Sunday, August 31, 2008
In a two days late reference to Owen Glenn refusing to give money to Labour, reference was made to a statement by party secretary and general oaf Mike Williams who had met with Mr Glenn in Nice during an 'overseas fund raising trip.'
Well well well. Overseas fund raising, eh?
Where else have you been selling policies and political favours, Mr Williams?
Teheran? Tripoli? Moscow? Riyahd? Bejing? Beirut? Pyongyang?
It's long past time this gang of crooks was brought before a judge and put under oath.
Duncan Webb is a professor of law at the University of Canterbury and a political commentator. He is a Labour Party member and has held prior roles in Labour's Christchurch Central branch.
NZPA has some details of the Liarbour Party List.
Rejuvenation includes adding the 62-year-old former Race Race Relations Commissioner Rajen Prasad on board.
I'll add more when I can.
But NZPA need to know Sir Ronnie Flanagan is not and has never been Home Secretary in Britain, but is one of Britain's top cops.
I do hope candidate Jacinda Ardern has not been embelleshing her CV.
Anyway, seems like the usual ragbag of public sector 'workers', unionists and the odd lawyer to me.
Still the same old Liarbour Party!
But Jacinda looks too pretty to be a socialist :)
UPDATE: Martin Kay of Stuff offers more detail, but still makes the same mistake about the UK Home Secretary.
That is Jacqui Smith, NOT, I repeat, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
UPDATE2: Full list here, which Mike Williams describes as 'talented'. Notable entries include Judith Tizard at 38 (will she survive if National take Auckland Central?), and Jordan Carter at 71.
I see the official Liarbour release makes the error about Jacinda Ardern working for the UK Home Secretary 'Sir Ronnie Flanagan.'
Are Liarbour so dumb to make foolish errors like this? But obviously the media must be equally dumb for not picking it up!
UPDATE3: The Hive offers its analysys of which MPs will stay and go. Darien Fenton and Judith Tizard are on the endangered list.
UPDATE 4: David Farrar offers his analysis here and notes other Liarbour blunders here.
After decades of abuse leveled at the National Party over imaginary conspiracies with big business, Winston Peters sold out his party, its members and its voters to big Labour. He has turned New Zealand First into the Labour affiliated Geriatrics Union.
How ironic that it is Labour, who for years have railed against big money and its influence in politics, which turns out to be furtively wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, buying and selling political favours like water melons at the Otara markets.
This is the same dirty Labour Party which harbours the execrable wretch Mallard who, without a shred of evidence, accused National of receiving money from American interests.
This is the same evil Labour Party which vilified seven innocent but naive church members who decided to become political activists and spend some of their own money.
This is the same scurrilous Labour Party which rushed through the disgraceful Electoral Finance Act in order to allegedly stop other people doing exactly what it has been doing all along.
This is the same nasty vicious Labour Party whose trademark is lies, half truths, distortions, slander, denigration and mistrust.
Good on Jeanette Fitzsimmons for today saying that she would have difficulty ever trusting Winston Peters. It's time she severed her relationship the the most untrustworthy party of all, Labour.
New Zealand can never again trust the word of Helen Clark. On anything. She is finished.
The Sunday Star-Times says its survey of Kiwi beliefs shows New Zealand First voters are more prone to believing in conspiracy theories.
New Zealand First voters were more likely to believe that. . .
* New Zealand is constantly manipulated by big business (70 percent believed this);
* The All Blacks were poisoned before the 1995 world cup final in South Africa (47 percent);
* The US government knew about or planned the 9/11 attacks (52 percent);
* A secret elite cabal controls world affairs (38 percent);
* Princess Diana was assassinated (38 percent);
* World governments are hiding evidence of alien visits (35 percent); and
* Elvis Presley faked his own death (5 percent).
But the report added one important caveat, showing there are some beliefs that are truly embarassing.
Just 60 people said they were New Zealand First supporters, but according to the survey's creator, Marc Wilson, this figure is still sufficiently large to draw sound statistical conclusions.
The EPMU is a highly political union with deep roots and formal affiliation to the Labour Party. It was a founding member and regularly puts its union affiliation to a vote of its members. Rex Jones was the Labour Party president in the late 1980s while heading the union.
Union head Andrew Little is a popular fancy to replace Mike Williams as Labour Party president after the election.
Perhaps someone should tell the Electoral Commission.
This morning's Sunday star Times carries an interesting story about Labour's challenge to Rodney Hide's Epsom victory in the 2005 election. It's not on line yet but the piece by Denise McNab lifts the lid on Labour's behind the scenes funding of NZ First and its cronies.
"Was Rodney Hide Winston's real Target in 2005?"
It's interesting (a) because of the names associated with the challenge and (b) because of Labour's inability to tell the truth about anything.
First there are the lies and then there are the names.
"But Labour Party president Mike Williams said yesterday that although he believed Mr Hide had blown his budget, Labour had little to gain from challenging him."
The real truth of it is, the fools didn't get their challenge in on time and the courts refused to grant them an extension. In fact they had everything to gain. These are the incompetent clowns who have been running the country for nine years.
Mike Williams and Helen Clark - of course they are no surprise. But hang on, what on earth are Owen Glenn and Brian Henry doing, fooling around in Epsom? How many blood brothers does Mr Henry have?
Just how much more money has Owen Glenn donated to Labour or personally spent on causes close to Labour's heart?
For the first time, it is becoming evident Labour has been using a foreign billionaire to fund their very own secret agenda - their campaign behind the campaign. The real secret agenda is Labour's extremely subversive and sensitive scheme to suborn other political parties, thereby manipulating MMP to buy their way into power, no matter what the minor parties' voters thought they were voting for. Any thought that the party's chief strategist, Helen Elizabeth Clark, new nothing about any of this is preposterous.
No wonder they don't have any policies. They don't need them when it is so easy to just buy the small parties.
Owen Glenn has been duped by these crooks into funding a highly immoral and probably illegal secretive plan to buy an election, to buy the support of NZ First, to bribe the Maori Party and to buy the overturning of electorate voting decisions in Tauranga and, now we find, Epsom as well. Adolf would like to hear from Mr Glenn, what other secretive activities has he been duped into funding because 'he supported Labour?'
Fortunately the people in the Maori Party are honorable and refused the bribe. I'd like to see Tariana Turia called before the privileges committee and asked to provide details of the approach.
These same people who screamed abuse at Don Brash and vilified seven businessmen whose only crime was to highlight the flaws in Green Party policies, (because the MSM were too bloody lazy or incompetent to do the job themselves) turn out to be selling favours and political patronage to overseas interests in return for funds to buy their way into power. Not only that but they did it when they already had stolen $800k of taxpayer funds and embezzled tens of millions of departmental funds to peddle their putrifying political promises.
Is their no end to Labour's appetite for other people's money?
The real irony in all of this sordid mess is that the dosy Greens who gave their support to Labour, received not one penny of this illicit largess and as well, were royally screwed.
In a comment stream on the choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as Republican candidate for vice president, Sean offered the following quote.
"Nevertheless, she [Palin] is under investigation for her firing of a state official, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. She has been instructed to hand over documents and recordings of telephone conversations as part of the inquiry, which grew out of allegations that she sacked Monegan for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law from the state police...Palin has admitted that the call could be interpreted as pressure to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who was locked in a child-custody battle with Palin's sister."
Here is the original quote which Sean deliberately doctored to make it seem that Mrs Palin herself had phoned Monegan and instructed him to sack her sister's estranged husband. Spot the difference, highlighted in red.
" Nevertheless, she is under investigation for her firing of a state official, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. She has been instructed to hand over documents and recordings of telephone conversations as part of the inquiry, which grew out of allegations that she sacked Monegan for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law from the state police.
She has denied wrongdoing.
But Palin acknowledged that a member of her staff made a call to a trooper in which the staffer suggested that he was speaking for the governor.
Palin has admitted that the call could be interpreted as pressure to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who was locked in a child-custody battle with Palin's sister. She suspended the staffer who made the call."
Because all the people in Labour have spent all their lives cloistered in unions or universities, they don't realise that real people in the real world know how to recognise when they have backed a loser. Owen Glenn certainly has.
Now that Labour has publicly denigrated him and cast aspersions upon his character, they can expect nothing to be held back at the privileges committee this week. He should be asked to show the committee Helen Clark's tooth marks on his 'once were generous' hands.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Just prior to Barack Obama's nomination speech, rival John McCain posted an ad noting the importance of Obama's achievement in being the Democrat's candidate.
Doesn't this show the decency of John McCain?
Of course, Obama replied with , I think, 21 negative mentions out of 22 mentions of McCain in that speech.
Have we ever seen our own Dear Leader note any achievement for John Key, or say any kind word concerning the lad from a state house, who has succeeded in the business world and looks set to take her job!
Hat tip: Iain Dale
One of its so-called rising stars Darien Fenton has been exposed as a former junkie.
Ian Wishart, once more delivers the stories the MSM fears to find, that of a junkie MP who has struggled with Class A drug abuse.
Some of her fellow druggies , it seem, were also less than complimentary on the List MP and trade unionist.
“I do not consider Darien Fenton to be worthy of being an MP, and was stunned when I read she was a Labour list MP. I thought [her one] of the worst people I met. [Her] reputation amongst the other people on the programme was very bad - liars, thieves etc.”
I guess having pot heads in the Green Party were the least of our worries!
Hat tip: Whale Oil, TGIF
First, John Key's rejection of any future dealings with NZ First and or Winston Peters.
Second, John McCain's choice of Governor Palin as his presidential running mate.
McCain is to be applauded. Less than 24 hours after Obama's schmaltzy showbiz acceptance of the Donks nomination, McCain stole the media limelight which his surprise announcement.
Let's compare the two teams.
Obama whose ONLY executive experience was a few years chairing a terrorist's charity and supervising distribution of over $100m to dubious recipients is teamed with an aging and vain political hack whose only serious achievement has been to become known as a wind bag. Both of these men are effective spruikers but none have any principles on which to spruik and no record of performance. Two word summary: Shallow and risky
McCain whose record of experience and judgment is impeccable, along with Sarah Palin whose own record is equally impressive and who is unmistakably identified with the aspirations of blue collar America. Two word summary: Safe and exciting
I'd say that, failing an unforeseen disaster, the game is already over and Mr Obama can slink back to the back streets of Chicago where he belongs..
The Winston Peters saga is what I'm on about. It all seems so Byzantine but when you stand off a little and look from a distance, then perhaps a few things come into focus.
As an aside, the first question in my mind this morning is 'Where is the money coming from for QC Peter Williams' fees?'
But back to the villain of the piece, the scampiwag, if you will.
It seems to Adolf that yesterday's events were a little like the opening five minutes of a rugby test match. The preceding questions and 'points of order' stonewalling in the house, clownish press conferences, accusations of who said what and where etc were the media lead up to the game.
The real play now is under way and, like QB at the Hive, I believe that the main play will be the battle of the scampi. The killer punch for Peters, and by association Helen Clark, will be the tapes and affidavits showing Peters corruptly soliciting $50k in return for closing down the scampi quota select committee enquiry.
I'd go further and suggest that yesterday, Peters was pulling the same trick with Helen Clark. It did not take a two hour meeting to resolve something as simple a a minister standing aside while being investigated for fraud.
No, yesterday the terms and conditions of NZ First support for Labour during and after the election campaign were negotiated. Ironically, John Key gave Winston the opportunity to go for Clark's jugular yesterday. Labour will pull their vote in Rimutaka to ensure NZ First wins a seat and gets back in with four or five members and Winston will keep his baubles of office. Winston will give Clark his vote on confidence, supply and pretty much anything else Clark wants. Oh, they might go through a public charade of disagreement but that's just for the chooks in the media.
Remember, Helen Clark will do 'whatever it takes' to hold onto power.
It seems to Adolf that as far as Peters' political future is concerned, all of the to do about Owen Glenn's donations and the privileges committee are small beer. To get rid of him one needs to have him convicted and sent to jail. That is why the scampi evidence is needed to bring down this vile, malevolent and evil little king maker.
Meanwhile, the privileges committee and Owen Glenn will do sufficient damage to finish off Helen Clark for she will be the real target now. The evidence will show she conspired to buy out the NZ First Party, tried to bribe the Maori Party (who also should be called to give evidence) and made out that Mr Glenn would receive his reward by way of consulship.
It might even set fire to her draft UN curriculum vitae.
My bet is that Owen Glenn will be quietly determined that Clark's face never gets anywhere near Turtle Bay.
Oh and by the way, best comment of the week goes to Ed Snack over at Farrar's place: 'Did owen Glenn give $100k to Howard Morrison too? To stop him singing?'
Well done Lemur.
- Winnie does have a full set of paperwork for all those donations, which turn out to be all entirely legal. He's just been enjoying winding journos and political enemies up into a fury of condemnation.
- He lays it out in front of the SFO investigators, who decide there's no fraud for them to investigate.
- Winnie gets his job back, and gets to spend the election campaign fired up like a flamethrower against the wicked perfidy of The Media and John Key.
- NZF romps back into Parliament with essential support nicked from National, and Key's deep in the shit.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The VRWC celebration this evening was indeed a pleasant affair. Champagne was quaffed, and scampi was consumed, though sadly I arrived too late for the latter and the atmosphere was most convivial.
However, while we all basked in the warmth generated by the fallout from the week's political fission, I couldnt escape the feeling that we were missing something. The nation's attention has been firmly fixed on Winston, and while most of the populace are aware that clark needs him and his party in order to ramrod the ETS through the house, I wonder how many have any inkling of the details of that legislation? Do they know what it means for the future of our country, and what are the implications for our standard of living? I can't say I do right now but I will shortly. Would they give a rats arse about winston's legal bills and his donations if they realised that our economic base is about to be reorganised at the whim of the most corrupt administration we've known in this country?
Hopefully winnie tosses his toys out now he's stood down and the ETS doesn't get passed before dear leader has to go to the country, but even so, I'd encourage everyone with the ability to do so to study this scheme, and the one that National have said they'll come up with, and do their best to get it's ramifications out into the public arena in detail.
What with Dear Leader dropping the bombshell yesterday of knowing for six months about the Owen Glenn donations, we really need to focus on the role of Dear Leader in this whole sordid affair!
I recall a fellow academic approaching me when I started writing the book and warning me that I was putting my career in jeopardy by tackling this subject. At first, I dismissed the caution, but when others began making similar comments, I came around to the view that I would be risking my integrity as a historian by being bullied into silence.
But today he is wrong and doubly wrong.
"There will be relief in Labour ranks. Given the increasing political stench coming from the direction of NZ First, Labour could only hold its nose for so long. Thanks to the SFO, it has been given a breather."
No, it's too late for a breather. To suggest that the SFO investigation of the slippery Winston Peters' dodgy dealings lets Labour off the hook is to ignore the vast damage which already has been done to Labour and in particular to it's scrawny scheming leader.
"Being able to resolve things now means Clark no longer has to worry about the upcoming privileges committee report on the contempt charge against Peters."
Wrong again. John Armstrong doesn't seem to be able to see the wood for the trees in the forest. The unavoidable danger to Clark from the Privileges Committee is testimony which links her directly to the Glenn donations and attempts to purchase political favours for the Labour Party.
The minute the ETS bill is passed, an election date will be announced and parliament will rise, in order to shut down the PC and protect Helen Clark.
The Auckland chapter of the Vast right Wing Conspiracy invites all enemies of the Corrupt Little Pin Striped Prick to a celebratory evening of champagne and scampi this evening at the Cavalier in Ponsonby. (the usual place)
5.30 for 6.00.
I will pre-arrange for scampi and champagne to be supplied and I expect the cost of same will likely run to around $15 per head, depending on how many enemies turn up. We'll divy up the tab at around 7.00.
All are welcome, even Labour Party members. The only qualification for entry is a profound dislike and disdain for The Honorable Winston Peters.
Don't forget, this might be your last chance to say what you really think about him before his political corpse ceases to breathe, for one cannot speak ill of the dead.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
But Barack Obama
First the Republicans
And now this one
And here's another anti-Obama message John McCain probably approves of, but it's not from the Republicans.
It's not looking good for the Leftist lightweight, despite support from Bill and Hill yesterday.
The main reasons for our continued participation in the parliamentary process are threefold I believe. We have excellent longstanding philosophies and principles. We have excellent, loyal, dedicated people (mostly volunteers). And we have, and have had, excellent politicians. ACT is a party based on a belief that governments are inherently destructive and not constructive: they should be out of our lives as much as possible. We believe people make better choices than politicians. We believe regulation might be a requirement, but is certainly not a necessity. Sure, we have some rogues and we have had to swallow some dead rats in the past but ACT people are bloodyminded and determined. ACT's beliefs and policies are the best for New Zealand, there is no doubt in my mind. And all ACT loyalists believe that and will work for that, even in the bad times.
Here's the dichotomy. New Zealand First and Winston Peters couldn't be more diametrically opposed to how ACT is. It has no principles, or at least Winston has just flushed them down the toilet. It's people use zimmerframes. And its politicians, even according to its ex MP's (Laws & Widerstrom) are useless.
ACT has survived because it has foundations. By comparison New Zealand First is a leaky home. It cannot survive what is happening I believe. The end is nigh.
The Police are that much more amenable.
And as for that pesky Priviledges Committee, yes, let's get rid of all the National MPs on it like Dear Leader suggested.
Stacked with Liarbour lickspittles, it truly would get to the bottom of the matter wouldn't it?
She certainly shows her promised higher standards of government here!
What will they use to lure away Ron Mark?
What will they do to inveigle the fool Woolerton who can't quite get his questions right?
What will be the incentive for the pommy gibberer Peter Brown, whose hair is thinner than his intellect?
What of the dimwitted imbecile Dale Jones? A year's supply of North Sea cod and chips?
The Bitch knew all along about the $100 grand. That will turn out to be only one tenth of the sordid truth as it becomes more obvious each day that Clark's in this up to her ears.
Funny thing is, I haven't heard a raucus fat female TVNZ reporter screeching 'When are you going to resign, Prime minister. When are you going to resign?"
Why suddenly does Clark reveal her duplicity? Because she is desperate to close the whole story down and it is about to get ten times worse.
She knows Qwen Glenn is going to testify to and be cross examined by the Privileges Committee next Thursday and she can't allow this to happen because he will reveal her complicity in all the dirty dealing. It is my guess it will turn out to be Helen Clark who put him up to donating to NZ First, who put him up to an attempted bribe of the Maori Party
You see, she will have regarded Mr Glenn as being one 'of her class and stature' and you couldn't possibly have yokels like Mike Willians dealing with really important people like us. So, she would have fronted the whole deal herself.
She has brought her ETS bill up to No 1 on the order paper so that she can get it passed, if necessary under urgency, in time to prorogue parliament and call an election on Wednesday next week, thereby closing off the incriminating privileges committee.
Bloody hell, I'm glad she was never a currency trader. What a sorry loser!
"Teacher, how is it you, with no years of experience and wisdom, are standing before your elders and betters, purporting to tell us about God?"
Jesus said to them
'The Kingdom of God is like a land of milk and honey, in which all is not as it seems. There was such a land of milk and honey in which there were two opposing political parties, one led by a middle aged woman who had forsaken motherhood in favour of devoting her whole being to the study of political theory and internecine party dealings, assisted by an academic teacher of high intellect and wit, well versed in history; the other led by a young man of humble beginnings and great wealth gained from a life of commercial trading in far off lands.
The politician and the teacher were feted by the people and were lauded for their perceived wisdom and experience while the trader was looked down upon and scorned for his lack of political experience.
When the time came for a reckoning, the trader used his hard won instincts for risk taking and timing, honed in the cauldron of international trading, to outwit and defeat the politician and the academic whose apparent experience and judgement proved to be shallow and worthless.
Such is the Kingdom of God"
Adolf has been mightily impressed by John Key's quiet, careful, unflustered, hard headed and no nonsense approach to politics.
Clark and Cullen really don't know what is hitting them. They haven't got a clue.
I guess a 'correction' was inevitable in the political market.
After a few months with leads of over 20% , the Herald Digi-Poll shows the lead down to just 13.7%, well down on the 24% or so of last month.
Liarbour can take heart its support is heading up, at 36.3%.
BUT: National is at 50% and can govern alone and ACT is up 2 to 2.3% showing Rodney's efforts over Winniegate is paying off. Liarbour seems to be eating its coalition partners, as Adolf noted in other recent polls.
Of course as Winnie suffers from the allegations, which have grown far worse in recent days, since after the poll was taken, his support can only drop further.
Indeed Dear Leader and Liarbore can only suffer an inevitable drop too from her steadfast support: Guilt by association in the court of public opinion.
"Or maybe he'll just do a Napoleon and coronate himself. By the time Napoleon made himself emperor, he had won the Battles of Lodi, of Arcole, of Rivoli, of the Pyramids and of Marengo. And had promugulated the Napoleonic Code. He had yet to write a single autobiography."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
That is why this photo is so important.
If Winston lied about this then he can't be believed on other things. Glenn can.
Judgment for the plaintiff, Mr Hide for the sum of $158,000.00
Joke: What's the difference between
New Zealand First and a spermbank?
With a spermbank you can't lie about your donations.
No-one puts it better than the excellent and astute Victor Davis Hanson
"Bottom line: she remains loyal Democrat, dissed victim, the should-have-been nominated candidate, senior healer ready to clean up the mess of 2008, and savior in 2012. Note well Chelsea's ubiquity, the slick Hillary infomercial, Bill's wide grin, and the Clinton triad everywhere.
'Fucking them with kindness.'
Here's my wish list for while I'm away
1. Winston Peters is finished off , but as HC is unlikely to do that, then National come out and say that they will have nothing to do with him, ever. Assuming the SFO don't get him.
Update Looks like OG has done the business and I aren't even out of the country yet. Is this the end of Labours ETS or will HC follow her long history of breaking every rule of decency and use him one final time.
2. The Greens disappear under 5% as the young people who think its cool to support them , discover that their freedoms are seriously at risk and rush to ACT.
3. The 35% of people who still support Labour wake up and realise that their free lunch is over.
4. That the All Blacks tackle Sterling first time.
there's more but I don't want to be greedy.
Best wishes to all our readers and keep up the good work.
Thought I would post this picture again so people don't forget that Peters has got in the position where he is today because of Clark being on heat
Clydesdale's discussion paper is here. Worth a read if you plan to wade through the HRCs parade of euphemisms and finger-wagging.
The most pointless bureaucrat in New Zealand, Joris De Bres, has spent a shitload of our cash getting into an argument with Dr Clydesdale over this paper - an argument De Bres is ill-equipped for, given that his opponent studies this subject for a living. De Bres' report on Clydesdale's paper has just been released and is available here.
De Bres' arguments:
1. A newspaper report on the discussion paper..."prompted a considerable amount of misinformed and racially prejudiced comment." p5
OK, I'm sorry but that just isn't worthy of a response...
2. "Peer reviewers of his paper were critical of its academic standard." p5.
One might get the impression here that Clydesdale had submitted the paper to an academic journal that subjected it to peer review. That would of course be wrong - the "peer review" referred to here is by hatchetmen assigned to the task by the Ministry of Pacific Affairs, and someone assigned by Massey University to further its "review" of Dr Clydesdale's employment. This is not the stuff of which reliable peer review is made. I'm not sure on what basis you would carry out a "peer review" of the draft of a discussion paper in any case.
3. "Dr Clydesdale is selective in his quote from the Statistics New Zealand and Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs Pacific Progress report." p28
The implication being that he's cut out information that undermines his case, as demonstrated by this paragraph from the report he didn't quote:
These difficulties were accentuated by the restructuring of the late 1980’s and 1990’s, which had a disproportionate effect on Pacific people, many of whom worked in industries and occupations that bore the brunt of job losses.
Since that time there have been considerable improvements in the economic position of Pacific peoples, particularly for some of the younger, New Zealand-born people. Overall, levels of education have improved, unemployment has fallen and there has been a move away from traditional areas of blue-collar employment into more skilled white-collar jobs. However, these trends have been occurring not just for Pacific peoples but also among the wider New Zealand population, and consequently there are still economic disparities between Pacific people and others. There are also some groups of Pacific people who may not have experienced improvements in their economic situation, such as the older, Pacific-born and lower skilled sections of the population. p28-29
Given that the restructuring of the 80s and 90s affected the PI population disproportionately for exactly the reasons Clydesdale outlines in his paper, it's hard to see how his position is undermined by leaving out this quote. I can't decide whether De Bres is claiming this point out of ignorance or malice.
4. Clydesdale based his paper on info from the 2002 Pacific Progress Report and didn't update it using info from the 2006 census before it was released - ie, his paper was based on "outdated" information:
The 2002 Pacific Progress Report provided a comprehensive picture of Pacific peoples in New Zealand at the time but is now out of date. Results from the 2006 Census have been summarised in Statistics New Zealand’s Quickstats About Pacific Peoples. p6
But for De Bres to score any actual point here, there'd have to be something in the 2006 census info to suggest Clydesdale was wrong. So was there? According to De Bres,
The available data generally indicate a trend of improvement rather than deterioration in Pacific peoples’ economic and social situation. p6
OK, how much of an improvement, and is that improvement more rapid than the increase in numbers of the Pasifika population population due to the birth rate and immigration? I'm picking the answer to that last one is "No," because De Bres is forced to fall back on
Pacific peoples suffered more than any other group from the economic and social policies of the eighties and nineties and their recovery from this major setback has taken time. Pacific peoples do continue to experience significant inequalities and addressing this situation must remain a priority. p6
I would have thought the first step in "addressing this situation" would be confronting the facts about it without running them through a euphemism filter and an ethnic Auto Da Fe. We should be thanking Clydesdale, not martyring him.
This issue of the "outdated data" is actually very significant. The accusation of using "outdated data" is in academic terms the only serious one levelled at Clydesdale. The report does give us Clydesdale's response to the accusation:
- Although he based his findings on the 2002 Pacific Progress report other more recent research and reports confirmed his analysis.
- The 2006 Census data only became available as he was finishing off his paper last year so he did not have time to include it. The Census did not reveal any radical improvement in the position of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. p36
In other words, the accusation is spin, nothing more. They've caught Clydesdale out for failing to meet best practice, and pretended it somehow refutes his findings. It doesn't.
The essence of De Bres' problem with Clydesdale is in the executive summary:
It is not a new truth that there are continuing disparities between Pacific peoples and some other groups in our society. No-one is denying that this is the case, and attending to these disparities must remain a priority. But it is also evident that Pacific peoples’ contribution to our economy, our culture and our society is highly significant and will become more so. This contribution should be acknowledged and celebrated, not demeaned or denied. p4
In other words, it may be true but he shouldn't have said it, because we should be kind to Pacific Islanders. To which Massey University's response ought to have been "Tough shit pal. An academic's job is to research the facts and present what he thinks they mean, not run a diversity propaganda show." Ought to have been, yes. So, what did the institution actually come up with?
First of all, that familiar, chilling bureaucratic pronouncement:
The university says Mr Clydesdale's employment has been under review since the complaints.
You see, Clydesdale may have academic freedom, but the modern university in no sense extends that freedom to giving the institution a bad name with potential fee-paying punters. The first rule of modern university administration is that academic freedom must under no circumstances put cash flow at risk. Thus we witnessed Acting VC Ian Warrington apologising for his colleague on 3 News, an unedifying spectacle that must have done more than anything in a long time to put academics off aspiring to administrative roles.
Massey's shame doesn't end there, though. Its publication Massey News featured a further back-stabbing for Dr Clydesdale:
Concern at the negative impact on the Pacific Island community following publication of a Massey research paper on immigration has prompted Massey’s Acting Director Pasifika Sione Tu’itahi to highlight the University’s efforts to advance Pasifika education.
I'm chuffed at the good work Tu'itahi's doing in promoting education to Pasifika students. However, the article goes on:
He says Pasifika people have contributed hugely to New Zealand’s sporting and arts successes both regionally and internationally.
By measuring people as economic units, Dr Clydesdale has presented a limited view of the positive role and contribution of Pacific Islanders to New Zealand society.
I'd love to know why Mr Tu'itahi imagines that a report looking at economic aspects of immigration should include blather about Pasifika types being jolly good at sports, but he doesn't enlighten us. I'm sorry, but this is academia - in an argument over economic issues, claiming that looking at economic issues is a limited view may be completely accurate, but it's also completely irrelevant. One imagines trying to claim that Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker was "limited" because it discussed the role of genes in evolution without discussing the glories of music and literature. There's simply no merit in that argument.
No doubt Clydesdale will be hounded from his post by the cold, calculating bean-counters of Massey University, in a repeat of University of Auckland's shabby treatment of Paul Buchanan. Oh, would that Mr De Bres were in a similar position...
In fact, these are the first real allegations of genuine corruption.
Everything which has gone before has had links to corruption, a hint of corruption, the suggestion of corruption but this lot is the real deal, no holds barred 'gimme the money and I'll look after you' raw blatant corruption of the worst possible kind.
Let's look carefully at what has been said:-
The allegations are 'on the record,' so they are not just hearsay or idle gossip.
They are in the hands of the Serious Fraud Office, so it is difficult to imagine they will not be investigated.
They allege a meeting between Peters and Suminovich at which the alligator was present, so there's no wriggle room for the usual go betweens to provide protection.
They contain an incriminating statement 'I'll make them go away,' so there can be no doubt as to the meaning and or intent.
Rodney Hide has backed our slippery PM into a corner by making her tell parliament that she will not impede any SFO investigation. That is not to say she won't try and she has form but now, if there is a hint of interference from any quarter it will be sheeted home directly to her.
pic stolen from stuff
Getting himself thrown out of parliament after a stand up slugging match with peg leg Speaker was fine theatre and superb tactics. It made sure the accusations are indelibly recorded in Hansard.
When Wilson is presented with incontrovertible evidence that the issues raised are not in fact sub judice then she will have no option but to deal publicly to Winston who has been relying on keeping a small number of long ago hopelessly lost defamation cases 'open' for just the purpose we saw yesterday. He just lost the game because yesterday, for the first time, his subterfuge has been revealed to the wider public for what it is. A sham, designed to hide the truth of his crooked dealings.
Peters is facing potentially substantial jail time. The sentence handed down to a cabinet minister for soliciting bribes is unlikely to be lenient.
I call on the National Party Leader to announce in the house this week that upon election his government will
(a) reinstate an independent and effective serious Fraud Office and
(b) refuse to deal with NZ First in any way while Winston Peters remains a member or maintains any connection with NZ First.
'One must nor speak ill of the dead but I managed to get everything off my chest before she died.'
Such is the case of terminally ill US senator Edward Kennedy, unarguably the United States' most pathetically abject public face of gross cowardice. Claudia Rossett puts it well:-
In the moment, there is an etiquette we accord to those engaged in mortal struggles, and a respect we render to those who do not go gentle into that good night. It would be wild folly, however, and a betrayal of future generations, to translate that wholesale into an embrace of all they have stood for. Watching the Kennedy tribute last night, in which the sea was invoked as the element of renewal, I wondered how many others in the audience thought of Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne — left to die in the submerged car while Ted Kennedy meandered off to salvage his political career , a career symbolized in last night’s film tribute by that expensive sailboat with Kennedy at the wheel and family aboard.
The year of Chappaquiddick was 1969. John McCain was then two years into his more than five years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.Perhaps that's why the polls ain't bumpin for the Donks.
General Election Match-Up
John McCain vs. Barack Obama
Match-up without Leaners
Match-up with Leaners
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
No, seriously; I know this blog's readership includes a parade of right-wing nutjobs and mouth-frothers who wouldn't have voted Labour under any circumstances anyway, and their opinions are neither sought here nor of interest. But what about those out there who might conceivably have voted Labour in this election - any chance of that now? If so - for your deity of choice's sake, why?
Firstly, my apologies to the families of those who have held their breath since my last post...... it wasn't intentional.
This post is in the form of an omnibus of questions , or should that be a blunderbus of questions, and a few statements on topics that have exercised me mightily over the last few weeks. I,m not expecting serious answers to them all but I feel they should be out there being discussed in the blogosphere.
Have just witnessed margaret wilson's inept performance in the House this afternoon as she ejected Rodney Hide. Short of producing a revolver and actually shooting Rodders dead, was there anything more effective she could have done to silence him from expanding on his allegations regarding labour's lapdog, the lesser striped baublehound?
I think that peters now owes clark for that little favour and will vote for the ETS with only the bare minimum of traditional grandstanding.
Speaking of the ETS, can any passing labour apparatchik confirm that the bill will be any more, or less, haphazardly and appallingly badly drafted as, say, the EFA?
Also why the big hurry??? To whom the good if the ETS is passed into law before the election?
Here's a good drinking game we invented a few weekends ago at a neighbourhood get together. It's called "guess what Clark will do if she wins the next election". It's simple to play, each person simply states the three things they feel that dear leader will do that she wont mention in the run up to the election. Slow learners are provided with examples such "anti smacking bill, and the EFA". On the occasion of the game's launch the group of players were a mixed bunch, a naval dockyard mechanic, a clerk, a housewife, a storeman, and this self employed person, to name a few of the occupations present and one would be forgiven for thinking there were some lefties around. Not so, if the most popular predictions are any indicator. The top three were:
1/ Finding a way to stop people leaving for Australia
2/ Extension of the parliamentary term to 5 or 6 years.
3/ Winston Peters will still be Foreign Minister
In my opinion, only one of the three above is just plain silly.
What was also noticeable was the total absence of such things as:
1/ Leading us into broad sunlit uplands.
2/ Ensuring economic prosperity for all New Zealand citizens
3/ Reducing the politicisation of the public service
Try it at your next soiree.
Last question cluster: How old is Steve Pierson from the standard, has he ever voted before, has he ever had a full time job, and how does he support himself while he's busy writing those endless screeds of trite crap he's famous for?