If you read The Paepae much you’ll know I’m often struck by humorous or ironic juxtapositions.
This, from the latest Auckland Today giveaway, popped out at me. Just the headlines: ‘The personality profiles of top salespeople’ and David Shearer’s column ‘Addressing the price of power’.
I don’t know Mr Shearer. I talked with him briefly at Paul Holmes’ funeral at the cathedral in Parnell. I’ve called the job of Leader of the Opposition one of the hardest, most thankless tasks a person could undertake, based on my observations over the years at Parliament and covering various party conferences.
For Shearer, faced with a popular PM who possesses, without a doubt, the ‘personality profile’ of a top salesman, and a nervous Party and caucus (almost terminally so*) the temptation to listen to the (mostly) well-meaning advice to try to re-package his own ‘personality profile’ must be intense.
But, you know, from the little I know of David Shearer — and really, more from what I know of myself as a fellow human being — that seems to me to be too high a ‘price’ to pay for power.
I prefer authenticity.
I can say this from the sidelines (and I admit such talk is cheap).
– P
* If one believes the scuttlebutt. And even if one doesn’t, most of the time Opposition is a nervous place to ‘be’.
Authenticity is such an interesting word. Its all relative dont you think … “one mans authenticity is another mans dissimulation” or maybe “todays post may not be tomorrows and indeed … one may opt to edit and change yesterdays post and even delete previous references …”
Now … thats genuinely authentic.
Not sure, but I guess you’re referring to some ‘snips’ here in the interests of tone and hygiene Ivan? Is that it?
Look, my friend, judge me (with goodwill, please) as harshly as you like. I welcome it. I’m not a saint, nor perfect.
As I said here in Slave to ‘consistency’ …
http://www.thepaepae.com/slave-to-consistency/1854/
I remain as unqualified and unskilled as an ‘online community organiser’ as ever.
I am feeling my way, stumbling and blundering, but honestly doing my best. Sometimes there’s stuff happening in the background that I don’t discuss here, although it may affect things here.
Of course I reserve to right to tweak and correct my own misstatements, if that’s how they seem to me, and to reject submissions that seem to me to be of low-value. (It doesn’t seem to me that’s happening a lot, though.)
– P
Nope – personally … I think you’ve changed your approach and im interested to see it first hand.
If you “misspoke” at any point then good for you for correcting that.
You are the arbiter of both quality and truth in what is your forum … and what actually happens or is (or was ever) ‘said’ at any point. You are creating your reality and i quite respect that clearly established fact.
This has been a most interesting exchange of views (i use the term loosely) .. and i appreciate the illuminatory nature of it … greatly …
Cheers, Ivan. I hope you know I appreciate your contribution.
If there’s been a change in approach here, as you perceive there has, I would say it is connected to the court judgements about internet discussion and criticism recorded and discussed here in June this year — and also a real sense that sometimes an inflamed ‘conversation’ can lead to unintended consequences.
The illustration of what can happen when stroppy, ill-advised or (let’s face it) sometimes nasty online comments do *cut* people is instructive.
Has the traditionally (cough) open discussion here at The Paepae been chilled by those events? Maybe. Not too much, I don’t think.
I’m always very happy to talk about specific concerns privately, if you prefer. ‘Door is always open’ etc etc.
It is inescapable, Ivan (you and I have proved it, too) that sometimes written communication creaks and snaps under the strain of its limited ability to convey ‘tone’ or posture. It is easy to misunderstand each other, and to be reactive to an interpretation — how we ‘read’ another’s comments. I’ve done it. I’ll do it again, I’m sure.
Until I get exasperated (it happens) I *always* try to approach a conversation with goodwill.
A troll is a troll is a troll, of course, and someone with far more blogging experience than me recently (and kindly) advised me how to handle them. I don’t put you in that category, Ivan. Not at all.
– P
Cool mate … i’ve been burning the candle at both ends at present for some weeks …. so i suspect my perceptions in this blogging environment are most untrustworthy.
I’m pleased you dont see me as a “troll”. I’ve only recently got my head around that term and its application.
I am actually remarkably (in my view) sincere in my views.
I could definitely see that this court case had rattled your cage and your sensitivities quite a bit … and i definitely understood why. I just cant see why people cant simply communicate on a face to face level at some stage before lawyers start to become involved. Lawyer-speak immediately (whether written or vocalised) makes me feel rather depressed and ill at ease … because it has nothing to do with truth – but merely how to use the law for advantage for one party or another. Example … in the good old days the local copper would deal with recalcitrant youth with a swift cuff over the ear and a nice ride home to mum and dad in a signwritten car. Now its all punitive and court system based. I employed youngsters time after time who all seemed to have an average of $5,000 – $14,000 in fines. They became so inured to it … much like a beaten wife or child … that it became the new ‘normal’. Most were from lower socio economic areas but many were middle class family progeny … not rich … but not poor either.
Once you go to law in any way shape or form … or indeed sign into any system of any sort involving a bureaucratic ‘clockwork’ mechanism … its so tragic that it then unleashes so much damage and destruction.
Anyway … quite enough meaningless rambling from me .. I readily admit i dont understand some of your views or your posts … and i certainly have difficulty understanding some of the contributors posts either – which concerns me.
I think i’m looking for a simpler meaning to life. Our so called “free democratic society” seems to now be filled to bursting with clusters of “little tyrannies…” many of them rooted in punitive legislation on our freedoms of action and intent.
Funny, Ivan, I was working with an author in Coromandel Township a few years ago and stayed a few nights. While I was there, I got talking – as you do – with some local business people who were still scandalised by a recent event … a local youth had apparently robbed some tourists in the shopping precinct. (At knifepoint, if I recall.)
Where the story got interesting (or relevant to your comments Ivan) was that the local policeman instead of prosecuting the youth through the Court system for, say, aggravated robbery, had taken the youth aside and applied a bit of old-fashioned policing.
How it was explained to me was that the youth faced a time commitment (work) every weekend for a time under police direction doing such edifying tasks as washing the police 4WDs …
The people I spoke to in the town thought that was a good solution. So did I.
—
On your other point, yes, legal ‘pressure’ does tend to galvanise or crystallise disputes — and not often in a good way.
Sometimes, however, one can feel there is little choice. The ‘turn the other profile ‘ option seems less tenable. Certainly the case we’re discussing got to that point. And not quickly.
I was one of a group of litigants in a copyright dispute a few years back, against someone I saw as a pugnacious bully-boy .
Looking back, I can see how his publishing false and misleading statements about our claim of copyright infringement, in defiance of dead-obvious facts, then saying, effectively: “If they’ve got such a good case, why haven’t they filed proceedings?” was a trigger in our decision to do exactly that.
– P