rebate.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9564445/Iron-sand-exports-get-boost

    – More good news for NZ

    Its going to be a good year for all NZ

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      31 December 2013 at 12:39 pm

      No, actually, it’s not. It’s all bad news as we pay and pay and pay with our resources and our money.

    • Morrissey 10.2
      31 December 2013 at 1:34 pm

      National Party logic: we give lots of money to wealthy U.S. corporations, but treat the poor in New Zealand as criminals.

      Thank God there’s less than one year of this regime left.

    • phillip ure 10.3
      31 December 2013 at 1:52 pm

      @ c73..did you miss the analysis showing that subsidising peter jacksons’ moat + other flicks..

      ..after weighing up all the financial benefits/subsidy-costs..

      ..has left new zealand taxpayers in the hole to the tune of $168 million..

      ..how can ‘more’ of that be ‘good news’..?..

      ..phillip ure..

    • Murray Olsen 10.4
      31 December 2013 at 9:02 pm

      Jesus H Christ, Piss73, how on earth is it good news that films are being made in Aotearoa because we effectively pay a big studio to do it, and rip holes in our industrial relations laws to make it even easier for them? Try walking upright some time. It only hurts for a few weeks while the muscles get used to not cowering in abject surrender. After a while it even feels good. Bloody Key is like the clumsy rich kid at primary school who pays other kids to like him. Let him do it with his own money. We can do better.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.5
      31 December 2013 at 10:37 pm

      The Great Malaise drags on

      There’s something dismal about writing year-end roundups in the half-decade since the eruption of the 2008 global financial crisis. Yes, we avoided a Great Depression II, but only to emerge into a Great Malaise, with barely increasing incomes for a large proportion of citizens in advanced economies. We can expect more of the same in 2014.

      /shrug

  11. tricledrown 11
    31 December 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Conman73 Primary Industry cyclical given NZ steel profitability.
    Avatar is a subsidy in the race to the bottom.
    The Film industry is in decline world wide proped up by the welfare you detest.
    Video game development is the profitable side.
    Joyce got nothing for our $200+
    Of taxpayers money, these video game development jobs are the future of the this industry.
    So its jusy a feel good election bribe as paddy gower said.

  12. tricledrown 12
    31 December 2013 at 1:43 pm

    Cseventytree
    You’ve let the Cat out of the bag
    Nationals election strategy
    Baffle the peasants with Bullshit
    Back to the Bolger years
    Key will be running round the country opening little factories etc Good News stories .
    Your handlers won’t be pleased
    C7tree

    • chris73 12.1
      31 December 2013 at 2:56 pm

      Pfft if history has shown us anything its that the labour caucus will find someway to stuff things up before the election

    • greywarbler 12.2
      31 December 2013 at 11:16 pm

      tricledown
      My imagination is working. These little factories – what will they be making?
      Making gingerbread houses with a baked milk-powder base?
      Motor-bicycle hubs out of strips of pine tanalised wood (with special moisture proof treatment.) Light and strong!
      Cow paintings revealing their wacky inner selves?
      Dried cow pats impressed with an effigy of John Key, Jesus or Mary, or the Dalai Lama (to show how international we are). For that nostalgic home-farm fragrance so unexpected in the city’s concrete jungle.
      Special sandals with hemp-woven soles. Trick is that these are made from high potency hemp hitherto burnt on bonfires by police laughing merrily. The ingredient will be absorbed through the sole of the foot. Brand name being considered – Happy Feet. (The harvesting of this pest plant is so expensive that an economic case for cost recovery has produced this cranky idea from some smoke-filled room.)

      This is just a small sample of the tremendous wave of creative and clever businesses that John Key could visit and grace with the invisible or dead hand of government or both perhaps.

      If anyone wants to read another diatribe on how government is spoiling everything for the USA middle class and the nation’s productivity, here is a link. And it is as well considered as the title.
      Dead Hand of Governent Impoverishes the Middle Class
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chriss-street/dead-hand-government_b_860852.html

  13. Morrissey 13
    31 December 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Who will be the lead mourner at Obama’s funeral?

    Fast forward thirty-seven years. The venerable ex-President Barack (The Great Liberator) Obama has finally died from smoking-related complications. President Justin Bieber will speak, of course, but it’s important that the keynote speech, the very first of all the official eulogies to be delivered in RFK Stadium, is delivered in accordance with the tradition laid down by the South African government way back in December 2013, when Obama himself was chosen to lead the mourning at the memorial service of another liberation hero, Nelson Mandela. [1]

    That tradition is to select someone who stands for the very opposite of what the dead person stood for in his lifetime, and to get that person to deliver the lead eulogy. As an exercise in enforcing collective obedience and heroic repression of the urge to laugh or to vomit, it is extremely valuable.

    So the question is: what liberal, democratic activist from the late 2040s can be found to swallow his or her scruples and pretend to have been inspired by Obama, in the same way as Obama pretended he had been inspired by Mandela? Is there any democratic activist who has the ability to keep a straight face as he (or she) addresses the crowd about someone who actually fought against democracy and freedom throughout his dire eight years of presidency?

    Probably not. Maybe Chris Trotter would have, but he’s long dead.

    So, the question has to be asked: is there anyone in the entire world who would be shameless enough to deliver a mealy-mouthed, utterly insincere eulogy for the late President Obama, just as President Obama delivered a mealy-mouthed, utterly insincere eulogy for the late Nelson Mandela.

    Well, it so happens that there is someone who is just perfect for the job of leading the show of mourning for Barack Obama in the tradition, laid down by Obama himself, of eulogizing a person one would have persecuted and imprisoned if one had had the power to do so.

    He is getting long in the tooth: in 2050 he will be 104 years old. But, thanks to the miracle of daily monkey gland injections, the drinking of gallons of Amrit Ras and the yearly blood sacrifice of a mewling sycophant [2] on the world’s longest-running TV series The Apprentice, this world leader, and former president (2020-4), is still going strong.

    Yes, step forward LORD DONALD TRUMP (May God Bless His Holy Name)…..

    Ex-President Lord Trump’s Eulogy for Barack Obama
    December 11, 2050

    To Michelle and the Obama family; to President Bieber and members of the government; to heads of state and government, past and present; distinguished guests – it is a singular honor to be with you today, to celebrate a life unlike any other. To the people of Kenya – people of every race and walk of life – the world thanks you for sharing Barack Obama with us. His struggle was your struggle. His triumph was your triumph. Your dignity and hope found expression in his life, and your freedom, your democracy is his cherished legacy.

    It is hard to eulogize any man – to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person – their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process killed and imprisoned and persecuted millions around the world.

    Born in August 1961, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by elders of his cannibal tribe – Barack would emerge as the first great liberator of the 21st century. Like Anders Breivik, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success.

    ….continues insanely in front of braindead, silent crowd, just like the one in Johannesburg in December 2013….

    [1] Now discredited and rarely mentioned any more.
    [2] The lucky Ivy League grad. is selected with a doom-inflected “You’re DEAD!” by the Great Man himself, and dispatched by his septuagenarian son Donald Trump Jr. and the captain of the winning team, with cudgels, live on air. Always a top-rating episode, more so when the winning captain is a female.

    • Murray Olsen 13.1
      31 December 2013 at 9:12 pm

      I considered your commentaries factual and accurate until you claimed Justin Bieber as president. The president must be born in the US and A.

      • Morrissey 13.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 11:05 pm

        Damn! What was I thinking, Murray? I forgot he’s Canadian!

        Okay, then, the president in 2050 will be Jenna Bush.

  14. lprent 14
    31 December 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Gardeners breakfast for lunch at bluskin in Waitati. Burp!
    Invercargill here we go…

  15. Rogue Trooper 15
    31 December 2013 at 2:37 pm

    A Serious Man “receives with simplicity all that happens”- Rashi ( An Outline of an Anarchist ‘Theory of Knowledge’ ) Now, think about those ‘ Super ‘… Lions …

    Rogue Trooper ( John James Elijah , formerly, Wayne Leslie Barrow bd: 16.2.67 ) is now honourably discharged.

    And, if you think your wealth, or Technological familiarity makes you better than me… “You’ve got another thing coming”! .

    ps: Please read the letter .

    -John, signing off, Over and Out! 😉

  16. ghostrider888 16
    31 December 2013 at 2:48 pm

    All The Best for The New Year…( and Not Fade Away….

    Edit: White Rabbits (just in anticipation).

    or

    “When the ‘truth’ is found to be lies” …It’s been swell.

  17. greywarbler 17
    31 December 2013 at 3:23 pm

    Sanctuary at 6.1.2 has a thoroughly good thought piece everyone on TS should read. Don’t miss it. This part struck a bell with me -referring to the over 45s and our comparatively cosy lives grown on a base of good government services and opportunity..

    Secondly, all of this bourgeoise class formed their political beliefs at a time when third way identity politics WAS the acceptable face of the left. The idea that the left is every bit as much about radical economic reform and redistribution and that the new-right’s class war demands a response first and foremost as a radical economic agenda complete with the potential for violence unsettles them.
    The idea that the political assumptions of a such a well-informed, intelligent, and self-regarded middle class group as them could turn to be entirely wrong is regarded as absurd.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      31 December 2013 at 3:34 pm

      In “Death of the Liberal Class” Chris Hedges stated it very clearly: the intellectual socially liberal middle class and elite were never supposed to be the functioning political Left.

      The functioning political Left is supposed to be organised groups of the underclass, of labour, and of socialist community and activist organisations.

      So we shouldn’t be disappointed in the politics of this group of intellectual socially liberal middle class of 45 plus. They have their place in society and they’re doing exactly what is expected of them.

      And they’re definitely not going to like what actually happened in the USA which forced Roosevelt and his business backers to accept the New Deal and save capitalism. In essence, wide spread civil resistance forced those in power to implement the socialist policies of the New Deal.

  18. Tracey 18
    31 December 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Is chris still running about excitedly salivating at the day he too can have clothes as beautiful as his emperor?

  19. weka 19
    31 December 2013 at 4:25 pm

    What’s with the two strings of sausages at the bottom of the page?

  20. Tracey 20
    31 December 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Naked chris… you do get that gangs thrive on the impoverished or those in poverty? Drugs are a mere subset of that.

  21. Morrissey 21
    31 December 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Given the extraordinary levels of naïveté shown recently by some of the big-hearted, generous “liberals” around the place, it is timely to remind ourselves just how nasty, cynical and downright dishonest Matthew Hooton, the beneficiary of their misplaced trust, actually is. Few have summed up this horrible backroom operative better than Nicky Hager did the best part of four years ago…..

    The last wails of the angry Hollow Men
    by Nicky Hager, Pundit, March 19, 2010
    http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-last-wails-of-the-angry-hollow-men

    And so the saga of the Brash email invesigations ends, not with a bang, but with continued denials by those exposed

    When my book The Hollow Men was published over three years ago, the National Party-aligned PR man Matthew Hooton wrote a furious newspaper column saying that the source material for the book had obviously been illegally hacked and that he and others were going to investigate and bring me to justice. Time has proved him wrong on both points.

    Egged on by Hooton, former National Party leader Don Brash complained to the police about my leaked materials, prompting a long police investigation. The police, predictably, found no evidence of hacking or crime. Instead of accepting these findings, Hooton accused the police of political bias and he, Brash and a small set of right-wing commentators demanded a new police inquiry. Under this angry criticism, the police launched a high-level second investigation. A total of three years of police investigation ended last week and, despite all those wasted police resources, the conclusion was once again that hacking was “highly unlikely”.

    As the newspapers reported, the police found no evidence of “hacking of any sort, no evidence of any interception or use of similar devices. No evidence of anything, really – in fact there was absolutely no trail to follow.” Adding in all the evidence, they wrote, “the chances of illegal electronic entry become more remote. The general consensus is that this was not the manner in which the emails were obtained.” Elsewhere in the report they said they were “confident that the Parliamentary computer was not hacked” and that “there was no evidence to implicate Mr Hager as having committed a criminal offence in obtaining and publishing the emails and documents.”

    For everyone except the grumpy cabal who pushed for the police investigation, this was the end of the matter. But before forgetting about the whole thing, the release of the police report gives an interesting political snapshot.

    You probably haven’t seen the two police reports (they weren’t released on the Internet) but they are pleasingly detailed and unambiguous. I don’t think anyone who reads them will give any credibility to Hooton and cos original allegations of hacking and crime. This makes the responses from Brash, Hooton and other National Party figures (who would presumably have seen the reports) all the more interesting.

    The first person to comment was Hooton, using his Monday morning commentator spot on Radio New Zealand. You would hope that a news organisation, where he had previously loudly aired his views about hacking and stolen e-mails, would have put it to Hooton that the police had found no evidence to support his allegations. Alas no. Instead Hooton, the PR man, simply scooted around the fact that he’d been proven wrong and came up with a new and even more far fetched allegation. “The only strange thing about it,” he said, “was that there was some information in the book that only could have come from [National Party donor] Diane Foreman’s home, and couldn’t have come from Parliament and that’s still unresolved.” Sigh. It does not reflect well on Radio New Zealand that they continue to employ this shameless spin doctor as a commentator.

    The next person to respond to the police finding was John Key, at his weekly Monday afternoon press conference. This was disturbing in a different way. Leaving aside that some press gallery journalists seemed primarily interested that the prime minister had said a rude word (“bollocks”), the remarkable thing was that a three year investigation by police professionals had made no impression on Key at all. The insight that this small event gives into the mind of the prime minister is that he didn’t just dodge the unpalatable information like Hooton, he simply didn’t believe information that didn’t suit him. Thus his conclusion, at the end of a police inquiry that disproved the hacking theory as comprehensively as was possible, was to tell the reporters that he believed the parliamentary computers had been hacked “but I can’t back that up”. Maybe this is how things are in the world of currency trading that he comes from: there’s no such thing as solid fact or principle; everything is fluid and adjustable.

    A few other people made similar comments, repeating the now familiar claims about hacked parliamentary computers and theft. The joke is that this short list of people had something rather obvious in common. Pretty well all the people proclaiming that there had been wrong doing were people who had been exposed in my book doing what I described as dishonest, dodgy or manipulative things themselves. Don Brash, John Key, Matthew Hooton (PR adviser to Brash), Richard Long (chief spin doctor for Brash) and John Ansell (advertising consultant to Brash). They naturally felt hurt and angry about their secret actions and discussions being revealed to the public.

    But for three years they have turned this on its head and painted themselves as the victims – avoiding responsibility for their own actions and attacking me for exposing them. For all but the utterly partisan and self interested, the police investigation should at last have put an end to that.

    *For further insight into the emails debate and Nicky’s discussion of how they were sourced, see here….
    http://pundit.co.nz/content/good-pr-relies-on-bad-journalism-the-stolen-e-mails-story

    http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-last-wails-of-the-angry-hollow-men

    • Anne 21.1
      31 December 2013 at 8:45 pm

      Thanks for that Morrissey. Will read the links shortly. I have enormous respect for Nicky Hagar and had the pleasure of meeting him earlier this year. He came across to me as a very genuine person. No sign of pretensions and not a hint of arrogance about him. No surprise then that his ‘targets’ in the The Hollow Men are some of the most arrogant individuals in NZ. He is highly regarded overseas and is credited with bringing the ultra secret Echelon system of surveillance out into the fresh air for the world to see – a kind of a mini Edward Snowden.

      No wonder Brash/Key and their cohorts (including Matthew Hooton) went to such lengths to discredit him.

  22. ecossemaid 22
    31 December 2013 at 7:59 pm

    Hi! Is this the right Webpage/Site to join Shortland Street Appreciation Society? Or has my computer been hacked by NSA/Fox Non News/Right Wing Bastards R Us/Grassy Knoll Conspiracy Activists

  24. Ecosse 24
    31 December 2013 at 8:13 pm

    No Ecossemaid, Are You Parnoid!? This is the Bananas in Pyjamas site!

  25. Ad 25
    31 December 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Going off in Wanaka tonight.
    God I feel old with such heavings of young people.

  26. mac1 26
    1 January 2014 at 12:40 am

    Happy New Year, everyone.

  27. xtasy 27
    1 January 2014 at 1:12 am

    Mi amiga de Caracas recommendar:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpVV27CPfE

    Illapu, historico, mas de des, futura de NZ ???

Links to post