There was a puff piece in the Washington Post a few days ago about Jay Carney and his wife, journalist and author Claire Shipman. Jay Carney is President Obama’s Press Secretary, effectively the face of the administration on TV’s and the Net worldwide.
I won’t link to the piece because there’s nothing in it political (or even that interesting to be blunt). However, there was one aspect that was both pathetic and hilarious. Take a look at this photo of Carney and Shipman doing a pretend press conference in front of their kids.
In the background are shelves and shelves of books. Of course there must be, because these people are smart and well-read (Left-wingers and Democrats don’t you know). Take a good look at the top-right corner, 2nd shelf from the top. There’s a finger floating in mid-air! Whose finger could that be and why is it floating? In fact it’s the little finger of their boy’s left hand, over on the left side of the photo. It’s floating there on the right because it’s been photoshopped.
In fact a lot of the books are repeated in this manner in an effort I thought only the Iranian government was capable of. In this case it was done because the actual books on the shelves apparently did not lend enough weight to the assumption that these people are smart – very,very smart.
Thus are narratives reinforced by the MSM. Pathetic.
Some on the left are prepared to confront the issues:
Does anyone know the whereabouts of that stalwart and courageous David Cunliffe who bore every insult that his enemies could hurl at him. The David Cunliffe who sat stoically on the back benches while his party fought for his return. The David Cunliffe who campaigned up and down the length of New Zealand for a rededication to Labour’s core values. The David Cunliffe who promised to rescue New Zealand from John Key’s “crony capitalism”. If anyone does know where he is could they please advise Moira Coatsworth and Tim Barnett immediately – he is sorely missed.
And sorely needed. Because, if that David Cunliffe is not found – and soon – the pallid and oh-so-timid fellow currently masquerading as the leader of the Opposition is going to lose the election. Not just for Labour, the Greens and Mana, but for every other New Zealander seeking a radical change in their country’s direction.
I don’t agree with everything Chris has said – for example the left could still ‘win’ the election despite Labour, National shouldn’t be complacent and they need to deal more competently with the sithstorms – but what’s quoted here is pertinent to Labour’s current predicament.
One problem here may be that people commenting on blogs are powerless bystanders, and sad truths can be unpalatable. It could be a long tough five months for lefties in the blogosphere.
Blues followers will be sitting on the edge of their seats to see what happens this week when Sir John Kirwan puts the players names into a bag and then tips them onto the roulette table to decide who will play and in what position against the Warratahs.
It’s a “must win” game in his own words (like the last two or three some might say) so fans can expect an extra hard shake of the bag. Possibly two.
Message to Rowan . Have another read of this. Do you really believe Bain has any chance of receiving any compensation now that his lawyer at the first trial has confirmed he lied about those glasses? And don’t forget his aunt testified that he told her he had been wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend. Ain’t going to happen, Rowie baby.
So far as that defamation case goes, it ain’t all over yet. Watch this space.
The Minister of Justice Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON
I refer our previous correspondence. I have subsequently had referred to me the response from Justice Binnie to your discussions with him about the glasses evidence which I raised in my letter to you dated 10 September. I am most grateful for the circumspect way in which you raised that matter with the Judge.
But the Judge’s self-defensive reply is most disturbing, almost as if it is designed to blind you to the relevance of that evidence. My email to you was dated 10 September, your discussion with the Judge was on 13 September and his reply was dated 25 September. He chooses to go on the attack raising issues of my own character and credibility and thus obfuscating the intense relevance of the very matter you raised with him. The detail he has provided raises the question as to who gave him all of the Law Society material. How is it relevant? I have been judged and found wanting but those issues do not alter the incontrovertible facts of the matters I have raised.
However much of a scoundrel Justice Binnie wants to paint me, the salient facts are these:
Trenchant and continual criticism of me by the Bain team surely waived privilege from the early stages. There is common law authority to that effect.
Mr Bain informed both myself and my co-Counsel, Miss Jonelle Williams, that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.
In response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses tne night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did.
The Crown Solicitor therefore knew this fact at trial.
Justice Thorp gives my evidence to the PCA the clear stamp of credibility because the Crown Prosecutor confirmed to him what I had told him at trial.
The importance of this admission of wearing the glasses the night before is, quite simply, a damning admission because the police found the bent frame and one lens in David’s bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brother’s bedroom.
Justice Binnie then appears to mislead you by quoting and relying upon a passage from the Court of Appeal decision at paragraphs 21 and 22 of his recent Report to you.
21. This inconsistency gives rise to issues of both of substance and credibility. As to the substance of the claim, the Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 December 2003 subsequent to the Thorp Report concluded that
“The glasses and lens issue has not featured significantly in our analysis of the strength of the case against David. It does not in any way tend to exculpate David.” (para 244)
22. For reasons that follow, I agree with that conclusion. Assuming as I do that what Mr Guest told Sir Thomas Thorp is true, it does not “feature significantly” in resolving the substance of the case.
8. BUT THIS QUOTE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL was dealing with a different issue relating to the glasses because that Court DID NOT KNOW of the evidence of what David Bain had told myself and my co-Counsel and what we had told the Crown Solicitor at trial.
Consequently, it can be stated on reasonable grounds that Justice Binnie has himself succumbed to a tunnel visioned approach to the assessment of all relevant evidence relating the prime question he was asked to answer.
I do not request or expect any response from you. I conclude by congratulating you on a most professional approach to your role as Minister of Justice in this whole sorry affair.
One problem here may be that people commenting on blogs are powerless bystanders, and sad truths can be unpalatable.
I wonder if another problem is that Cunliffe’s now so gun-shy he daren’t poke his head above the parapet lest he make yet another mistake. Everything he’s touched to date has turned to dust and he’s been constantly under fire from both sides: his own and the “real” enemy. That’s gotta hurt, even more so when you’ve got the personality composition Cunliffe has, where his ego forms a large part of his security armour.
I’m sure I also caught a glimpse of her at the Karaka sales
Re: ‘I’m pretty sure I caught a glimpse of her at the Karaka sales’.
But, but, the champions of the down-trodden and oppressed working classes are not SUPPOSED to be mixing with the nasty capitalist running dog (and race-horse buying) rich pricks!! El Leader (Cunliffe) says that rich pricks must be destroyed at all costs, and made to regret their wealth..
An interesting case of double standards isn’t it? Perhaps she needs to be ‘re-educated’ in the best socialist manner…..
tom hunter: Agreed that it’s badly photoshopped, but surely it’s to make the image look more symmetric rather than to attempt to put more books behind the couple? After all, if it’s doing the latter it’s only contributing to less than 10% of the books there.
I’d argue (poor) photoshopping for aesthetic reasons, not to support any ‘narrative’.
Lefty – she was thrown in a random selection of “cool right now”. No mp should be in there. It was some partisan hack chipping away and forcing their shit onto us. In an article that shouldn’t be political.
There is nothing cool about adern. A nerd from way back. A nerd who goes to events cause she’s a 1%er and can afford them all. Or they are free.
Is she a spinster still? Or is some poor bastard dating her?
tom hunter (4,000 comments) says:
April 19th, 2014 at 8:14 am
There was a puff piece in the Washington PostWashingtonian Mom a few days ago about Jay Carney and his wife, journalist and author Claire Shipman. Jay Carney is President Obama’s Press Secretary, effectively the face of the administration on TV’s and the Net worldwide.
I won’t link to the piece because there’s nothing in it political (or even that interesting to be blunt).because it is not in the Washington Post
However, there was one aspect that was both pathetic and hilarious.
Justification for Judith Collins being the coolest kiwi politician: Loves cars, happy to be unconventional where she feels moved and just the right amount of “do I look like I give a fuck?”. She has mastered the art so elusive to kiwi female politicos on the left of being powerful without waving around a big imaginary cock and turning her femininity vinegary, thus morphing into one of the humourless jealous angry bitter little faux men that make up labour’s sorority of sour.
Happy Easter x
“Lefty – she was thrown in a random selection of “cool right now”. No mp should be in there. It was some partisan hack chipping away and forcing their shit onto us. In an article that shouldn’t be political.”
Yep that’s it.
I don’t know why a journalist would show their hand on either side of the political spectrum so obviously. Then again the writer is probably not a journalist at all, just some metro, going on their choice of two dudes unknown outside K Road. I bet the APN bosses sit there scratching their heads going ‘why why why?’
Your issue is Shawn you’ve got a warped perspective on what I say vs what you think I’m saying, plus you’re not interested in educating yourself on what is happening in the world as we speak. I don’t know what to call that but that’s your issue.
Shawn, I’m linking to an article about a book written by the former Australian Foreign Minister. I don’t care what site its on and I never have. This is because it’s the article that’s the point, not the webserver it appears on.
Perhaps you’d be surprised but strangely given what the book is about, it’s most unlikely it’s going to appear on say, any of Murdoch’s websites, is it.
It was created by the same White Supremacists who created the the Occidental Quarterly which, among other dubious people, publishes articles by Robert S. Griffin, a University of Vermont professor who was a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance.
So are you interesting in discussing Bob Carr, or do you have no argument and you need therefore to dissemble? Anything but discuss the point, right?
Anyone would think you had no argument Shawn. But who knows, perhaps you just can’t think straight. Must be all that emotion swirling round in your tummy.
Zionists tend to throw around the Nazi label a lot, don’t they. As the truthseeker article points out, they even accuse a Jew who served as a paratrooper for Israel in the 1973 war, as being one. Isn’t that peculiar.
“Shawn, I’m linking to an article about a book written by the former Australian Foreign Minister. I don’t care what site its on and I never have. ”
That’s an excuse, and a poor one. If a White Supremacist web site is publishing Carr’s articles, then any person with more than two braincells to rub together might be inclined to question Carr.
But more importantly, by posting articles from such sites, your effectively promoting White Supremacist’s and Neo-Nazis as legitimate sources of information.
You can try and excuse this, but it confirms my view that I was right to accuse of of effectively being a Neo-Nazi yourself. When your so close to their ideology that you can happily use their web sites for sources, the distinction between you and them becomes meaningless.
@ Paulus (2,293 comments) says:
April 19th, 2014 at 8:36 am
Can anybody please tell me whether the Christchurch houses in the Flockton Basin ever flooded before the Earthquakes ?
Paulus, yes indeed. I lived in St Albans (McFaddens Rd and Coles Pl Edgeware) during most of the 1990’s and there was plenty of flooding just to the east of our homes. It is maybe a little worse since the earthquakes but then again we have had more rain than I can remember this past year.
Your comments are quite frankly shallow dissembly, insulting to some since to some, the Neo-Nazi allegation is highly degrading to them. But someone who stands up to criticise zionism needs to be prepared for it to be thrown, regardless of its truth. What I’m surprised about is that while I’ve explained my own position numerous times on this, still you, a Christian, chose to throw a lie, knowing it’s a lie. I’m actually shocked, especially since my view equates much more to the Anglican clergies sentiment on Israel and the way they act toward Palestinians, and I would have thought your position on that in supporting Zionist thuggery would be anaethema to that aspect of your faith. But apparently not. Still, there are people who claim to be things they are not, and perhaps you’re simply one of those.
BTW, I didn’t know OO was a white supremacist site because I’d never been there and I don’t care. I got the article from the source link on the truthseeker site
But it proves the point doesn’t it. That people who can’t think straight get all confused about the point of the post and go off on a tangent, generating a debate about something completely irrelevant to what the post was about: zionist influence all over western politics. As told in this case by someone in Australia who would know if anyone would.
But no, instead braying, irrelevant hysteria breaks out at the mere mention of this topic.
This was cognitive dissonance in action. You know that? Of course you don’t, because those who are doing it don’t even know they’re doing it. That’s how it works. Review what you all just said and draw a lesson from it, if you’re willing to. That is, if you want to learn how to think straight, without cognitive dissonance.
It’s not exactly a shock that Australia has a pro-Israel foreign policy, is it? And if ‘the Jews’ control Australia’s foreign policy, as your first link alleged, how is it that Australia actually abstained on the UN resolution?
‘Truthseeker’. Great, now Reid’s linking to a Holocaust denial site. Charming.
There’s a few sites its not worth linking to because people who can’t think make their minds up on the site and not on the veracity of the content: these sites include rense, makow and truthseeker. Often I will read the article on those sites then link to the source and post the source link which is what I did here.
If you are asking ‘what resolution’, it suggests to me that you didn’t read the articles you linked to – just the headlines.
You’re right, I didn’t read the article I linked to, because the point was the Australian Foreign Minister had published a book outlining the influence of the zionist lobby in Australia and the details weren’t important, and still aren’t. This is because such news wasn’t news to me at all, in any way. But I thought it might be news to some of you people, who haven’t familiarised yourselves with this particular global dynamic. And what’s wrong with that mm? Why is a detail about a single resolution so very critical to you that it becomes a ball-breaker? Why? Given the nature of that very significant wider topic, who cares about a single resolution? I mean seriously?
Those Guardian articles I posted in response to the Nazi hysteria sum up the position. I know the Guardian is lefty but hopefully it’s not Nazi so maybe that’ll forestall some false accusations from some of you, maybe. But read this. This is the point and this is why I posted it.
Carr explains, in compelling detail, how Melbourne’s Zionist lobby pressures, romances, bullies and cajoles politicians to tow the most fundamentalist position over illegal Israeli colonies, Palestinian recognition at the UN, and even the language used to describe Israeli actions. He also claims that Israel lobby financing impacted the positions of elected politicians on foreign policy. Carr reports former Kevin Rudd telling him that about one-fifth of the money he had raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community, and criticises Julia Gillard’s unfailing pro-Israel stance (see, for example, her effusive praise of the Jewish state after she received the Jerusalem Prize), pointing out that she would not even let him criticise Israeli West Bank settlements.
“It’s an appalling situation if Australia allows a group of [Jewish] businessmen [in Melbourne] to veto policy on the Middle East”, Carr summarises in frustration (unsurprisingly, local Zionist groups have responded with fury and defensiveness to the attack).
It was Washingtonian Mom NOT the Washington Post. Poor Tom, he got all over aroused over nothing. I dare say Washingtonian Mom is almost entirely comprised of puff pieces. I don’t think there would have been a conspiracy to make lefties seem more well read than rightards. More likely the Washingtonian Mom editors just didn’t like the lack of symmetry in the original photo. Very clumsy photoshopping mind you. As Carney has a degree in Russian studies from Yale, I think we can also forgive the odd kitsch Soviet era propaganda poster. Poor rightards, they do get their daks in a bunch over the slightest of things!
Mr Robertson said that despite the two-week parliamentary hiatus, Ms Collins was not out of the woods.
“I think there’s still a significant amount more information that could come out about the visit. And I think given the various stories that she’s told and changes of story that we’ve had and the way information’s had to be dragged out, I suspect there may be very significant details about this that are still to come out.
“For instance, questions about the involvement of the ambassador in the dinner and what she might have told him about the dinner.”
Judith Collins is toast. John Key better sack her otherwise this is going to damage him big time…….
Reid, if you want to make something out of Carr’s views you should perhaps read his diary for yourself and not trust reports of reviews of what it contains. Your links, which you couldn’t even be bothered to read for yourself, make it clear that Carr was sceptical about the pro-Israel lobby’s influence on foreign poilicy, but this is not to the extent portrayed by the hysterical headlines at dubious sites like Occidental Observer and Truthseeker. Continuing to link to such sites just reinforces the overall perception of you as an anti-semite.
Judith Collins is toast. John Key better sack her otherwise this is going to damage him big time…….
It’s never been a real issue but it’s been the only issue the nasty party’s managed to get any traction on and this is only because their tame fifth columnists in the media just kept chipping away at it until it’s reached the point where the public horses have been startled by the non-story simply because the rumblings have gone on for so long.
If Collins goes it won’t be because she’s made a mistake but because her boss is a poll-driven fruitcake and because the nasty party and its media acolytes have absolutely no sense of integrity or ethics. Fair enough to destroy a political career when there is substance in the allegations, but just plain nasty to do it when there isn’t.
Your links, which you couldn’t even be bothered to read for yourself, make it clear that Carr was sceptical about the pro-Israel lobby’s influence on foreign poilicy, but this is not to the extent portrayed by the hysterical headlines at dubious sites like Occidental Observer and Truthseeker.
So the quote above from the Guardian mm. What does that say?
Your quote from the Guardian does not really make your case, Reid. From your first link (the one you couldn’t be bothered to read for yourself) it turns out that Australia abstained from a UN resolution about the status of Palestine. This stance was opposed by the pro-Israel lobby in Australia, so it hardly illustrates that claim that the Jews are in charge of Australian foreign policy. Simple enough for you to grasp?
Quote – “”A new law will come into effect in Sweden after Christmas 2014, that will allow people to be prosecuted for criticizing immigration or politician’s unwillingness to tackle the issue.
The Constitutional Committee’s report has been voted for in parliament, seen in a letter from the Parliamentary Offices. Member of Parliament Andrew Norlén, member of the Constitutional Committee, has been pushing the issue and he says it will rapidly become a deterrent.
“I do not think it takes very many prosecutions before a signal is transmitted in the community that the internet is not a lawless country, the sheriff is back in town” Norlén said during a one-sided ‘debate’ on the issue in Swedish parliament.”
So – soon immigration will be forbidden to be discussed there. What will be next?
That is where “political correctness” and left-wing government ends up. *Totalitarianism*.
I don’t usually use hyperbolic language but it would be entirely accurate to say that the article was totally destroyed by the Powerline blog within hours. They pointed out that the entire article relied on “a newly-issued two-page report by the far-left International Forum on Globalisation” that Mufson and Eilperin apparently never fact-checked. In fact they apparently never actually read it because even that article stated that the Koch Brothers economic interest would be damaged by the XL pipeline. The destruction on the facts was so great that the two WaPo reporters had no comeback at all beyond this:
The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.
Which in turn led to this very delicious observation:
By this logic any unfair attack posing as reporting is worthwhile when people try to correct the record. Why not just have at it and accuse the Kochs of killing JFK or hiding the Malaysian airplane? The resulting criticism would once again provide “strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.”
Which is bad enough. But it’s actually even worse than that.
Who is Post reporter Juliet Eilperin? Among other things, she is married to Andrew Light, who writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress is an Obama administration front group headed by John Podesta, who is a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. CAP’s web site, Think Progress, has carried out a years-long vendetta against the Koch brothers that has focused largely on the environment. Ms. Eilperin’s conflict in writing about environmental issues has already been a subject of controversy at the Post.
Yeah, but rightwards should not get their daks in a bunch over such slight things.
Conspiracy? What? Where? A conspiracy is where a small group of people try to secretly manipulate things, whereas this is more like echo-chamber group think – rather like these comments:
leftyliberal at 9:22am: Agreed that it’s badly photoshopped, but surely it’s to make the image look more symmetric rather than to attempt to put more books behind the couple? After all, if it’s doing the latter it’s only contributing to less than 10% of the books there.
I’d argue (poor) photoshopping for aesthetic reasons, not to support any ‘narrative’.
Dean Papa at 11:28am: I don’t think there would have been a conspiracy to make lefties seem more well read than rightards. More likely the Washingtonian Mom editors just didn’t like the lack of symmetry in the original photo. Very clumsy photoshopping mind you.
Continuing to link to such sites just reinforces the overall perception of you as an anti-semite.
No I think the anti-semite perception comes mostly from the conflation of Zionism with Israeli patriotism and the conflation of the holocaust with Jews and the conflation of Jews with Israel and the conflation of the current population of Israel with the tribe of Judah from the Bible.
The minute anyone alleges any of those conflations are in fact conflations and not connections, it triggers an instant Pavlovian emotional response much more powerful than the use of the words “conspiwacy theowist” because of the searing emotion involved in the third conflation, that of Jews with the holocaust.
For example I bet you right now you just thought that my last sentence said I think no Jews were killed in the holocaust, but I didn’t. I said Jews have become conflated with the holocaust. And what I mean by that is firstly there have been many holocausts in history for example the Armenian holocaust and secondly, Jews weren’t the only ones targeted and killed in the WWII holocaust. That’s what I meant, but I bet that’s not what you said to yourself when you read the last sentence of the previous paragraph, was it.
And the fact that you not only thought that when you read that last sentence of the previous paragraph but you also felt emotion when you read it, is what I mean by the Pavlovian reaction that’s been subconsciously implanted over the decades in all western people by propaganda in our education and in our media and in our entertainment and in our politics.
So that’s where the anti-Semitism comes from, in my view. It’s false in my case BTW, I of course love and support all the Jews from the tribe of Judah in every way just as a Christian should. And as I’ve said, the reason I stick my head above the parapet on this is precisely because those Jews are under threat from the people who currently rule Israel, not to mention all the Christians around the world, because the people who rule Israel hate Christians. I feel sorry not only for real Jews in Israel but also for those in Israel who say they are Jews but are not, many of whom collectively believe their country really is under threat from Arabs and who support their govt in their actions because they’re just being useful idiots.
I have less sympathy for Christians in the west who feel the same way about it because it should be quite obvious to anyone looking from the outside in how detrimentally the Israeli govt behaves toward the best interests of its own people by deliberately provoking time and time and time again the very wrath they proclaim to defend against. It’s less easy to see that when you’re in the middle but when you’re not, their actions, repeated as they are time and time and time again over and over so it cannot be put down to simple one-off mistakes, should be writ large to anyone with a 3-digit IQ. But again, that’s when those conflations come to the fore and the underlying emotion prevents some to most western people, from seeing what is quite obvious to a minority of us. But then again, the Bible predicted all of this and Revelations could hardly happen if all the world were awake to Satan’s evil machinations, so I’m not surprised, just disappointed, that even with all the information resources available, most people don’t even bother clicking them.
Simple enough for you to grasp?
mm I wasn’t making the case for the extent of the Zionist involvement in Aussie politics, for that would take tens of thousands of words. I was simply saying their Foreign Minister, who would know if anyone would, was daring to allege it was undue so go read the book if you want to know more. Is that simple enough for you to grasp? Sorry if you got all confused by hallucinating that I could or even was attempting to sum up that vast subject in less than a hundred words, I guess I vastly overestimated your perspicacity.
The claims pretty obviously an opinion piece calculated to sell Carr’s tome. The claim, of course , will instantly appeal to the international Jewish Conspiracy to control the world tin foil hat brigade.
On Truthsekers expect to find this kind of garbage ,
“Justice Minister Judith Collins has recovered her memory after telling Parliament she could not recall whether she had briefed New Zealand’s ambassador to Beijing about her Oravida dinner.
In Parliament’s last session before a two-week recess, she again refused to identify the official she dined with, said she did not know of Oravida’s difficulties in the Chinese market before the dinner, and said she could not remember whether she had briefed ambassador to Beijing Carl Worker about the dinner.
She told the Weekend Herald she didn’t believe she had spoken about the dinner to Mr Worker beyond an initial discussion beforehand when he said he would not attend.
But on Thursday evening, she said she had checked her notes and believed she had spoken to the ambassador about the dinner the following day and told him “nothing had occurred that was untoward and it was just a very private friendly dinner that was short”.
She said Mr Worker had asked her on the day of the dinner to just let him know if there was anything that he needed to know about.
Who ‘takes notes’ at a private dinner with friends?
In what capacity did Minister of Justice Judith Collins speak “.. to the ambassador about the dinner the following day and told him “nothing had occurred that was untoward and it was just a very private friendly dinner that was short”.
Did Minister of Justice Judith Collins speak to Carl Worker in his capacity as NZ Ambassador to China?
If so – then this can NOT have been a ‘private dinner’ for which Judith Collins had no Ministerial responsibility.
Who invited Carl Worker, (who just happens to be the NZ Ambassador to China) to this dinner?
WHY did Carl Worker, (who just happens to be the NZ Ambassador to China) decline to attend to this dinner?
Is there some sort of parallel universe happening here – where it just so happens that these very important and influential people – are also close personal friends, so there is no clear line of demarcation between private lives and public duties?
Is that why, in my considered opinion, Minister of Justice Judith Collins HAS CROSSED THE LINE and is indeed no longer ‘fit for duty’?
What a DISGRACE.
National’s Minister of Justice Judith Collins is treating both Parliament and the public with total contempt.
But I can understand Prime Minister John Key’s reluctance to sack her from Parliament.
Do the maths.
National is a MINORITY government with only 59 MPs out of 121.
Judith Collins is an electorate MP.
(As are Peter Dunne and John Banks).
Oh dear …… whatever could happen next to this (in my considered opinion) COALITION OF THE CORRUPT?
No wonder while on Minister of Justice Judith Collins’ watch – New Zealand STILL has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption.
Just to twist the knife a little further into the WaPo – and into people who claim that there’s nothing to see here with regard to left-wing dominance in the MSM – were these observations:
Why would the Washington Post embarrass itself by republishing a thoroughly discredited attempt to link the Koch brothers to the Keystone Pipeline? Because that is a Democratic Party talking point, and the Post is a Democratic Party newspaper.
Think that’s over the top? The Powerline guys contrast the treatment meted out to the Koch Brothers over the XL pipeline and the way this exactly matches the Democrat Party attacks, with the way they treat other potential “stories”
The Keystone Pipeline is by no means the only energy-related controversy these days. “Green” energy is also highly controversial.
“Green” energy is also controversial because it has been used to enrich government cronies. Let’s take, for instance, the billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer has made much of his fortune by using his government connections to secure support for uneconomic “green” energy projects that have profited him, to the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is explained here, Tom Steyer is a bitter opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. His financial interests, in “green” energy and perhaps also in pre-pipeline oil sources like BP, stand to benefit if Keystone is killed.
Tom Styer? Who? Is he rich?
Haven’t heard much about Tom Steyer, you say? Maybe that’s because he isn’t heavily involved in politics.
Heh–just kidding. Steyer, as you probably know, is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. This year, he has pledged to contribute $100 million to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, as long as they toe the line on environmental issues–which includes, presumably, taxpayer support for “green” energy and opposition to Keystone.
In fact he’s a billionaire who’s up to his armpits in the XL pipeline fight – to a far greater degree than the Koch Brothers – which means that:
So the Post could have written a very different story about the Keystone Pipeline. The Post could have written that opposition to the pipeline is being funded in large part by a billionaire who has a personal financial interest in the pipeline not being built. And that’s not all! The billionaire is a political crony who has used his connections in Washington to get rich and to fleece consumers and taxpayers. Now, with Keystone, he is doing it again!
How is that for a story that would “stir and inflame public debate in this election year”?
It sounds like a great story for the WaPo to cover. Maybe they can put Mufson and Eilperin on the story. It would not be a puff piece would it?
John Podesta, who chairs the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, said Steyer has “got the right skill set, the understanding and attitude to lead an energy transformation in this country.”
“I think he would be a fabulous choice for energy secretary,” Podesta added, “and I’ve let my friends in the administration know that.”
Muhahahahahahaha. The rest of the report by Eilperin is just as breathless about Mr Steyer. John Hinderaker makes the contrast clear
… the Washington Post published a false story about support for Keystone because it fit the Democratic Party’s agenda. It covered up a similar, but true story about opposition to the pipeline (and about “green” politics in general) because that, too, fit the Democratic Party’s agenda. I don’t think we need to look any further to connect the dots.
And makes this observation that this sort of shit happens in the Washington Post because of all the connections
Oh, yes–one more thing. Guess who sits on the board of the Center for American Progress? Yup. Tom Steyer.
This kind of incest is common in Washington. You can’t separate the reporters from the activists from the Obama administration officials from the billionaire cronies. Often, as in this instance, the same people wear two or more of those hats simultaneously. However bad you think the corruption and cronyism in Washington are, they are worse than you imagine.
And if you think the Washington Post is part of a free and independent press, think again.
Who would have need of a conspiracy in this world? And if there was one, they’d be better off plying the Washingtonian Mom.
tom hunter (4,002 comments) says:
April 19th, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Just to twist the knife a little further into the WaPo – and into people who claim that there’s nothing to see here with regard to left-wing dominance in the MSM – were these observations:
I certainly did not make any claim for or against any bias in the WaPo
It is just that there is no need to make shit up. You lose credibility when you lie to make a point.
Penelope Bright – WHY did Carl Worker, (who just happens to be the NZ Ambassador to China) decline to attend to this dinner?
Because it was a private dinner, and Judith Collins later confirmed that and told him nothing transpired that he need know about.
Simple private dinner.
Winston [Key is spying on me - Oops, no, I forgot I blabbed to Rachel Glucina] Peters I can understand, and also that little fat guy [Elf's not here] who unlike Shane with Countdown, has nothing else to do. But Penny – no local corruption since Len is staying on, so you just jump on any band-waggon before withdrawal sets in?
It is just that there is no need to make shit up. You lose credibility when you lie to make a point.
I can think of times when I’ve got something wrong while commenting here – but I don’t actually lie in that I claim something is true when I know that it’s wrong.
In this case it was a simple mis-reading of the word Washington…. and I should have been more careful.
Having said that, I’ll stand by my claim that there’s only a tissue-paper worth of separation between the two media outlets when it comes to fawning over Democrats and left-wingers in general, whether the piece is officially “puff” or “serious analysis”.
New Zealand’s economic boom is about to pop with dramatic results, the US business magazine Forbes reports today.
In a study by economic analyst Jesse Colombo – who specialises in writing on economic bubbles – the magazine gives 12 reasons why New Zealand is facing an economic disaster and “heading for a crisis”.
Colombo says the economic bubble will pop here as a result of rising interest rates, which will put pressure on the country’s property and credit bubbles.
He says key interest rate rises are expected to continue while longer-term bond yields will also go up.
“The popping of Australia and China’s bubbles are two other external factors that have a high probability of contributing to the popping of New Zealand’s bubble,” Forbes reports.
It says when the bubble truly pops the property bubble will also pop, banks will experience losses on their mortgage portfolios, “the country’s credit boom will turn into a bust” and over-leveraged consumers will default on their debts.
The US has the CIA, FBI, TSA, ATF, IRS, Federal Reserve, criminal banks and bankers indicted in the past and jailed and presently by the New York state prosecutor, unelected beureaucrats in the EU running Europe, the UN in New York, Wall st affecting the finances of the whole world with a rigged market along with the City of London which has been exposed for the Libor scandal and all this is only the tip of the whole corrupt ice berg but this site will tell me there’s no collusion or conspiracy.
Dime was so right when he said he couldn’t change my mind. What an understatement.
Commonwealth Games, NZ triathlon athletes: You’ve got to laugh…. some of them didn’t make the qualifying standard for Glasgow. That’s ok… we’ll just play our ‘discretion’ card and send them anyway.
Also known as the time honoured ‘as long as they’ve got a tiny smidge more than a snowball’s chance in hell outside shot then they’re going’ theory.
It’ll pay off eventually. Say…in the highly unlikely event that everyone else gets food poisoning except the Kiwis. But that’s going to happen one day – and when they medal 1-2-3 while the rest of the field are puking their rings out – it’s going to be worth it. Like rolling ten sixes in a row – it could happen.
@wikiriwhis business – “New Zealand’s economic boom is about to pop with dramatic results, the US business magazine Forbes reports today.”
Bullshit. Rising interest rates alone “do not an economy make.” In any case, they’re not rising particularly fast.
Welfare numbers are steadily heading down (and there’s no sign of any change in that). Exports are rocketing along. Business confidence is soaring.
Those things are REAL unlike the tealeaf reading of your friend at Forbes.
I guess grasping at straws is all that remains for left-wingers, given the uselessness of Labour and the Greens.
Well Thor when you can tell me you understand what Mt Cox is about or any one else on this finacially illiterate site I can accept your analysis with some creedance
Mt Gox founder won’t appear in US for questions
Mt Gox, once the world’s biggest bitcoin exchange, filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan last month, saying it may have lost nearly half a billion dollars worth of the virtual coins due to hacking into its computer system
SANZAR has sapped some of the Anzac spirit out of the April 25 grand final rematch between the Brumbies and New Zealand’s Chiefs, denying a request from the Brumbies for the national anthems of Australia and New Zealand to be played prior to kick-off.
If Dotcom and Mana do form an umbrella party, or one become a component party of the other, apparently the Electorate Vote side of the voting paper will most likely just carry, among other candidates, the name “Harawira, Hone” and opposite that his party be shown as “Mana” without any indication that a successful vote for him can qualify the election of Dotcom members off a “united party list”.
Will that be transparent and not-corrupt?
And if ‘shonkeyjohnkeyisn’tgone” will you petition the result well into 2015?
And will that be transparent and not-corrupt?
With Penny not so not paying her rates because she thinks there is corruption in ACC, it makes you wonder whether she thinks there is corruption in her power provider and why they are’nt held accountable.
I dare say if she tried the same embarrassing stunt with her provider….guess what….they would cut her fucking power off !~
Until you or your BFF Bright provide proof that she does not use any council services covered by rates, which she has stated she is not paying, then I’m happy to conclude that she is using something she is not entitled to. It’s just not likely that she has voluntarily cut off all services she refuses to pay for. Crook is one word that some may choose to use.
re: ‘The Green and Labour parties yesterday joined the chorus calling for businesses to respect Easter trading laws’.
Considering that the greens and labour either worship gaia (gween) or, as adherents to Marxian theory, don’t believe in the existence of God (labour) much less His son, Jesus Christ (the reason that Easter is celebrated BTW), this does seem just a little hypocritical methinks….
This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the third and final section of its massive new climate report. It contains 60 chapters and, by the time the dust settles and the concluding summary is made public in October, will total nearly 7,000 pages.A great deal of time and effort went into the preparation of this report. Years of intellectual and financial resources were consumed by it. So what has the world gained?Is this a credible scientific document? Are its findings trustworthy? Below are three reasons the new IPCC report deserves to be taken with a grain of salt:
1. When the IPCC convicted humanity of triggering dangerous climate change, it acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury.The IPCC is a United Nations body. In the words of its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s “main customer” is a UN climate treaty. The politicians who signed that treaty back in 1992 had already decided human activity was harming the climate. The treaty was supposed to keep us safe by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we emit.
Like the dumb cop in a detective story, the IPCC has always suffered from tunnel vision. It never gave serious consideration to other possible explanations of what was going on with the climate. When your job is to legitimize a UN treaty, you amass evidence that implicates human greenhouse gases, you declare this evidence persuasive, and you insist that bad things will happen if the treaty isn’t strengthened and extended.
2. Scientists are only human. Their judgment can be tainted by environmental activism, and they can be unconsciously seduced by the notion that they’re superheroes saving the planet.The IPCC has a long history of recruiting personnel with close links to activist organizations such as Greenpeace and the WWF. Despite an embarrassing scandal involving an incorrect WWF document and the melting of Himalayan glaciers last time around, this new IPCC report also treats WWF-produced literature as reliable evidence.When it released part two of its report at a meeting in Japan last month, the IPCC produced a blatantly activist brochure that talks about delivering “Hope for our Earth,” and of “Saving the planet for future generations.”When scientists join bandwagons rather than remaining scrupulously objective, they undermine their own credibility.
3. It is both fair and appropriate to judge an organization by it leader. The IPCC has been led, for the past 12 years, by a man who does not inspire confidence.For decades, Rajendra Pachauri incorrectly claimed he’d earned two PhDs. Only in the past year, and only due to persistent inquires on the part of Australian journalist Tony Thomas, was his CV fixed.When the IPCC – as an organization – was awarded half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Pachauri sent an e-mail to thousands of IPCC affiliated scientists mistakenly telling them “this makes each of you Nobel Laureates.” The IPCC later issued a formal statement admitting that it is improper for any IPCC-linked individuals to be described in this manner.
Pachauri has repeatedly made statements about the qualifications of IPCC personnel and about the material on which the IPCC relies that have been shown to wrong.Taken together, the picture that emerges is of a man prone to exaggeration and careless with the truth. No organization with such an individual at its helm should be surprised when its conclusions are greeted with skepticism.
Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise is the author of two books about the IPCC. She blogs at NoFrakkingConsensus.com
To the retard @ 8.45 am
Old news, you are just a bore, the ramblings of a corrupt incompetent fraud i.e. Guest (and yourself) have nothing to do with the defamation case which is now over. Some people will never learn, and will be wishing that they kept their big mouth shut long before they got themselves into their current bankrupted situation. Isn’t it ironic that Kent was willing to put everything he had on the line to try and influence an outcome that he had no say or control over. Sad that his cult who promised him money have abandoned ship, shows what utter scumbags they really are. Why someone would invest so much in trying to ‘prove’ the train wreck of the crown case and protect the image of a murdering kiddy fiddler, that they never knew is beyond me! but hey thats JFRB for you!
Until you or your BFF Bright provide proof that she does not use any council services covered by rates, which she has stated she is not paying, then I’m happy to conclude that she is using something she is not entitled to.
Sidey, you are free to conclude anything you like. The burden of proof belongs to Manolo, since he made the accusation.
Lots of people are not ratepayers. It doesn’t make them corrupt or crooks.
It doesn’t make them correct either UT. While I admire Penny for making a stand on principle as she explained yesterday, this doesn’t IMO justify abrogating your collective responsibility in this case. If the ACC were manufacturing arms or doing other evil with ratepayer money, that would be different. But they’re not. Well, apart from paying Len his salary they’re not.
Sure, she has a principled point based on what she explained last night as to transparency in the public monies. But that point can be made in ways other than what she’s doing since she is causing others harm by not bearing her share of the load whilst making said point. She may argue it’s a big faceless corporation so what harm is accruing, but that’s not the point since whatever one does in points of principle should be replicable by others and if everyone did what she’s doing then the city would grind to a halt. And like I said, if the purpose is to stop it from doing evil then fine, but her point is not that purpose it’s merely to make ACC comply with public transparency. Still a valid point, but comparatively minor.
Penny’s problem is that she’s dealing with a monopoly.
Unlike a free market, where consumers are sovereign and can switch to the producers and suppliers of their choice, with a monopoly you are totally screwed.
This is why the state should be as small as practicable, so that this situation arises as little as possible.
Hence hospitals and schools etc should all be private enterprises.
On the other hand, since Penny is a statist thug who campaigns for ever more such monopoly control our lives, fuck her. Hoist with her own petard. You love the thuggish state so much, you bloody well pay for it love.
The default state of no obligation means that they are correct, at least until a real obligation is shown to exist. It’s the same idea as the presumption of innocence, expect except that it applies to obligations rather than to culpability.
While I admire Penny for making a stand on principle as she explained yesterday, this doesn’t IMO justify abrogating your collective responsibility in this case.
I agree that it shows character to make a stand, but I don’t think Penny has a sound strategy for realizing her goal of transparency.
My criticism of Penny’s strategy could be applied to anyone who holds to the statist philosophy that the public owe an obligation to the state which is properly remedied by obedience to the state (or their agents in council). This philosophy is an expression of humanism, and is closely related to the corruption of the secular state.
Bright must the only person on the planet who didn’t realise that rates would be payable, and what they related to. When I bought my house I did so knowing that rates would be payable and what they covered.
Silly me, I should have just defaulted on my legal obligations while continuing to avail myself of the services paid for by other ratepayers. Then I could be champion of the downtrodden.
That sounds as dubious as Shawn calling me a neo-Nazi Manolo. I think some of you guys need to get it through your thick skulls that just because UT and I don’t toe the same line as the rest of you western morons this doesn’t mean we’re traitors, it may mean we know more than you, not because we’re more intelligent but because we’re more open minded and we’ve bothered to do the research.
Not that I think for a second that such a thought would penetrate your thick skulls, for obvious reasons.