Enough with politics! Contention can become addictive.
Here’s Diana Krall, looking every bit as good as the right-wing vixens I referred to earlier … but sounding way better.
David Farrar showing WhaleOil how it’s done
Bloggers* David Farrar and Scott Yorke gave a master class in fair and reasonable political discourse and commentary on Jim Mora’s Afternoons show on Radio NZ National yesterday, which I listened to using the Radio NZ iPhone App late last night.
Radio NZ's iPhone App lets you time-shift and listen again to content you're interested in (click for details)
In the context of my conversation with Cameron Slater (via our blogs) — where we discussed my suggestion that Cam would perhaps be taken more seriously and find more mainstream media opportunities if he dialed back his personal abuse and rabidly-expressed partisanship — I found David and Scott’s reasonably-expressed views of the Rugby World Cup transport and crowd management balls-up refreshing.
Cameron’s on-going, near continuous campaign of irrational personlized denigration of left-wing figures including Auckland Mayor Len Brown (e.g. “Apart from Len Brown’s appalling delivery of transport solutions everything else went off like clockwork. However it wasn’t just Len Brown that was a disgrace last night.” … etc) may well be what his largely anonymous WhaleOil ‘army’ expects of him.
But listen to how Cam’s fellow right-winger (and Svengali?) David Farrar offers a far more measured, insightful and palatable analysis, even though he’s in discussion with a ‘left-winger’, Scott Yorke …
Listen to a 3 minute extract here:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
or link to MP3 file for non-Flash browsers (like moi)
Or the full first session of the panel discussion at Radio NZ’s site. (MP3)
You’ll probably guess that I’m in agreement with David Farrar’s views as expressed in that clip (why echo it otherwise, huh?) But my point is not so much about Len Brown-Murray McCully, the transport ‘fiasco’ and blame-shifting … but more about the manner and tone Farrar uses to put his point of view. Vitriol free. Good on him.
Perhaps Cameron Slater might describe this approach as ‘limp-wristed’ or ‘gay‘, etc, but the way I see it, a reasoned, fair-minded discussion is easier to listen to, and more effective communication than tone-deaf, one-speed-only, reflexive attack blogging. Being ‘fair’ builds a reputation for credibility … and is far more likely to open mainstream media doors. (Which was my point in the footnote here.)
Your thoughts?
– P
* David Farrar’s blog: Kiwiblog Scott Yorke’s blog: ImperatorFish
Feedback from Cameron Slater: ‘gay’
Oops.
boxingscene.com
I mentioned blogger Cameron Slater peripherally in my post yesterday about what I see as the dubious anti-MMP marketing operation (for which he is clearly acting as a conduit and echo chamber).
I don’t think Cam liked my comparing his blog to a free-flowing bowel or characterising his republishing the anti-MMP slanted attack ads as ‘moist ordure’ being expressed through his ‘partisan cyberspace sphincter.’
At least I think that’s what I should read into his comments today:
There are some out there who think that as a blogger I should be fair and reasonable, a journalist in fact. That is gay. I am not fair, I may be reasonable (some of the time) but I will always be partisan. And so writing limp-wristed panty-waist, whinging blog posts filled with faux shock that I take a particular line and run it hard is frankly gay too. I am partisan and I’m proud of it. …
One could certainly read my comments about his partisanship as criticism, even disparagement, but ‘faux shock’? Neh. I don’t get that. He’s not that novel.
It may seem strange, but I actually think Cam deserves a bigger audience. (Not as a journalist though, of course not.) I for one appreciate the flashes of insider knowledge and the historical & political perspective he shares at times. He’s ‘connected’ to the National Party and politics is in his blood. That can be valuable. He’s also sufficiently thick-skinned that he can be an asset in a debate … when he can be arsed to marshal an argument. And, as I’ve said before, good on him for engaging.
If Cam ever asked me for advice on how to achieve more recognition or ‘cut through’ with the mainstream media, I would tell him just what I said in the post.
- Drop the reflexive ad hominem attacks and (colourful, I grant you) vitriolic spray at those you perceive as not on your team, and perhaps you might be taken more seriously.
- It’s not about ‘pretending’ to be non-partisan. It’s about tolerating another point of view than your own as potentially vaild, giving evidence for your criticisms, and being seen to do so.
- It’s about being truthful (‘Pansy Wong cleared’? Not really), not always trying to smear or demonise others, or seeking to use everything you see as a cudgel to bash your ‘opponents’.
Or, instead, stick with what you’re doing, if you’re satisfied with those results.
– P
Claims of ‘Integrity’ in the anti-MMP Campaign accompanied by smear tactics
Are smear tactics compatible with claims of ‘integrity’?
I don’t think so. Especially if you piously declare you’re ‘above’ smear tactics and won’t use them … before you do.
In context of an earlier discussion about allegations of ‘secret funding’ (Tribalism), I found myself again considering the lobby group Vote For Change Campaign, dedicated to ridding NZ of MMP. This group of zealots last caught my attention when a former white supremacist and [allegedly] National Party electorate executive member by the name of Alex Fogerty was unmasked as one of their foundation members. That sparked wild ejaculations from left-wing whirling dervish Martyn oh-pleeeeease-why-won’t-somebody-give-me-a-mainstream-media-gig Bradbury… but Martyn had a point. That was a factoid worth knowing, and led to Mr Fogerty’s Vote For Change membership, um, ending …
‘The allegations of Mr Fogerty’s previous membership of a white supremacist group appear to be true and he will be asked to resign his membership immediately, or have his membership revoked if he chooses not to resign.’ — Jordan Williams/VFC media release (published 3 July 2011 and since removed from Facebook.)
Bob Harvey also resigned in disgust.
Perhaps my sense of smell is oversensitive, but it appears to me that this anti-Proportional Representation group seeking the burial at sea of NZ’s MMP electoral system is using some shadowy The Hollow Men-style tactics. (See ‘misinformation experts‘).
For instance, their virtuous-sounding Pledges to New Zealand to ‘Play the ball not the man’ with ‘No negative campaigning’ and promising ‘Integrity in the Campaign’ appear, upon cursory examination, to be an hilariously transparent example of the sociopathic ‘If I say it’s true it must be true’ delusion. That, or the door-to-door huckster’s affirmation of faith: ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time.’
Demonising MPs after specifically ‘pledging’ NOT to? Looks like an ‘Integrity’ FAIL for the Vote For Change spin doctors.
For each of those noble ‘pledge’ sentiments has already been broken, to my way of thinking.
Slanted attack ads
A series of YouTube videos produced published by the VFC spin doctors demonizes list MPs — implying Parliamentary debating chamber ‘bad behaviour’ is somehow unique to MMP, or even, gasp, caused by it. Some of their propaganda also, surprise, surprise, targets the local right-wing blogosphere’s favourite whipping boy Labour MP Trevor Mallard. (Or is Mallard their nemesis? See Trevor Mallard demolishes Cameron Slater.)
The series of ‘MPs behaving badly’ ads is produced under the Vote For Change banner — then pumped through the free-flowing online alimentary canal of right-wing proxy/attack dog Cameron Slater’s blog and tweetstream.
Cameron is against Proportional Representation, it seems, repeatedly castigating list MPs as ‘scum‘, for example, and declaring MMP ‘bad for National‘ pointing to what he sees as a paucity of future coalition partners for National. Enough said. Cameron also told me he’s not being paid by the anti-MMP brigade … except for an advertising spot on his blog. I take WhaleOil at his word.
Nevertheless, I’ve observed and commented before about Cameron’s active advocacy for the National Party and the anti-MMP cause — regularly squeezing the moist ordure of these slanted attack ads along with other insults and half-truths* through his partisan cyberspace sphincter.
Plausible deniability
Of course, the neat thing for the VFC campaign is that Cameron Slater isn’t openly one of them (although he seems more active than ‘frontchild’ Jordan Williams so far) … and since he says he’s not on their payroll, perhaps the magnaimous VFC ‘pledges’ (‘Play the ball not the man’ with ‘No negative campaigning’) don’t apply to his efforts on their behalf?
(Credit: Jordan Williams as ‘frontchild’™ & © Cactus Kate.)
But even so, the VFC campaign’s official approach, producing and distributing these denigrate-o-gram video ads seems to me to fly in the face of their ‘pledge’ (cough) to value integrity …
Integrity in the Campaign
Under MMP [Comment: see note below] politics and politicians’ reputations have been damaged by their bad behaviour. We do not want to add to the damage by demonising our opponents or getting into childish squabbles. Our campaign cares more about improving the public’s view of politicians and the political environment than it does about winning. We will not descend into muckraking, dirt throwing, scandal breaking or any of the other features of negative campaigning that makes voters resent politicians.
And yet it seems clear that they clearly DO descend into ‘negative campaigning’.
So, which is it, do you think? Deliberate, bare-faced bullshit? Clintonesque hair-splitting? … or near-schizophrenic levels of lack of self-awareness? You decide.
For public consumption only? Given their anti-MMP YouTube ads, are these so-called Pledges to New Zealand just cynical spin and positioning in the tradition of ‘The Hollow Men’? (click to enlarge)
No doubt there’ll be more to say about this group and its artifice — as well as its connections, public and private — in the weeks to come. (Or not? It may be that discussion/buzz about them and their tactics is part of their marketing strategy.) Personally, I find it intriguing and entertaining to watch political marketers like this using advertising’s dark arts in an attempt to spin and frame the debate on these issues.
Note: These political activists not-so-subtly claim that it’s the ‘flawed system’ of Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP) which is the root cause of all sorts of political malaise. e.g. The tripe highlighted above: ‘Under MMP politics and politicians’ reputations have been damaged by their bad behaviour’ and ‘MMP-style bad behaviour, name-calling and negativism is [sic] bad for NZ politics’.
See what they’re doing? Repetitively linking ‘bad behaviour’ with MMP. Oh, riiiiight. As if before MMP politicians were sooo much ‘better behaved’ and ‘positive’. And First-Past-the-Post elected MPs were sooo much more competent and representative. Pfft!
Hogwash. MPs have been behaving like disgraceful children in Parliament for generations. The debating chamber and the adversarial nature of Westminster democracy (denigrate the opposition rather than win the competition for ideas) often leads to a barracking boarding school environment. That’s always been the case. It has nothing to do with how the MPs are selected, despite the anti-MMP brigade’s resentment politics spin.
– P
‘Pansy Wong cleared”? No, not quite. Not cleared of abuse, just no ‘regular pattern of abuse’ detected. FAIL (click to enlarge)
* Yes, half-truths — e.g.’Pansy Wong Cleared’ was Cameron’s headline on a brief article which neatly neglected to mention the NEW confirmed case of travel perk abuse which the Auditor General’s report pinned on the disgraced Chinese National Party MP and her husband … in addition to the one the Speaker identified that saw her resign from Parliament. Instead, Cameron selectively quoted (OK, we all do that) and focussed on the shifted goalposts of ‘no regular pattern of abuse’ … before (to no-one’s surprise) squirting another burst of vitriol in Trevor Mallard’s direction.
How that looked to me: Fixated, credibility-eviscerating attack blogging from Cameron Slater on behalf of his political mates. Cam may not realize the damage he does to his own reputation — and the impact on opportunities for him to be embraced by ‘mainstream’ media — with episodes of such obvious jingoistic partisanship. He makes it easy for media decision makers and producers to dismiss him as hopelessly one-eyed, or irrational or flakey. I don’t write him off in that way. I detect he’s more complex, connected, and insightful at times … as I indicated in my post ‘In praise of Cameron Slater (yeah, I’m surprised too)‘ but I can see how others do. Bombastic barrow boy Matthew Hooton, for instance, is every bit as agenda-driven and partisan, but often dresses his right-wing spin and venom up more obliquely (well, unless he’s talking about Nicky Hager!)
I guess I’m not the target audience of either of them.
Facts are stated to the best of my knowledge and commentary is my honest opinion. Corrections or clarifications are always welcome by email. Comments are open.
– Best wishes, Peter Aranyi © 2011 All rights reserved.
The likability of ‘Teflon’ John Key
John Key preparing to emerge from the shadows. (Still from 'The Hollow Men' movie.)
I’ve only seen John Key when his ‘show face’ has been on, but even then he seemed to me to be what this interviewer, Adam Dudding, calls ‘Teflon’. It’s claimed in Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men that Key gave an assurance of support to Bill English for the National Party leadership but switched his vote from English to Don Brash the night before.
Just a short time later, relatively speaking, he was ‘the least experienced parliamentarian ever to have become New Zealand’s Prime Minister’. It looks like he’s got a winning formula.
Key is awfully friendly. He chats and burbles and smiles, and flirts with his diary-wielding assistant Danielle. Where many politicians give pointlessly Teflon-ish answers when asked about the mechanics of politics, Key answers with something resembling candour (though perhaps that’s just a superior form of Teflon).
So yes, he says, the day may eventually come when his proudly worn labels of pragmatist and non-ideological get reframed in the public eye as wishy-washy and doesn’t believe in anything.
“In the 24-7 blitzkrieg of the media, eventually they’ll tire of every politician, and I’m not unique in that regard. So the things they like about me, I think you have to accept, over time they won’t like so much about me.
“It’s easy to form a view that every time a journalist writes something bad about you it’s because they’re just against you, and they’re just a puppet for the opposition. You can build up these fiefdoms and prejudices.”
Two things:
(1) Interesting that he recognises he’s benefiting from being ‘liked’ by the media.
(2) That comment about seeing journalists who write ‘something bad’ about him as ‘against you’ or ‘puppets for the opposition’ is fascinating given Key’s own reflexive character assassination attempts against journalists Jon Stephenson and Nicky Hager recently. By reflexive, I mean his attacks on their integrity seemed to be the first thing out of his mouth when asked about their published claims.
We’ve discussed that tactic and tendency before in ‘How to have a FAIR argument‘. No surprise.
Adam Dudding does a good job. Read his interview here in today’s Sunday Star Times.
– P
Off the agenda
Alec Baldwin makes a point about what September 11 has pushed off the agenda. I think what he says is good.
I believe what has been lost since 9/11 is any real discussion of peace as a component of our foreign policy. You almost never hear anyone talk about peace now. I understand that there are malignant forces who want not only to be out from under what they perceive as American Imperialism, but want to execute, in collegiate wrestling terms, a “reverse.” They want us on our backs on the mat. They want to destroy us, not simply negotiate with us more effectively.
There are wars that need to be fought. I get that. I was simply never sure that this was one of them. That this was the best way to proceed. That it would ultimately achieve our long term goals. Which, in the end, should include… peace.
I don’t have a lot to add this year either.
– P
Unforgettable images of ‘state repression’ – right here at home
The Urewera 'terror raids' were a very bad PR and propaganda stumble for NZ police (Image: TVNZ)
Chris Trotter’s commentary on charges being dropped against some [alleged, not even that now] Maori radical ‘terrorists’ — The Operation That Failed — is worth reading. (And so is the comment stream.)
I fully agree with his line:
When “Operation Eight” was finally launched on 15 October 2007 the images it supplied – of armed police officers, clad all in black, masked, helmeted and wearing Kevlar body-armour – provided the accused’s defence team with all the images of state repression they could use. White’s deployment of his men in and around the tiny Tuhoe settlement of Ruatoki carried an equally potent reminder of the tragic history of the Crown’s interaction with the Tuhoe people. That White either did not know – or simply didn’t care – that he was re-enacting scenes from the Iwi’s troubled past, was, from a strategic point of view, fatal. The propaganda war was lost by the Police on Day One.
Losing the legal war would take a little longer.
Yes, the heavy-handedness which the police deployed against the civilian population of Ruatoki was appalling, stupid and ‘foreign’ to NZ Police. I usually support the fuzz (that’s what we called them growing up) not wishing to badmouth the very people you might call to for help at any time. But they blew it that day.
It seems to me there was a mass-hysteria/groupthink thing going on — ‘team policing’ gone mad? — which led to the police treating that township and its residents like second or third class citizens.
Not a good look.
– P
Tribalism
Bigots seldom recognize themselves (graphic: Peter Aranyi)
One of the perennial themes of this blog is an exploration of the ‘reasons’ for prejudice and conflict between different groups. See my 2009 post Q: Where does conflict come from? which records Tajfel’s social psychology experiments …
Henri Tajfel is perhaps best known for his minimal groups experiments. In these studies, test subjects were divided arbitrarily into two groups, based on a trivial and almost completely irrelevant basis.
Participants did not know other members of the group, did not even know who they were, and had no reason to expect that they would interact with them in the future. Still, members of both groups began to identify themselves with their group, preferring other members of their group and favouring them with rewards that maximized their own group’s outcomes.
It can be almost amusing to watch the outworking of ‘You’re not in my tribe — therefore you are less worthy and stupid… ‘ — bigotry based on nothing much except membership and non-membership. (Political differences being, very often, quite small potatoes, despite passionate position-taking.)
Well, it might be funny if some of the protagonists didn’t take it sooo seriously and sometimes take such drastic actions against ‘the other’. And behave so hatefully.
It’s easy (even for educated, otherwise rational,’civilized’ people) to slip into a combative mindset when discussing ‘important issues’ (or things that masquerade as them).
Pick a tribe. That defines your enemies. Unleash the hounds!
Over the weekend I observed a febrile exchange on John Pagani’s blog where he basically, accused a couple of right wing bloggers I’ve mentioned here from time to time, Cameron Slater and Cathy Odgers, of benefiting from ‘secret funding’ supplied by a shadowy anti-MMP lobby group called Vote For Change. They denied it, some minor argy-bargy ensued … with accusations made and denied.
I dropped a comment in the stream (#15) purely from my POV, not seeing myself as in either disputatious ‘tribe’, but declaring myself openly in favour of MMP for reasons I outlined. See John Pagani: Anti-MMP money is used to advocate for stripping citizenship.
Having met each of the three people involved in the online spat, I know them each to be intelligent and human. (Cameron Slater can be an arse at times, and, I feel, unreasonably insulting and pugnacious … but he’s not the devil.)
I think they’re in dispute with each other mainly because of a virulent dose of ‘not in my tribe‘. Pity.
How do you see it?
– P
Is there anything you’d like to share with the group, Cathy?
Was/wasn’t ACT list candidate Cathy Odgers (Cactus Kate) recounts the wearying psychological impact of poor opinion poll results on ‘tribal’ political party volunteers … from her own direct experience as a student volunteer in the early days of the minor right wing party (currently running something like 1.7% in the polls).
Fine, emotionally honest writing like this deserves a link … The Psychology Of The Polls
image: melanieflower.blogspot.com/ (click)
Skip then to the first poll results when ACT was launched still under Brand Douglas. I recall them quite vividly. Not for the numbers, as rather like the pain of one’s own birth, [the] human condition lets us forget such agony, but for the process of the team huddle around the television set, political veterans nervously excited about seeing the fruits of their hours of endeavour into the only thing that matters in politics – the polls.
The polls came out and being in the room when they did was akin to that of a level 100 times worse than being stuck wearing an All Blacks jersey when the All Blacks choke out of a World Cup.
I write of this experience with no fond memories. I write of it today to show the depth of despair that the Labour Party members, supporters and volunteers will be feeling after yet another week of poll shockers. I can feel their pain. …
I have been a volunteer for a Party that is at 1% in polls so I know just how gut-spewingly demoralizing it can be. Labour will never be at 1% in the polls, but it is one of the two major parties and is hemorrhaging support currently such that right now it is their equivalent of. Labour are tribal volunteers and the best and most loyal ACT members and volunteers were former Labour members. Unlike prissy National ones who only were really interested in supporting the Party when it is perceived to be “winning”, Labour are used to getting dirty and in amongst it walking the streets and Unions for support. …
Worth a read.
– P
Conservatives have more fun. Eh, what? THOSE conservatives?
Oh, really? Detail from a photo at Sarah Palin rally today (pic by Dave Weigel - click)
Photo by Dave Weigel, last mentioned at ThePaepae.com when he resigned from The Washington Post after being exposed as having opinions (gasp!), see: Do your opinions invalidate your reporting?. Weigel now writes at Slate with today’s piece Sarah Palin’s Big Day Out.
That sugared John Le Carré-style honey trap (‘Conservatives Have More Fun!’) is kinda undermined by the regulation cargo pants (and is that David Farrar in the background, on the left(!) also in cargo pants, with his back to us? Neh!)
Anyway, there IS a new Conservative Party here in New Zealand, founded by the [by all reports] carefree and fun-loving Colin Craig, who is standing against ‘awful‘ ACT/National retread John Banks in Epsom. UPDATE: as a candidate in the Rodney electorate. See Dom Post.
Newly-formed Conservative Party of NZ is standing Colin Craig (above) in Epsom (click)
I wonder if Colin Craig will adopt this ‘Conservatives have more fun‘ sloganeering from the US, in fine The Hollow Men tradition. (Oh, hang on, that didn’t work out quite so well for Don Brash …)
Apparently, just to prove the (NZ) Conservative Party promises oodles of fun for the whole family, you can start with this neato quiz: ‘How Conservative Are You?’ (Oh boy! You know I’ve always wondered about that.)
Time is a precious thing and of course not everyone is going to be a conservative voter. So for the benefit of all readers here is a checklist of key principles and policies. You might like to check the boxes provided as you go and score your “conservative total” at the bottom.
Go on. You know you want to find out ... (click)
To paraphrase Nathan Hale, I only regret that I have but one vote to cast for my government.
Oh, hang on, MMP — two votes. Nice.
– P
An inside view of the political madhouse
This is totally worth reading:
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
Saturday 3 September 2011
by: Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis… To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.
Read it all at Truth-out.org
This line: ‘But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today’ put me in mind of a discussion over the weekend about (joking, surely?) calls for disenfranchisement of non ‘net-taxpayers’.
Gawd, one hopes that outlier policy never drifts into the centre.
– P
PS: It’s not just about the Tea Party. Way bigger.
Psychic TV
Oh My God. I just watched the classic Bond movie From Russia With Love which finished just before half-past midnight. At the end of a satisfying, anachronistic and nostalgic motion picture experience, and as Matt Monroe started to croon through the theme song (er, no thanks Matt), I flicked around the other channels and came across … Psychic TV.
Psychic TV – I can't believe this is an industry... but it is. Wow.
To my astonishment, one of the ‘offers’ was for me to ring them (maximum charge per call NZ$102.21 including GST!) and if I didn’t get through, to leave a voice message on their answer machine. Presumably, the psychics can work with that? Although see the scrolling chyron that tells viewers ‘Not all voice messages can be played on TV’. Good grief.
Unbelievable. But so what? Who cares what I think? I’m not their target market.
– P
Do journalists have a franchise on ‘news’? Nope.
I rate journalist Jack Shafer. He’s smart, he’s bold, he’s plain spoken. He shows you how he reaches his sometimes very tough conclusions.
Here he is on CNN with Howard Kurtz discussing the way news, journalism and media criticism has changed and is changing — under pressure from economics, the explosion of internet media, and with reference to ‘homemade’ (my word) efforts by bloggers etc … some of whom he describes as doing a brilliant job. I agree.
Shafer points to the key ‘truth value’ and ‘accountability’ of news stories — wherever they’re found. Plus, he fills his stories with links — (one of my own bugbears) and references to source documents, where available … making journalism ‘reproducible’.
Check it out, if you’re interested…
Cactus Kate: ACT Hollow Man or Black Widow?
ThePaepae.com ISN’T a political blog. There are plenty of those, and this year being election year in NZ, we will all be swimming (drowning?) in political commentary soon enough. (God help us.)
Nevertheless, I want to share some thoughts and attempt to put a punctuation mark at the end of Cathy Odgers’ (Cactus Kate‘s) supposed ACT candidacy — or, as I have come to think of it: The curious incident of the right-wing vixen in the night.
Right wing blogger Cactus Kate says some good stuff. A lot. Even though I disagree with some of it. (Like she cares. Sure.) - click to visit her blog.
There’s a narrative emerging that Cathy Odgers was not actually trying to be selected as a candidate for Parliament when she, umm, offered herself to be selected as a candidate for Parliament.
Let me be very clear: We don’t always agree but I like her a lot, from her acerbic Cactus Kate writing. I cheerfully defended her ‘right’ to offer herself as an ACT candidate from what I saw as projectile vomit/personal abuse by Martyn Bradbury seeking to disenfranchise his political ‘opponents’. (Even though it was none of my business, as Martyn so helpfully pointed out. As if that matters.)
But it seems, Cathy, the often sardonic, intelligent right-wing blogger was engaged in a cunning plan — a conspiracy so arcane that Blackadder’s sidekick Baldrick might have described it as “A plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. (In fact ‘weasel’ actually sorta fits. You’ll see what I mean.)
Cathy’s goal? Not the out-in-the-open, in-plain-sight one: To stand as a candidate. Oh no, far too obvious. Rather, it transpires, her goal was to dispirit and kneecap others who might have also sought to offer themselves for selection. (Makes you think differently of the expression ‘the courage to put your name forward’, huh?)
As noted previously, Cathy has expressed on her Cactus Kate blog what I can only describe as near-to-unflinching loyalty to ACT, in these terms:
Let me first start by saying I unequivocally support ACT. Other than Priscilla Tate you will not find a stauncher female member of the Party.
Within wide limits, I don’t care who the Leader of the Party is. I have and always will vote ACT. So I support the new Leader Don Brash and you will not find one word against him on this blog other than if he is too soft and his top marginal tax rate targets are too high.
Note the emphasis. One might be tempted to conclude that a part of Cathy’s identity is bound up in being perceived as ‘a staunch[…] female member of the ACT Party’. File that away, with weasel.
So, let’s explore this: A theory has emerged that that her apparent aim in offering herself as a candidate for the ACT list was to rid the party of the (as she sees it) unworthy influence of a couple of up-until-recently female ACT MPs. Females Hilary Calvert and Heather Roy were Cathy’s targets, apparently. Perhaps there were others.
There must be a parallel in nature, like, you know, the female spider which copulates with and then devours her mate. That dangerous but (ahem) vaguely sexy behaviour gives the Black Widow spider (right) its name … and its reputation as a ‘man-eater’.
So … what is it called when a female spider devours her female rivals for the hot lovin’ embrace of a prospective mate? Does anyone know? Is there, say, a ‘Black Cactus spider’? … Too much to hope for, I guess, but a quick search comes up with the Portia jumping spider whose Wikipedia entry contains this fabulous double entendre:
Mating with Portia spiders can occur off or on the web. [Ha!]
The spider also practices cannibalism before and after copulation.
Low tolerance?
image: Wikipedia
With ACT in the beehive, who needs a Queen Bee?
One look at the abundance of Y chromosomes on the recently hatched (geddit?) ACT Party list makes me wonder if ACT’s disgraced ‘Maorification’® spin doctor John Ansell’s [reported] praise of Cathy Odgers, viz. ‘You think like a man’ might be close to the mark.
In fine Diego Maradona style, Cathy herself describes this [alleged] ability as ‘a gift from God’:
‘And above all if there is a God it is the gift he gave me – to think like a man.’
— Cactus Kate blog
Bokay, Cathy. Sooo … you believe you ‘think like man’. Really? So much so that ONE woman out of the top eight ACT party list positions seems reasonable to you? Hmmm. And really? You’re kneecapping other women?
What does that make ACT? The party of older, white, male values?
Q: Is Cathy Odgers a Hollow Man?
Misinformation experts
Not a ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’
Center for American Progress fingers 'misinformation' network (click)
This in-depth investigation conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund reveals not a vast right-wing conspiracy behind the rise of Islamophobia in our nation but rather a small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts guiding an effort that reaches millions of Americans through effective advocates, media partners, and grassroots organizing. This spreading of hate and misinformation primarily starts with five key people and their organizations, which are sustained by funding from a clutch of key foundations.
Read the Fear, Inc. – The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America report for yourself at the Center for American Progress or download the PDF directly here (1.7MB). [I’ve also uploaded it to scribd.com]
It’s introductory overview: It’s NOT a ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ but ‘a small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts‘ reminded me of some locals:
- The handful of circularly-self-referencing misinformationistas and (cough) ‘right-wing strategists’ whom I sometimes observe peddling exaggerated and toxic blog-detritus … often aimed at merely denigrating ‘pinkos’ and ‘lefties’, or adding to a narrative suggesting those on ‘the left’ are somehow extraordinarily corrupt or untrustworthy. (Unlike who? Guess.)
- The foaming-at-the-mouth, let’s-just-invent-some-facts agitprop of some ‘left-wing’ ‘class warriors’ whose bombastic personal attacks demean them (IMO) and whose sometimes rabid vilification of their ‘opponents’ also denudes them of the credibility their analysis and exposure might actually have deserved.
Having a point of view is fine. Expressing it is good. By indulging in dirty smear campaigns against one’s perceived ‘enemies’ and regurgitating strident reflexive talking-points and sometimes using overtly dishonest tactics, these ‘activists’ merely fuel the warfare (not class warfare. Nothing that dignified) and promote a sleazy factionalism which, sadly, often passes for political debate.
Do they care? Probably not. Both sides appear to me to be at times enamoured with the ‘struggle’.
Like a spaniel chasing rabbits through the bush, they’re hooked on the thrill of the hunt, the Fog of War — and often use their soapboxes in cyberspace to hack and chop at ‘the others’ … with spasms of vicious diatribe in wave after wave.
And as the Fear, Inc. report points out, hate-filled blogs can have an influence far beyond their writers’ intent: Continue reading →
