The Dim-Post

June 25, 2011

It begins

Filed under: psuedopolitics — danylmc @ 7:20 am

Audrey Young reports:

Cathy Odgers, the author of the acerbic website Cactus Kate, is expected to be approved today as an Act candidate – one of the reasons sitting MP Heather Roy is likely to today announce she will stand down at this year’s election.

Cathy Odgers is a corporate lawyer who lives in Hong Kong.

Cathy Odgers is expected to address one of Act’s weaknesses, its appeal to women and especially to young women.

Heh. Good luck with that. But it’s time for ACT members to realise their party is gone – or at least going ’til November. When Banks is elected to represent Epsom he’ll become de-facto ACT leader, at which point the party really is just an empty proxy for National, with Epsom as a rotten borough used by the Nats to rort the system so that the richest electorate in the country gets a few more MPs than everyone else.

About these ads

110 Comments »

  1. uuurgh
    does Odgers even like NZ?

    Comment by CnrJoe — June 25, 2011 @ 7:57 am

  2. Act really doesn’t think that just because Odgers is nominally a woman she will address the fact the women find them slightly more distasteful than men surely? Their leadership’s not that clueless. Oh wait…

    I

    Comment by Guy Smiley — June 25, 2011 @ 8:35 am

  3. Banks as Andertons cosmic opposite? A trougher from the right balancing the trougher on the left.

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 25, 2011 @ 8:38 am

  4. How exciting. I aw
    ait reference to Galtian overlords.

    Comment by will — June 25, 2011 @ 8:47 am

  5. Banks as Andertons cosmic opposite?

    I guess if Anderton was working for Labour with the intention of bringing more MPs into Parliament it would be a reasonable comparison. But he wasn’t, and he didn’t.

    does Odgers even like NZ?

    No, but she has plenty of ideas on how we could improve it by making it more like Hong Kong. It’s not something I’ve noticed the voters of NZ crying out for, but you never know.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — June 25, 2011 @ 9:01 am

  6. “…is expected to address one of Act’s weaknesses, its appeal to women and especially to young women…”

    …how?

    Comment by Hobbes — June 25, 2011 @ 9:10 am

  7. Cathy Odgers is expected to address one of Act’s weaknesses, its appeal to women and especially to young women.

    She will have about the same appeal to this group as Alasdair Thompson does, once she fronts up in person.

    ………………..

    So Odgers goes Gault and withdraws her productivity to Hong Kong because we are all useless moochers, then wants to come back and be a parasite herself. This Rand stuff is quite difficult to follow….

    Comment by andy (the other one) — June 25, 2011 @ 9:11 am

  8. Also I can’t wait until the first day of the next parliament, where the only two ACT MPs (who were members of the National Party until six months before the election) inevitably start a fight over which one of them should be leader. How does a caucus of two decide who should lead it? A coin toss?

    Comment by Hobbes — June 25, 2011 @ 9:14 am

  9. So Cactus Kate is being offered a place out of affirmative action? She’ll LOVE that…

    Comment by garethw — June 25, 2011 @ 9:34 am

  10. How does a caucus of two decide who should lead it? A coin toss?

    They could get with the trend and be co-leaders. Not quite male/female balance, nor north/south balance, nor experience/freshness balance, but it would solve the problem of who stumps up with the coin.

    Comment by Pete George — June 25, 2011 @ 10:06 am

  11. Is Odgers even a woman? I think this need to be checked.

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 10:31 am

  12. This story is on the front page of the Herald’s online edition. For a party polling in the margin of error, ACT gets an extraordinary amount of media coverage.

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 25, 2011 @ 10:48 am

  13. From the Audrey Young report in Danyl’s link, ACT’s new candidate endorses her party’s saviour in Epsom, with these honeyed words:

    “John Banks is just awful. He makes you want to consider voting Len Brown. Two-time losing mayoral candidate Banks is political desperation at its finest … his political philosophy isn’t even close to Act’s.”

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Comment by sammy — June 25, 2011 @ 10:59 am

  14. You might just find she has more political ability than all you oh so clever whingers put together.

    She certainly makes more money by lunchtime on any one day than all of you see in a whole year.

    Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — June 25, 2011 @ 11:02 am

  15. “so that the richest electorate in the country gets a few more MPs than everyone else.”
    Unless ACT does so badly with the Party vote that there’s overhang with a single MP, it’s really more like the rest of the country getting the proportion of ACT MPs that it voted for (thanks to Epsom voters and National), not Epsom getting more than it voted for.

    Comment by MikeM — June 25, 2011 @ 11:21 am

  16. “She certainly makes more money by lunchtime on any one day than all of you see in a whole year.”

    Cathy Odgers makes $60,000,000 a year? Well, I guess that’s ACT’s election campaign funds taken care of, then …

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 25, 2011 @ 11:21 am

  17. It’s going to be a rude shock when ACT discovers that people outside the blogosphere view Odgers as an awful, crass pile of garbage. And – lest we forget – a fascist who doesn’t think poor people should be able to vote.

    Comment by Trouble Man — June 25, 2011 @ 11:31 am

  18. @Adolf

    Oh, she’s a wonderful writer/blogger. I wish she had a weekly column instead of the ‘cut ‘n paste’ dullards like Garth George who dominate the MSM.

    But “political ability” doesn’t usually translate as “saying exactly what you think about the idiots on your own team”. Alas.

    Much more here from Cathy on ACT here, great fun to read:

    http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/04/act-sequel.html

    Comment by sammy — June 25, 2011 @ 11:33 am

  19. I think this is a bit like the Mana Party signing up John Minto because ‘everyone loves him’.

    Comment by danylmc — June 25, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

  20. I’m pretty sure her blog recently included an entry in which she explained to her readership why she could NOT stand as an ACT candidate. The reasons included a history of affairs with married men, admitted recreational drug use, shooting from the lip etc etc

    So I guess she’ll fit right in.

    Comment by Neil — June 25, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

  21. But unless she has stolen a dead baby’s identity Neil, she easily clears the bar.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 25, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  22. At least Cathy wears her social darwinism on her sleeve.

    Adolf, don’t you think I’m going to doff my cap to her because she has more money than I, because I’m not.

    Comment by millsy — June 25, 2011 @ 12:43 pm

  23. Adolf Finkelstein worte: “You might just find she has more political ability than all you oh so clever whingers put together. She certainly makes more money by lunchtime on any one day than all of you see in a whole year.”

    people used the same argument in support of Bob Clarkson, and he turned out to be a complete waste of space.

    Comment by Kahikatea — June 25, 2011 @ 12:52 pm

  24. Her blog will certainly provide a gold mine in any candidates’ debate.

    Comment by Hugh — June 25, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

  25. Coming soon to an Epsom billboard:

    . “He’s horrible and awkward, moreso around women. I am extremely tolerant of male idiosyncrasy and even I find Banks the pits.”
    -ACT party Candidate Cathy Odgers; April 28 2011

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 25, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

  26. Major ideological differences with Hilary “Brain-Dead” Calvert re. chickens:

    http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/06/earth-to-act.html

    Comment by Joe Wylie — June 25, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

  27. You might just find she has more political ability than all you oh so clever whingers put together.

    Maybe. But the fact that “Cactus Kate Asian Invasion 2006″ still refers to Rodders as “The Best MP In The World” would seem to suggest that she hasn’t exactly set high standards for herself.

    Comment by Neil — June 25, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

  28. Bloggers entering the Parliamentary sphere for minor parties … Danyl for Mana? I’d support it.

    Comment by BenLW — June 25, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

  29. When Banks is elected to represent Epsom he’ll become de-facto ACT leader,

    You’re assuming Brash will be rolled before November? Or that ACT won’t garner enough party vote to have at least one more MP? I think the Don is #1 on their list, and I doubt that Odgers will rank high enough unless they biff Calvert (both mad as meataxes in my opinion) to even enter the House.

    Comment by Mark Harris — June 25, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

  30. I think they’ll get Brash, Banks and probably Boscowen. And Brash will be leader but Banks will be Leader, in the sense that he’s far more experienced and intelligent and charismatic than Brash is.

    Comment by danylmc — June 25, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

  31. “And – lest we forget – a fascist who doesn’t think poor people should be able to vote”

    Ah yes, including her recent diagnosis of the King’s College malaise:

    “I have met a few Kings kids in bars and their drinking isn’t an issue, it is their speech impediments and love of wearing their clothes like the poor and the little gang members who attach to them that is the issue.

    You might as well save your money and send your kids to a decile 1 school to be engulfed in that.

    The first thing the Principal should do is take the school back to its nice, rich, white roots and lock out all the bad influences outside the gates. Kings worked nicely when it was for the snobby elite.”

    http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/06/problem-with-kings.html

    Comment by Sam Finnemore — June 25, 2011 @ 2:21 pm

  32. Mclauchlan for Mana!

    Comment by derp de derp — June 25, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

  33. If Cactus Kate is given a high list placing, we should expect the media to draw attention to some of the more… incendiary…. blog posts that she has made over the years. Would that benefit or harm Act?

    Comment by DT — June 25, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

  34. Brash will be leader but Banks will be Leader …

    And of course Brash will only be in Parliament because Banks’ former aide (either Goldsmith or Bhatnagar) has worked hard to win National’s candidacy in order to lose Epsom.

    Comment by sammy — June 25, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

  35. CK won’t care a rats arse what you or the media think…like Key she’s immune due to being very wealthy and having the ability to earn a whole lot more after a spell in the house so like Key she can tell it like it is and not care a jot what the whiners and morons think.

    Comment by James — June 25, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

  36. I’d guess Cactus will be #4 on the list — Calvert must be considered a write-off by now, and there isn’t anyone else that needs to be in an elect-me position (Tashkoff might have been if he wasn’t kicked out of the party). ACT are more likely than not to get 4 MPs, though that depends on whether National takes the election for granted.

    Comment by bradluen — June 25, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

  37. So James, how wealthy are you? If wealth is the indicator of one’s true worth, and so therefore if you are not a millionaire, you are not someone worth considering – unless, of course, your current temporary financial restrictions are due to the all-pervading leftist conspiracy… but since power is all that matters in a Social Darwinist paradigm, surely then, the leftists are right?

    BTW, in a pub the other day, the universe told me, objectively of course, that argyle socks with pinstriped trousers are a bad idea. I was rather bemused by this as I own neither. What does Saint Ayn have to say on the matter?

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 25, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

  38. I mean, really, is tweed better?

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 25, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

  39. Come on, answer, or I’m going to ask you about flares next. If Objectivism is the answer to everything, then it has to be the answer to everything.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 25, 2011 @ 6:16 pm

  40. I’m not sure CKs that rich. I think she’s a lawyer for a business services company. I mean, I’m sure she does better than me, but compared to John Key we’re probably in the same area of standard deviation.

    Comment by danylmc — June 25, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

  41. OK, we can ignore her then. Money equals truth, and if she doesn’t have enough, then she is not sufficiently true.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 25, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

  42. Don’t know about the tweed there Rhino, but Ayn thought amphetamines was objectively better than not amphetamines, fwiw.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 25, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

  43. Scotch is my choice, but that’s not objective, and not prescribed by the universe either.

    And what about flares? I’m suffering a real crisis here and I need help. I simply cannot leave my home without knowing whether, objectively, the universe tells me that flares are mandatory or forbidden. There’s no black and white here (or beige…).

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 25, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

  44. “CK won’t care a rats (sic) arse what you or the media think…”

    She won’t make a very effective politician then will she? Unless the universe has presented you with the objective reality that votes don’t matter in a democracy. Perhaps it will, who knows? If so, it’s another slam dunk home-run for Jimbo, losers!

    Comment by Guy Smiley — June 25, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

  45. James said: “CK won’t care a rats arse what you or the media think”

    That may be true. But voters may have an opinion about reporting on some of the basically offensive, ultra-right with neandarthal blogging that she spews, and which James seems to be an adherent of. The question is, electorally, will this win more voters than it loses for Act (ie, will Act be better or worse off?)?

    Comment by DT — June 25, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

  46. Money equals truth?

    Comment by peterlepaysan — June 25, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

  47. Money equals truth?

    Pay attention! The universe said so! Wealth equals truthiness. Cactus Cate says what is universally true because she is rich, only she isn’t but she’s right because she’s rich even if she isn’t. Moreover, John Key is right because he’s rich, but Bill Gates is a a thousand times more right because he’s a thousand times richer. Also, despite being purely fictional, Leto Atreides II is even more right because he is God Emperor of the known universe!

    Try to keep up, otherwise you’ll look like a loser.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 25, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

  48. So why has my comment been removed?

    Comment by johnsonmike — June 26, 2011 @ 12:38 am

  49. So James, how wealthy are you? If wealth is the indicator of one’s true worth, and so therefore if you are not a millionaire, you are not someone worth considering – unless, of course, your current temporary financial restrictions are due to the all-pervading leftist conspiracy… but since power is all that matters in a Social Darwinist paradigm, surely then, the leftists are right?

    Reading comprehension problem I see Rhino.As CK is a talented and self sustaining individual with skills in great demand that generate wealth then she has more choices available to her as does Key.They both are free to pursue goals without needing to worry about putting food on the table an having to compromise themselves to make that happen.Compared to Helen Clark who’s goal was to get to the top in politics and sidestep into a cushy job at the UN funded by the common folk like us CK and Key are stepping DOWN into politics because they genuinely want to do something to make NZ a better place.They don’t need to do so for money unike Clark who’s only option was to do it so she could get money.Clark had to lie and cheat to get where she did…..CK has no need to….she’s upfront and telling it like it is.

    PS Objective reality just “IS” Rhino….even in trying to disparage it with your silly comments you are having to acknowledge it to do so……. ;-)

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 7:37 am

  50. Danyl….any chance of getting an edit function for comments? HTML no go again.

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 7:38 am

  51. So you’re saying, James, that Odgers can tell it like it is (ie has the same direct line to the universe that you do) because she is rich and free, while “poor” people like Helen Clark have to tell lies to succeed and do not genuinely want to make New Zealand a better place, only being in politics for the money. Or something. And that is objective reality and thus just is! Can’t argue with that. You pwned us all again! Why are you so damn good?

    Comment by Guy Smiley — June 26, 2011 @ 8:31 am

  52. Debate is pointless, of course, but I doubt running the UNs development program is particularly cushy. And Clark could easily step into a few company directorships worth a couple of million dollars a year each, which would, according to James, instantly give her access to objective truth that her current job helping victims of famines, wars, natural disasters etc mysteriously denies her.

    Comment by danylmc — June 26, 2011 @ 8:36 am

  53. James seems to operate a definition of “generate wealth” that bears little resemblance to the literal meaning of the phrase.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — June 26, 2011 @ 9:22 am

  54. Will be great to see Odgers pierce the intellectual vacuum that is currently masquerading as the left in this country.
    She might not be liked by the left ,but her ability to get to argument and her no bullshit style will appeal to a lot of people

    Comment by Mark M — June 26, 2011 @ 9:34 am

  55. Reality certainly “IS”. Just the other day, being the straight-speaking anthropomorphisation that tells it like it is, the universe said to me that the area of a circle is two times pi times the radius squared. Then it said that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. After that, it said that in a closed system, entropy tends towards the maximum. In fact, it wouldn’t shut up, because next it said something about putting cats in boxes and confessed to some uncertainty about the position or vector of a particle.

    It still had nothing to say what socks I should wear, however.

    Oh, and as for reading comprehension, “who’s goal” is incorrect usage. It’s “whose goal”. And watch your kerning too. I hope that helps.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 9:55 am

  56. they genuinely want to do something to make NZ a better place

    What? What?! Isn’t that altruism? How utterly unselfish, how contemptible. The universe will be most upset – don’t let it know.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 10:02 am

  57. Oh jeez Rhino, the is/ought thing is so old hat. James solved that one last week by quoting Ayn Rand singularly not deriving ought from is. Pwned us all that day he did.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — June 26, 2011 @ 10:04 am

  58. Sorry Guy, I missed that. I was distracted by the universe blithering on about how shorter-wavelength radiation is scattered more than long-wavelength radiation and that being the reason why the sky is blue. Since it dealt with colour, I was hoping that it would finally get around to my socks, but it digressed again.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 10:10 am

  59. Guy, etc,

    Just a quick reminder of how James solved the ought-from-is problem … “our nature as man,as the universe we life in endowed upon us with our creation within it is the source of what we ought to do”.

    Get it now, morons?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 26, 2011 @ 10:15 am

  60. Just to clarify: does he mean endowment as in a large trust fund or being hung like a alpha baboon?

    Comment by will — June 26, 2011 @ 10:18 am

  61. Aha! The former directly compensates for a lack of the latter of course, according to the same universal laws such as the conservation of energy and momentum. If you have a lot of the first, you don’t have to worry about the second or complain about being “pussy whipped” as James so eloquently put it. It’s physics.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 10:29 am

  62. “And Clark could easily step into a few company directorships worth a couple of million dollars a year each,”

    Wow, good luck with those fantasies, Daryl.

    Comment by Tinakori — June 26, 2011 @ 10:55 am

  63. If Clark is able to find a major shareholder group stupid/naïve enough to elect her then said shareholder group deserves all the erosion of wealth that would invariably come their way.

    By the same token, any board of directors forced to work with a megolomaniac like Clark should definitely seek higher fees and perhaps even be eligible for beatification.

    That is assuming there is a parallel universe where Clark would get elected to a large publicly listed company in the absence of any political interference.

    Comment by James Gilbert — June 26, 2011 @ 11:33 am

  64. NOW THEY HAVE THREE CODGERS

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — June 26, 2011 @ 11:41 am

  65. “NOW THEY HAVE THREE CODGERS”

    +1 internets for you, old man!

    Comment by Al Gore — June 26, 2011 @ 11:59 am

  66. If Clark is able to find a major shareholder group stupid/naïve enough to elect her then said shareholder group deserves all the erosion of wealth that would invariably come their way.

    I get that you guys don’t like Clark, but she was a head of an OECD nation for nine years, she’s friends with almost every left-wing democratic leader in the world – are you really so naive you don’t think these qualities are valuable to multi-national companies?

    Comment by danylmc — June 26, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

  67. “…are you really so naive you don’t think these qualities are valuable to multi-national companies..?”

    All that is required is a well thumbed copy of Atlas Shrugged and the cajones to enact it’s prescriptions!

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 26, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

  68. “She might not be liked by the left ,but her ability to get to argument and her no bullshit style will appeal to a lot of people”

    I don’t actually think the “neo-fascist racist” demographic is that significant in New Zealand.

    Comment by Trouble Man — June 26, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

  69. “our nature as man,as the universe we life in endowed upon us with our creation within it is the source of what we ought to do”.

    We ought to do what we do do. Finally, a solution to the ‘is-from-is’ problem.

    Comment by lyndon — June 26, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

  70. Although its off topic…..The is/ought so-called dichotomy needs to be addressed by first asking…a dichotomy to whom/what? That’s what Rand did…..she asked that question and then having established that species man was the subject of the issue looked at his nature and requirements of it if he intended to remain alive and prospering and concluded that what he ought to do comes from examining the “is” (universe) he finds himself in and what it sets out as facts that he must comply with to survive.

    Hardly a “dichotomy” to any thinking person….just obvious.

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

  71. Rhino…the choice of socks is up to you….reality makes it so.Socks exist….and you do too with the ability to conceptualise and reason and make choices based on that…….ain’t it great? ;-)

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

  72. People (The market) think CK’s skills are worth a lot of money to hire as she can save them so much more from being taken from them by greedy pollies (your guys mates) who think they know better than the owners how that money should be spent.As CK can foil their plans by knowing the law and using it to her clients advantage thereby freeing a lot of money to be kept in the private sector generating goods and services that people actually want she is indeed a net benefactor to us all.

    ACT is full of these kinds of people….those who do know how to create wealth and wish to share that with all Kiwis who are being kept poorer than they need be by policies from your side of the fence.

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

  73. With respect James, I don’t see how that can be classed as creating wealth rather than just preventing its redistribution. Economically speaking, whether or not the person pays tax is simply a question of whether a transfer take place or not, and has nothing to do with output and thus `wealth creation’. Similarly, in economics, those who specialise in the division of spoils like lobbyists and tax consultants are labelled `rent seekers’, because they don’t create wealth but go about trying to secure a share of societies existing production for themselves.

    Comment by DT — June 26, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

  74. Additionally James, you say “As CK can foil their plans by knowing the law and using it to her clients advantage thereby freeing a lot of money to be kept in the private sector generating goods and services that people actually want she is indeed a net benefactor to us all.” But that is also an economically flawed argument. If an investment opportunity is NPV positive, it shouldn’t matter whether the entrepeneur has some of their wealth transferred to the government. They would be able to raise funds in the debt/equity markets easily enough to make up any shortfall.

    Please stop stringing slogans together and trying to pass it off as reasoning.

    Comment by DT — June 26, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

  75. If Helen can make a buck as a company director good luck to her, but she sure wont make millions as a non-exec. One of the largest companies in the world, General Electric, with one ex-politico on its Board (former senator Sam Nunn), pays it non-execs US$250,000, a large chunk of which is in stock and that hasn’t been doing too well in the last few years. Fonterra our largest company pays non-execs $120,000-$140,000 and the Chair – pretty much a full time job – gets $250,000. No ex- politicians there but farming politics is plenty tough enough. Perhaps you were thinking of some ex-Presidents and PMs, like Bush the elder or John Major or Bill Clinton who act as rainmakers and door-openers for investment companies. If a company is willing to pay non-execs millions that is danger sign for existing shareholders, prospective investors and regulators

    Comment by Tinakori — June 26, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

  76. DT….aside from the little matter that the state has no business “redistributing”…(oh lets just call it stealing and bribing as that’s what it’s really doing), CK s job only exists because of big grasping Government wanting to take what isn’t theirs to take.Stop the theft and CK will have to do something else won’t she?

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

  77. DT….keeping private wealth out of the greedy hands of pollies who will mis-spend it allows people to have more and greater choices…and that,s very valuable.When the state becomes the enemy of peoples prosperity and lowers their standard of living by is rapacious ways then someone has to fight back….and if they succeed we all benefit.

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

  78. Yup. Slogans.

    Comment by DT — June 26, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

  79. You’re all forgetting that infallible experts have confidently predicted a 40+% vote for ACT in November. So Ms Odgers is more or less guaranteed a place in Cabinet.

    What we should really be discussing is which portfolios she might get.

    Comment by Rich (the other one) — June 26, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

  80. “If a company is willing to pay non-execs millions that is danger sign for existing shareholders, prospective investors and regulators”

    Interesting comment Tinakori.

    Look at all those finance companies who had ex-ministers on their board as window dressing to convince investor and shareholders that their interests were being looked after. It’s somewhat akin to having TV news presenters front their advertising campaigns

    I would pretty much avoid investment in any company that hired ex-politicos. It’s symptomatic of a deeper financial malaise.

    Comment by jay — June 26, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

  81. I can’t wait for Odgers’ first TV interview. People like James and DPF are going to think she hit it out of the park, and everyone else will think she’s Kyle Chapman with more hair and less class.

    Comment by Trouble Man — June 26, 2011 @ 6:07 pm

  82. “Hardly a “dichotomy” to any thinking person….just obvious.”

    That’s what I hate about David Hume. He’s such a non-thinking bastard. The rest of what you wrote, Jimmy, was abject nonsense. Rand would spin in her grave if she knew that was how she was being interpreted. Doesn’t make her any less wrong btw.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — June 26, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

  83. James’s philosophising is harder to read than James Joyce which I didn’t think was possible.

    Comment by bmk — June 26, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

  84. This from a recent review of the risible adaptation of Procrustes Evacuated His Bowels:

    And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? It isn’t so much a philosophy as what someone
    who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard
    axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises
    supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about
    what is “rational” or “objective” or “real.” Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with
    an “-ism.” Rand was so eerily ignorant of all the interesting problems of ontology, epistemology,
    or logic that she believed she could construct an irrefutable system around a collection of simple
    maxims like “existence is identity” and “consciousness is identification,” all gathered from the
    damp fenlands between vacuous tautology and catastrophic category error. She was simply
    unaware that there were any genuine philosophical problems that could not be summarily solved
    by flatly proclaiming that this is objectivity, this is rational, this is scientific, in the peremptory tones
    of an Obersturmführer drilling his commandoes.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

  85. Meanwhile, a man familiar with the ways of the universe has informed me that bowties are cool. So are fezzes, apparently. I’m closing in on that socks problem, I think.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

  86. Rhino, did he switch socks when he switched shoes? And if so, what are we to make of it?

    Comment by MeToo — June 26, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

  87. “…if he intended to remain alive and prospering and concluded that what he ought to do comes from examining the “is” (universe) he finds himself in and what it sets out as facts that he must comply with to survive.”

    So, objectivism boils down to “given the reality of gravity and the limits on what force the human body can tolerate, you ought not walk out of open 10th floor windows”? That’s … of limited use as any sort of guide to ordering society or individual affairs.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 26, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

  88. Geddis…as you seem on the ineffectual level of pond scum then walking over cliffs and 10th floor windows might sharpen you up to the fact that reality exists ,…and you don’t get to have it your own way.

    Rhino………..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

    Comment by James — June 26, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

  89. Gosh, such devastating wit there (not to mention a heroic – objectively of course – disregard of syntax). It is such a degree that Oscar Wilde himself would shudder in his grave with self-loathing had he not already been reincarnated as Stephen Fry.

    The next time I am involved in a debate or any argument, I, a newly crowned superman, will say, objectively, “Zzzzzz!” “Zzzzzz!!! Zzzzz!!!! to all of you, you quislings! ZZZZZZZZZ1111ELEVEN!!!” and the lesser beings cowering before me will know that I express the thoughts of the universe itself! It’s even better than blowing raspberries! In fact it’s almost as good as holding up a clenched fist with my middle finger extended!

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 9:06 pm

  90. She was simply
    unaware that there were any genuine philosophical problems that could not be summarily solved
    by flatly proclaiming that this is objectivity, this is rational, this is scientific, in the peremptory tones
    of an Obersturmführer drilling his commandoes.

    Sorry but this is flat out wrong. An Obersturmfuhrer would be drilling grenadiers or panzergrenadiers, not commandoes. Sheesh, no wonder Rand is so misunderestimated

    Comment by TerryB — June 26, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

  91. @Metoo

    I’ll have to ask the universe about that…. but it’s been rather evasive lately. I asked it whether the unusually high levels of methane in the Martian atmosphere were indicative of life and it just smirked and tapped the side of its nose. Patronising git.

    “ineffectual level of pond scum”? Does James the Randroid have aphasia?

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

  92. An Obersturmfuhrer would be drilling grenadiers or panzergrenadiers, not commandoes.

    Indeed – in fact, commandos and Obersturmfuehrers would generally be shooting each other on sight. I guess they hadn’t realised back then that ought = is.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — June 26, 2011 @ 10:49 pm

  93. Ah yes, those old days of Commando comics. “Die, Englischer schweinhund!” [Riddled with bullets] “Aieeee!”

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 26, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

  94. With friends like CK, who needs enemies?

    And is this NZ’s educational equivalent of Jesse Owens winning gold at Berlin 1936?

    Comment by DeepRed — June 27, 2011 @ 12:00 am

  95. And is this NZ’s educational equivalent of Jesse Owens winning gold at Berlin 1936?

    What the hell are they doing stuff like investigating bees anyway? Shouldn’t they be doing the three R’s? Wasn’t that useless bint Tolley supposed to have stamped this sort of thing out. What happened, did she have “women’s problems?” In my day…. continued page 94

    Comment by TerryB — June 27, 2011 @ 12:05 am

  96. It’s not true that I don’t appreciate reality. Just this morning the universe dropped by as I was making an extremely realistic breakfast.
    “Would you like something to eat?” I asked in what I hoped was a civil tone and hoping that our past disagreements would be forgotten.
    “Thank you,” it said. “However, given that I literally encompass everything, I’m already full.”
    “How do you fit in the door then?” I quipped.
    “Ever seen a Klein bottle? It’s like that.”
    “Ah.”
    “By the way,” it said, “before you make breakfast, I must inform you that at sea level air pressure and without impurities, water melts at 273 K and boils at 373 K.”
    I thanked it and found that information very useful indeed when I boiled an egg and percolated come coffee, but as it was wont to do, it started to ramble as I toasted a couple of slices of bread: “As I was saying to my nephew, Zarathustra, the other day, the superchicken crossed the road because-”
    “Actually, I feel like some juice to finish off with,” I interjected.
    “What kind?”
    “Cranberry.”
    “Check your fridge then; go ahead.”
    I did, but unfortunately there was only grapefruit juice.
    The universe saw my dilemma and with a wink, handed me a copy of Prometheus Ejaculated. I skimmed through to page three thousand, eight hundred and forty-two and there in black and white was my answer:

    Yea, and verily, if thou desirest to drink cranberry juice and yet thine refrigerator contains only a carton of grapefruit juice, then thoust must drink grapefruit juice or not drink at all, going forward.

    Moron. It added.

    “That rather settles it, doesn’t it?” the universe commented.
    “It does indeed,” I admitted, pouring the juice into a glass. It was actually quite refreshing, albeit only subjectively.
    The universe picked up its hat, which was rather odd, since it didn’t have one when it arrived. “Sorry, must dash,” it apologised. “I’ve got to take God for walkies.”
    “Oh well, nice seeing you, come again soon.”
    “I will – and next time, I’ll teach you how to bend spoons.”
    I grinned. “There is no spoon,” I said triumphantly.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 27, 2011 @ 9:00 am

  97. Rhinocrates, this is, without a doubt, one of the most absurdly readable series of comments I’ve read on the site – doubly so since they’re poking some fun at James.

    Keep it up.

    Comment by Simon Poole — June 27, 2011 @ 9:32 am

  98. Ah! A closed non-orientable Surface of Eular characteristics. You learn something new every day.

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 27, 2011 @ 9:46 am

  99. @Rhino

    But still no word on your socks?

    Comment by Jordan — June 27, 2011 @ 9:48 am

  100. This thread still going…? Its called a life people….

    Comment by James — June 27, 2011 @ 10:00 am

  101. No socks because he is not in our universe. In my universe, the area of circle = pi x radius squared, and the melting point of water is approximately 273.16 Kelvin.

    Comment by Bruce Hamilton — June 27, 2011 @ 10:38 am

  102. This thread is now officially a socks and sandals, D&D playing, wiener-fest.

    Comment by will — June 27, 2011 @ 10:49 am

  103. “…if he intended to remain alive and prospering and concluded that what he ought to do comes from examining the “is” (universe) he finds himself in and what it sets out as facts that he must comply with to survive.”

    Seeing as I chirped in before: The point is that ‘ought’ statements can’t be logically derived from ‘is’ statements without sneaking in an ‘ought’ among your premises. Even, as far as I know, in Rand’s special homebrew logic.

    The above is an excellent example of that. The hidden premise is that we ought to survive and prosper. This isn’t all that controversial (even treating it this as the definition of the moral good might is at least instructive), but it’s still a moral premise.

    Comment by lyndon — June 27, 2011 @ 10:52 am

  104. I put those mistakes down to transcription error. It is the universe that is infallible, not me.

    Anyway, vis a vis the wool-nylon foot cladding situation, I conducted an experiment that may illuminate the matter.

    Space, as you know, has a foam-like quantum-scale structure. I have also observed a similarity between the vortex in a washing machine and the dynamics of an accretion disc around a black hole. Well, I put an extra large amount of soap in the wash this weekend, generating a truly enormous quantity of foam, and sure enough, as the washing machine went into its spin cycle, first an event horizon formed, then a direct portal to another region of the space-time continuum. At that point, all of my socks were drawn into the portal and ejected into intergalactic space. I am please to announce that I now know the composition of dark matter: it is the free-floating accumulation of all the lost socks of every being that has ever lived in the universe.

    I was about to continue my investigation, but the universe complained that the paradoxes I was generating were giving it indigestion.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 27, 2011 @ 10:58 am

  105. @James #100:

    Translation: “Lalalalala, I can’t hear you!”

    Comment by DeepRed — June 27, 2011 @ 11:30 am

  106. If you roll a D10 and get over 9 then you’ll, snort snort, slay James.

    Comment by will — June 27, 2011 @ 11:46 am

  107. This thread is now officially a socks and sandals, D&D playing, wiener-fest.

    Where there’s a will, there’s a wank(er).

    @ Rhino

    Ah yes, those old days of Commando comics. “Die, Englischer schweinhund!” [Riddled with bullets] “Aieeee!”

    I think you’ll find it was the Japs that cried “Aieeeee!”
    Krauts and Tommies exclaimed “Arrrgggghh!”

    Put that in your quantum entangler and smoke it, Sir!

    Comment by Gregor W — June 27, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

  108. Speaking of wieners and GregorW pops his head up from a role playing fanzine.

    Comment by will — June 27, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

  109. Smoke it in my quantum entangler? The impertinence!

    Geoffrey, fetch my fighting trousers!

    Comment by Rhinocrates — June 27, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

  110. “I think you’ll find it was the Japs that cried “Aieeeee!”
    Krauts and Tommies exclaimed “Arrrgggghh!” ”

    Krauts: ‘gott in himmel!’, ‘donner und blitzen’, ‘achtung!’.

    Japs: ‘Banzai!’. Or, for maximum amusement, combined while being shot: ‘Banzaieeeee!’

    Comment by Rich (the other one) — June 28, 2011 @ 10:01 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 418 other followers

%d bloggers like this: