Saturday, March 7, 2009

Is NZ now a Fool's paradise?

With the story that the National government is considering giving Cullen a top job in a SOE,
I can only weep.

But maybe we will be getting exactly what we deserve.

We have had it good here.
Welfare makes it Christmas everyday and cheap credit has been a lazy dog in our wallets.
We have stupidly tolerated the sharks of this world and worse, the fools.
And their actions and consequences were hidden, covered up, moved on from.
The people and the government were prepared to throw good money after bad
on the basis of meaningless assurances
or some smiling politician's photo opportunity
and a media looking to fill in space between advertising.

Maybe we are a fool's paradise.

I thought there was hope when Key anounced before the election that he wouldn't touch Peters with a barge pole. Would this be the turning point of behaviour that we so desperately needed.
But now.

The only thing for certain is that if we aim for the gutter, we will surely hit it.
And putting Cullen anywhere near another public tit is 3 feet below the gutter.
In my book anyway.


Barnsley Bill said...

We are a third world country that has staved off poverty by taking out loans that our descendants will have to pay back.

Baxter said...

And putting Cullen anywhere near another public tit is the gutter.
In my book anyway.

In mind too mate, and I won't vote National again if they do. I hope Rodney dissociates act from this proposal.

Lou Taylor said...

Key will leave the barn door open for ACT if this happens.
15% and 2 electorate seats in 2011.
If they get their shit together.

adamsmith1922 said...

Bloody outrageous

Anonymous said...

Close BB. How about

We are a third world country that has staved off poverty by taking out loans that our descendants will never be able to pay back.

As for ACT 15% and 2 electorate seats in 2011. that should happen anyway.

I want the National to revise the EFA so that no union can particiapte in any way in the electoral process. Ideally (due to a serendipitous "drafting error") that should stop anyone who's ever been a union member voting. That should wipe out labour.

I want an ACT Majority government to replace the Nats say in 2020 or theraebouts.

Anonymous said...

Not so dumb..

Put Cullen in a place where he can demonstrate his lack of talent, then sack the bastard.

He can't be fired at present.

David Baigent said...

Is there any commentor on No Minister
that can correctly claim to have more proven intellectual ability than John Key and the National party caucus comibined. ???

Heh, as sonic would say
"thought not"..

Shame on you..

Anonymous said...

I agree, I won't vote National again either if they do this, what was the point of actually changing the government if Key endorses morally bankrupt people into high-ranking positions, where has his backbone gone. What happend to 'I'd rather be a loser than a lier?' I will vote Act next time, or maybe no one, in the end they are all the same.

KG said...

David Baigent--what the hell does "intellectual ability" have to do with integrity?
Are you suggesting that Key's move is smart, therefore acceptable?

Kevin said...

Think of the cullen/nose-in-public-trough suggestion as an opportunity for Joe Public to vent their spleen about it being a totally unacceptable proposal.

David Baigent said...

KG @ 7:13,

I don't know what John Key's next move will be.

Neither do you,
Or Helen, or Cullen, or Phil Goff..

What I do KNOW is that it will be more carefully considered than your reaction on this blog.

The moves that the National caucus are making are a bit like what happens with Polls.
Always look for the trend, when a "rogue" statement is made, by all means complain loud and long but watch the hisorical trend.

If the trend does not continue its erratic path in the right direction for you then decide IN THREE YEARS TIME WHICH WAY TO VOTE.

Otherwise you are just acting like a numpty..

KG said...

And I don't need your advice about the input I use to decide which way to vote, thanks.
Key has already indicated he'll support the appointment of the Bilious Bitch to a U.N. post or something similar. He's already indicated he won't scrap the RMA, just fiddle around the margins. He's already indicated he'll appoint three separatists to "review" the Foreshore And Seabed Act...
The real numpties, Baigent are those who won't hold our elected representative's feet to the fire to ensure they do what they were elected to do.
Hanging on for three years and hoping isn't my idea of representative government.

KG said...

And you didn't answer the question:
What the hell does intellectual ability have to do with integrity?

David Baigent said...

KG @ 8:20,

Ok, I'll try.

Firstly integrity and intellectual ability are not opposites.
Both are required.
Neither are they absolutes as viewed by an observer.
So some form of subjective judgement is needed.
If you want to form an opinion as to the "integrity" of a parliamentarian you need to consider whether they are in power or in opposition.
Without intellectual ability to protect his/her integrity your parliamentarian is not in power for long.

Too brief, but you get my drift.
Integrity can be assessed over the long haul.
Intellectual ability is fleetingly seen for brief moments but ensures that its holder remains effective.

thedavincimode said...

Bullseye Lou

KG said...

David, I think you're over-analysing.
Nobody here suggested that integrity and intellectual ability were opposites--and I'm still puzzled by your linkage, when the whole point of the post was about National's integrity, not the intelligence (or otherwise) on display.

This sentence of yours is utter rubbish:
"If you want to form an opinion as to the "integrity" of a parliamentarian you need to consider whether they are in power or in opposition."
Integrity doesn't depend on any such thing. A person has it, or not, regardless of circumstances.
Desperate circumstances may justify a temporary suspension of certain personal standards, but I very much doubt there's anything desperate about Keys offering cushy jobs to Labour criminals.
Integrity isn't 'protected by intellectual power' either. It's protected by strength of character and a sense of honour.
Something even the dumbest among us may possess.

thedavincimode said...


Its very simple in this context.

Integrity is, at the very least, lawmakers exercising the same standards of behaviour, and having the same expectations of their colleagues, as they would have expectations for the people who actually vote them into their priveleged position of power.

It is in fact more than that; integrity goes to actual standards of behaviour. We might all have our own compasses in that respect, and to that extent integrity is subjective. But society has already set what it regards as acceptable norms. If murder, rape, theft or otherwise advantaging oneself at the expense of others is off the agenda, then condoning or rewarding that behaviour is equally off the agenda.

That is an absolute. And if you want to compromise that implicit integrity because of some perceived benefit for the greater good or whatever, that is a subjective breach of your integrity. You might consider it justified, but that changes nothing

thedavincimode said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Taylor said...

David, Thanks for your comments.
Just for the record and I can't speak for my all my fellow commentators as I have not met all of them,I don't pretend to take an intellectual aproach to what I say. I see something and I comment on it. It is mostly what my "gut feeling" is telling me. The same gut feeling that has served me well for 20 years of business. I may be wrong but like you I am prepared to write under my name and am prepared to put my name to my opinions.I blog because someone has to. I am not prepared to sit back and do nothing.
I have worked hard for this country and have earnt the right to have an opinion.

LaFemme said...

I was so angry when I first heard about the possibility of Cullen getting a SOE job, but as the time has worn on, I now feel heartsick, like a jilted lover.

Redbaiter said...

Key is probably worried that if he doesn't endorse Kullen, then there'll likewise be no comfy positions for any Nats if Labour ever get back in.

We get the politicians we deserve. KG is correct as always- we have failed for too long to hold these scum accountable, and so nowadays, their arrogance knows no bounds.

Faversham said...

Isn't a debate on this matter a trifle premature? There appears to be speculation only on Key's possible intentions re Cullen. I for one would be deeply disappointed should Key offer the failed finance minister any form of employment.

KG said...

Faversham, perhaps the debate needs to be held right now--expressions of outrage at the idea of Cullen being given a job are a damn sight better than expressing disapproval after the event.
And more likely to be effective, since it wouldn't be so easy to sack him should he be given the position.

Lou Taylor said...

Exactly KG. Too often we are debating after the event.
The reality is that this is a one way debate. National MP's are highly sought after at the end of their careers. But who wants an ex Labour MP.

WAKE UP said...

Sidebar: who appointed Jim Bolger to his present position ?