Sean Wood and Steve Goodey: Read the fine print

Oh boy! These, apparently, are the terms and conditions of the ‘lucky prize draw’ I referred to in my post Calling all gullible gamblers! They seem very complicated — totalling 1,114 words.

An ‘Entrant Selection Draw’ followed by a separate ‘Main Prize Draw’ wherein a lucky punter (who needed to be physically be in the room for the duration of the presentation on the day, with ID) to be given twelve envelopes and told to select five — which, when opened, must “reveal 5 matching and separate signs which detail the Major Prize” to win — and even more conditions apply.

Wow. That would be very lucky indeed, it seems to me. Each one of the five has to be a winner? (Does any statistician care to calculate the chances?) As for this:

A Consolation prize/s totalling $25,000 or more of value (as solely and only determined by the Promoters)


No comment on the ‘value’. But I have to say, I don’t find the volume of weasel words in these convoluted ‘terms and conditions’ very confidence-inspiring. (Still, ‘Win a $400,000 house‘ makes a good hyperbolic headline for their target market, I guess. And that’s [probably] the name of the game.) [Update: The headline actually says ‘goes in the draw for a chance to win…’. That’s quite a different thing. Not a draw to win, a draw to win a chance to win.]

How do you see it? Fool’s gold?

Here are the full terms and conditions …

TERMS & CONDITIONS OF ENTRY INTO THE [SNIP] MASTERS EVENTS MAIN PRIZE DRAWS 2011

Complicated! Sean Wood and Steve Goodey's prize draw Terms & Conditions - 1,114 words

1. Entry into this promotion is deemed acceptance of all terms and conditions stated.
2. To enter simply fill in the online entry form, follow the booking process and purchase your ticket for the Masters Event.
3. You may not enter or be entered more than once and you must be a legal adult 20 years of age or older to qualify for the major or consolation prizes. You must physically be in the room for the duration of the presentation i.e. lateness without written notification may nullify your entry). Any entry not complying with these terms and conditions is invalid.
4. The promotion closes 10.00am Sunday 22 May, 2011 (Auckland Event), or Sunday 29 May (Wellington Event). Completion of entry constitutes the selected entrant’s consent to the use of their name for broadcast and publicity purposes.
5. On the event date, Sunday 22 May (Auckland) or Sunday 29 May (Wellington) 2011, one person will be drawn from all entries to receive a set of 12 envelopes (this is the Entrant Selection Draw).
6. The promotion offers a chance for one Selected Entrant to enter a Main Prize Draw. If the Selected Entrant is not in the room at the time of the Entrant Selection Draw, then the Promoters utterly reserve the right to re-conduct the draw from all eligible entries, in order to select a new Main Prize Draw Entrant. The selected Entrant must be able to provide proof of identity to participate in the main prize draw.
7. The Selected Entrant must then attend the Main Prize Draw. They will draw 5 (five) envelopes from the Promoters set of 12 (twelve) and on opening, if they reveal 5 matching and separate signs which detail the Major Prize, then they win the Major Prize. The other envelopes contain the consolation prize. Immediately following the selection of five envelopes from the Promoters set of twelve, at the Main Prize Draw, the selected entrant will be notified of the prize they have won. A Consolation prize/s totalling $25,000 or more of value (as solely and only determined by the Promoters) will be awarded at the same time, at each event, if the major prize is not won. The envelopes will be scrutinized and a legal community representative will be present at the drawing of the final prize.
8. If successful, the Major Prize is to win one prize voucher entitling the Winner to the construction of a new House to the value of $400,000 (Four Hundred thousand dollars)by our selected builder, subject to the rules 8.1 and 8.2 below:

Continue reading →

Sarah Palin … who’s taking who for a ride?

Palin motorbike

Showing how far good bone structure and a Chance-the-gardener-like ability to reflect back to people their resentments and desire for yesterday's stale and rancid prejudice, Sarah Palin continues her slow dance of the seven veils, will-she-won't-she? campaign for public office. Or fame and riches, it seems more likely. And a gutless press helps her on her way.

This put it nicely.

No one is fooled, really. But the conventions and protocols of “reporting” requires pretending otherwise. Contrary to a lot of our readers, I don’t think the answer is for the media to ignore Palin. Pointing out her ridiculousness doesn’t build her up and doesn’t give her oxygen without which she would disappear, to anticipate two of the most common arguments for not covering Palin. But the traditional standards of journalism don’t allow reporters to tell readers matter of factly what a charlatan and fraud Palin is. That’s considered crossing some bright line between reporting and opinionating when in fact what has been drawn is a unconscionable and indefensible line between reporting and the truth. — ‘Palin’s Historic Bus Tour’ | Talking Points Memo.

What a ridiculous situation where the journos know it’s a farce and her political action committee is nonsense. But an illusion of ‘neutrality’ and ‘balance’ (the same bullshit thought that reduces contentious discussion to gutless ‘he said, she said, but we don’t know who’s right’ stories like this) sees them constantly pull their punches, appearing to take her seriously, breathlessly adding to her ‘gravitas’ until — what? Another series of meltdowns? Oh, but she has so much better political scaffolding around her now.

Sarah Palin and her crew aren’t riding motorcycles, they’re taking the US for a ride — crying/singing about ‘favourite’ Founding Fathers … and god and guns, heritage and traditional values … all the way to the bank.

Pathetic.

Dick Quax heir apparent no more

He's in. (times.co.nz)

Final result

THE full result of the Howick ward by-election for Auckland Council is:

Dick Quax (C&R): 11,600
• Maggie Burrill (Ind): 7023
• David Collings (Ind): 5393
• Penny Bright (Ind): 1491
• Wayne Young (Ind): 1349
• Ram Parkash: 1116

A total of 28,072 votes were cast, or 30.9 per cent of those eligible to vote, while 55.04 per cent voted at last year’s council elections. There were 37 informal votes and 63 blank votes returned.

Congratulations are in order for the new Auckland Councillor for the Howick ward.
– P

Moral courage and standing in scorn, part 2 (in love)

Liking is for Cowards  Matt Mullenweg

WordPress honcho Matt Mullenweg tipped me to a neat article by Jonathan Franzen.

What seems like a long time ago, but was only July 2009, in the early days of this blog, I wrote a post  Moral courage — being willing to stand in scorn:

So, in the end, each one of us has to find our own moral centre – the place inside us from which our hunger or thirst for the better, the noble things lies. It’s this very same moral centre which drives our outrage, our determination to ‘improve the lot of others’ and to ‘strike out against injustice’ as Bobby Kennedy said.

Heroic language – like those words of the Kennedys – reverberates and motivates us not because of the fine words (although they are), or because they appeal to some heroic journey ‘archetype’, but for this reason:

Expressions of moral truth resonate with the truth that already lies within us. Sometimes, finding our courage is just a matter of getting attuned to that voice within ourselves, and letting it speak through us. Often that means stepping out of our own way, dealing with our fear, and being willing to bear the disapproval, opposition and scorn and of others.

I meant it then and I mean it now. Life’s issues aren’t going to be solved by being slippery and two-faced and telling people what you think they want to hear, nor by shying away from confrontation or truth-telling.

Liking is for cowards

Read it. Really. (NY Times - click)

Today I read a wonderful article in the NY Times by Jonathan Franzen: Liking is for cowards. Go for What  Hurts.

Franzen says, in part:

If you consider this in human terms, and you imagine a person defined by a desperation to be liked, what do you see? You see a person without integrity, without a center. In more pathological cases, you see a narcissist — a person who can’t tolerate the tarnishing of his or her self-image that not being liked represents, and who therefore either withdraws from human contact or goes to extreme, integrity-sacrificing lengths to be likable.

If you dedicate your existence to being likable, however, and if you adopt whatever cool persona is necessary to make it happen, it suggests that you’ve despaired of being loved for who you really are. And if you succeed in manipulating other people into liking you, it will be hard not to feel, at some level, contempt for those people, because they’ve fallen for your shtick. You may find yourself becoming depressed, or alcoholic, or, if you’re Donald Trump, running for president (and then quitting).

His whole article is a peach. He speaks my language  … and he even uses my word of the year in a context which I really relate to — personal relationships: Continue reading →

Bradley Manning – out of place in the US army?

WikiLeaks accused Bradley Manning  should never have been sent to Iraq | World news | The Guardian

The Guardian has produced a video of their investigation into the background of accused WikiLeaks source/security leaker Bradley Manning, showing he was (apparently) regarded as mentally and socially unfit to be deployed to Iraq. It reveals that Manning’s discharge from the army prior to deployment to Baghdad was reversed because of the severe shortage of recruits in the US military as it engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The video is worth watching, although the dark, prowling-shark type soundtrack is a bit OTT.

At one point, according the film, the army removed the bolt from his rifle as he was thought too risky to be in charge of a working firearm. I’m struggling to think of a comparable metaphor for a statement of ‘not-fit-for-duty’ in the corporate world. Taking a cell-phone from a travelling salesman? Taking a calculator away from an accountant? Taking a hose away from a fireman? Scalpel from a surgeon?

I think the subset of human beings actually ‘suited’ to being in the Army (purely for the sake of a college scholarship in his case — not an uncommon motive) is a pretty small group. Encouragingly small.

I did not know Manning was gay until I watched this video. He was considered a ‘runt’ at just over five feet — and, naturally, abused and persecuted as a weakling during training — and regarded as ‘highly intelligent’. OK, that’s a recipe for trouble right there, don’cha think?

In the end, Manning’s undoing was not his mental ‘fragility’ nor his anti-social behaviour like punching a (female) officer in the face … but his online chats with a famous hacker who turned him in and alerted US intelligence about his claims to have leaked info to WikiLeaks were his undoing. The court martial is still a long way off — in the meantime, it seems, the persecution of the runt continues.

Here’s a link to the video .

Blast from the past has lessons for today

A very clear and loud whistle was blown …

Wow, this was published in The Guardian in 1933 and Europe still tried to appease the Nazis. Amazing. (Click to read the archive.)

Born in London from German parents, Frederick Voigt was the Manchester Guardian correspondent in Germany from 1920 to 1933.
Voigt was one of the most important of the newspaper’s foreign team in the 30s, becoming famous for exposing the threat of the Nazi regime

Today, when news of Mladic’s arrest on war crimes/massacre/ethnic cleansing charges, it’s worth reading Voigt’s original report as published in 1933, and reminding ourselves that xenophobia and persecution of ‘the others’ is not a new thing.

How bad does it have to get before we speak up or act? These are today’s challenges too, judging by the conflagrations and uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.

‘History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.’
– Mark Twain

‘Ethnic cleanser’ Mladic will face trial

NZ Herald reports his arrest (click)

 

About time.

see Ratko Mladic: Legend, Monster And Coward – How The Serbian Soldier Rose To Notoriety
by Sam Kiley at Sky News

Thinking can be overrated

Satchel Paige, US baseball player (Wikipedia - click)

‎’Sometimes I sits and thinks,
and sometimes I just sits…’
— Satchel Paige, US baseball player (1906 – 1982)

Another unflattering profile of propagandist Roger Ailes

Tim Dickinson in ROLLING STONE: 'Ailes was also determined not to let the professional ethics of journalism get in the way of his political agenda...'

The next issue (June 2011) of Rolling Stone features an extensive profile of Fox News supremo Roger Ailes. The guy fascinates me — well, better said, his tactics do — it’s really good to read some hard-out comments about the lack of veracity but enormous influence of Fox News and their propaganda machine.

It’s like a study in very deliberate, stage-managed deception. This line says a lot …

It was while working for Nixon that Ailes first experimented with blurring the distinction between journalism and politics, developing a knack for manipulating political imagery that would find its ultimate expression in Fox News.

And on one of my key themes, authenticity versus manufactured credibility …

Ailes has used Fox News to pioneer a new form of political campaign – one that enables the GOP to bypass skeptical reporters and wage an around-the-clock, partisan assault on public opinion. The network, at its core, is a giant soundstage created to mimic the look and feel of a news operation, cleverly camouflaging political propaganda as independent journalism.

And there are echoes of what I was trying to point to in my post about Dick Quax’s ‘political code words‘ …

To watch even a day of Fox News – the anger, the bombast, the virulent paranoid streak, the unending appeals to white resentment, the reporting that’s held to the same standard of evidence as a late- October attack ad – is to see a refraction of its founder, one of the most skilled and fearsome operatives in the history of the Republican Party.

As a political consultant, Ailes repackaged Richard Nixon for television in 1968, papered over Ronald Reagan’s budding Alzheimer’s in 1984, shamelessly stoked racial fears to elect George H.W. Bush in 1988, and waged a secret campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco to derail health care reform in 1993. ‘He was the premier guy in the business,’ says former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins. ‘He was our Michelangelo.’

Read Tim Dickinson’s fascinating article here at Rolling Stone How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory. That would be time well-spent.

– P

Is Steve Goodey confused … or rewriting history?

Property spruiker and professional salesman Steve Goodey seems to be a very confused man. That’s one explanation.

I stumbled across a statement ex-Richmastery franchisee Steve Goodey posted on the PropertyTalk discussion forum last week claiming that he’d been a ‘full-time property investor for 15 years’ — which made my ears prick up. Eh? I thought. 15 years? That doesn’t sound right.

Property spruiker Steven Goodey presents himself as 'a full-time property investor for 15 years' but HIS OWN earlier claims seem to challenge that statement. What are we to believe? (Apologies to Rachel Maddow)

I vaguely recalled (and so dug up) a self-serving autobiographical account of Steven’s investing career (‘Steve Goodey My Story‘) which he had earlier posted on PropertyTalk (26 March 2005) in which Steven stated that he’d bought his first property ‘four years ago’ …

I bought my first property just on 4 years ago now while my wife and I where [sic] still flatting in Wellington.

2005 – ‘4 years’ = 2001


Side note: This tale, Steve Goodey My Story is also notable for what appears to be Steven’s public confession that he submitted a misleading mortgage application to his bank to buy this ‘first property’. He says he’d signed an agreement to buy ‘your average 3 bedroom ex state up and down flat’ from a mate for $85,000 …

… I changed the contract for sale and purchase to read that I would pay $95,000 for the property, and then wrote a side agreement with my mate the vendor saying that if I settled on time on settlement day I would get a $10,000 discount.
So off to the bank I go and ask for a 90% loan on the value of $95,000 the bank said yes presuming that the shortfall between purchase price and finance figure was to be my deposit, I settled paying the vendor $85,000 and using the $500 for legal cost’s. [sic] …

OK, so how do you read that? On the face of it, it seems Steven Goodey is willing to mislead his bankers when applying for finance. That’s how I read it, am I wrong? (If so, how?) And is that what he teaches his ‘mentoring students’ d’ya think? Cor! Interesting.


Anyway, back my initial point: According to his own account, salesman Steven Goodey bought his ‘first property’ in 2001. So, how odd that Steven should claim just last week (19 May 2011):

I’ve been a full time property investor for 15 years and still love every day of what I do.

2011 – ’15 years’ = 1996

Continue reading →

Understatement of the week

(image: www.narcissisticex.com - click)

From a NZ Herald article today by Helen Frances, ‘Beware narcissists in workplace‘ …

People who habitually make such grandiose statements combined with other, often intractable, behaviours may have narcissistic personality traits. Simpson has spent the past six years researching narcissism in the workplace for a PhD and concludes organisations are better off not hiring people with the traits.

He says their performance and productivity tend to fall short of their claims and their inability to integrate socially can affect staff morale.

Yep. Constantly falling short of their hyperbolic claims, but not taking responsibility for that underperformance — it’s always somebody else’s fault.

From experience, a friend of mine thinks sociopaths who are compulsive liars are even worse — and not just for staff morale. Read the article and you’ll see these people interview really well … but often are then a real disappointment and, significantly, almost completely uncorrectable. They take feedback really personally.

– P

Who needs CCTV surveillance cameras?

Question: To WHAT is this personalized plate referring? The car or its owner? (Pic by Peter Aranyi)

I really hope I don’t blow anyone’s cover or alibi by telling you I spotted this vanity number plate GNUINE on a car at Pakuranga Plaza this afternoon.

Given that we occasionally discuss quirky number plates here now and then, and that I’ve been writing an article about some people who I have discovered seem to be anything but GNUINE (and their anything-but-genuine marketing claims), it caught my eye.

Here’s the time & location data for the photo (shock horror)

If enabled, this data is embedded in the jpeg ... and sometimes survives uploading to the web, or emailing.

… which neatly raises the issue of this data being inadvertently shared with people you didn’t intend to share it with. In this case you can see latitude and longitude info — where my iPhone (and me, it’s safe to presume) was at 12.06 pm today.

As if you care.

I can interrogate the photo further and call those coordinates up in Google maps (just a few clicks) and get very fine detail (see below).

People and some government agencies imagine all sorts of fears and concerns about this.

From my point of view unless you’re ripping off your employer or a government agency paying you on the basis that you should be somewhere other than where you say you are or where you should be, what the hell? I don’t think most of the concerns are GNUINE issues.

Where's Wally? Well, at midday he was near where that green arrow is pointing. Cool!

I personally prefer the practical anonymity/blandness of non-personalised plates … although I know a very nice JULIA B who wears hers well.

– P

Caption competition: Obama in Ireland

(image: Getty via Huffington Post)

“Is this how you do a terrorist fist-bump?”

Put your suggestions in comments or at ThePaepae’s Facebook page.

 

They’re playing our song (or whistle-blowing it?)

I don’t know if you’ve heard about Frank Bailey — he’s a former Sarah Palin aide who has written a ‘tell-all’ memoir of his time working for the high-profile former Governor and vice presidential candidate.

This Associated Press report about an upcoming Sarah Palin book has gone viral. Click to enlarge.

Frank Bailey says he’s not bitter or being vindictive. He says writing the book Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years was ‘cathartic’ — and it was motivated by a concern for the truth about Palin the self-serving political operator and the possible consequences of NOT speaking out.

One comment in ‘enforcer’ Bailey’s pre-launch publicity interview with AP jumped out at me, given an on-going theme of this blog: The encouragement we try to give to blow the whistle about wrongdoing when you see it. It’s this:

“In 2009 I had the sense if she made it to the White House and I had stayed silent, I could never forgive myself,” Frank Bailey told The Associated Press.

Yeah. That’s how it is y’all. You either have a proclivity to tell the sometimes inconvenient truth, or to keep it buried. I see it as like a litmus test: acid or alkaline.

Litmus test (Image: http://galdiet.info)

I’m not saying people can’t change, but justifying one’s silence in the face of what you see as lies, untrue claims (or other wrongdoing) is, it seems to me, a sign of your character much more potent than any personality test. Silence is consent, as we discussed in relation to Paul Haggis and the Church of Scientology.

Giving rat-bags your co-operation by helping them cover-up, effectively becoming a co-conspirator is aiding and abetting their ‘crime’. Helping them get away with victimising others, well, that’s even worse. I’ve recently discussed a case of that elsewhere.

There are plenty of examples you will never know of people who have compromised and kept silent about untrue claims or corrupt actions. There are plenty of fine-sounding, upright-appearing but deceitful people [collaborators, by another name] who have co-operated with what you and I (and they) might call ‘wickedness’ — for all sorts of reasons. You may never know, but they know. And they know somebody else does. They have to live with that leak in their integrity — that’s what Frank Bailey is referring to.

Out of interest, look how widespread the reporting of Frank Bailey’s ‘had I stayed silent, I could never forgive myself’ phrase is. Wow. (I think there’s a certain ex-Governor who will be doing some non-forgiving of Frank Bailey too. You betcha!)

– P

Things that aren’t supposed to be said

Following up on my post the other day about deciphering political codes, highlighting how political campaigns sometimes try to imply the unsayable (like ‘Keep Howick White’) … here’s a fantastic article by Gabriel Sherman in New York Magazine about Fox News supremo Roger Ailes dealing with unstable wunderkind Glenn Beck … which relates to the topic of feeding the undercurrents and sending messages aimed at reinforcing and capitalizing on an aggrieved redneck subconscious.

Beck seemed to many to be Fox News’s id made visible, saying things—Obama is a racist, Nazi tactics are progressive tactics—dredged from the right-wing subconscious. These were things that weren’t supposed to be said, even at Fox, and they were consuming the brand. Ailes had built his career by artfully tending the emotional undercurrents of both politics and entertainment, using them to power ratings and political careers; now they were out of his control. …

This stuff is real. Don’t think it it’s not, even in lil ol’ New Zealand. Both right and left wing try to feed and scratch their constituents’ neuroses … but as I pointed out in An insight into sociopaths and liars (also about Roger Ailes/Fox News) often it’s right-wingers who seem to throw off social restraints and say outrageous, unfounded and often personally abusive things (I’m thinking of conservative-bloggers-cum-National-Party-activists here) to get attention, attempting to drive an agenda.

And, sadly, often they get ‘results’ as their targets, seeking to avoid ‘dignifying’ the smear/attack/lies are out-shouted by the echo-chamber.

War is not the only arena where truth is the first casualty.

– P