Henry Kissinger

Coddington on the sexism in the Brown affair

It is no secret that Deborah Coddington hates my guts…she called ma a c**t on Twitter last night. However she has a good piece in the Herald On Sunday about the aphrodisiac of power.

When Henry Kissinger said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, I doubt he was referring to women politicians.

I’ve had to go back to Catherine the Great to find a woman at the top prepared to risk losing all for the dubious thrill of a roll in the hay.

Len Brown’s no stud muffin and young, sexy Bevan Chuang admitted she only got loved up for two years because he’s Auckland’s boss.

There must have been pulling power swirling around Parliament when I was there, judging by the number of male MPs who had to resign because they’ve been caught – not quite in flagrante delicto but before media could make it messy for their parties. But I never noticed this intoxicating aura which turns boring men into lotharios just because they’ve garnered more votes than their rivals.

Here’s the mystery. Why men? Why don’t elected women leaders risk all for a quick naughty?¬† Read more »

Brian Rudman compare and contrast

Brian Rudman has taken a break from begging for a theatre and written an attack piece on me and my father which was probably dictated down the phone by Len’s smear merchants.

The Slater family failed to defeat Len Brown by masterminding John Palino’s campaign in last week’s mayoral election, so now we have a dirty blow beneath the belt.

Former National Party president and Palino campaign manager John Slater couldn’t topple the Mayor fairly, now his son, Cameron, is trying to humiliate him out of office.

Cameron Slater seems to have forgotten what century he’s living in. Marital infidelity is hardly a sacking offence in this day and age. The sleazy and infuriated out-pourings of the discarded mistress on his website might have shocked his grandparents’ generation, but today it’s more likely to raise little more than the odd snigger, and feelings of sympathy for Mr Brown’s family. What his Labour Party friends might think of him sleeping with a class enemy – a dreaded Citrat – is another matter.

One-time US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote of power being the ultimate aphrodisiac, and Mr Brown is hardly the first politician to discover this. But as long as he seems to have been able to fit in his extra-curricular activities with the job we elected him to do, I, as a ratepayer, don’t expect any apology. As for the mistress, it takes two to tango.¬† Read more »

Attack Ads

ŠĒ• Daily Beast

Many people don’t like negative campaigning. I do, mainly because it is truthful. David Frum at the Daily Beast thinks it can;t be far off having an ad like this hit:

The likely script of the next attack ad. A woman in her later 40s, looking worried at a kitchen table. She’s probably vaguely Latino; the photos on her refrigerator (kids, no dad) suggest a single mom.

A woman’s voice over. “You’ve worked hard all your life. You’ve paid Medicare taxes for almost 30 years. But under the Republican plan, Medicare won’t be there for you. Instead of Medicare as it exists now, under the Republican plan you’ll get a voucher that will pay as little as half your Medicare costs when you turn 65‚ÄĒand as little as a quarter in your 80s. And all so that millionaires and billionaires can have a huge tax cut.”

That ad will draw blood and will‚ÄĒas Henry Kissinger used to say‚ÄĒhave the additional merit of being true.

Why do politicians break the no rooting rule?

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald investigates why politicians are inveterate rooters:

Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, said: ”Power is the great aphrodisiac.” (Although it has to be said his planned seduction of the B-grade movie actor Mamie van Doren went awry when she was repelled by his smelly socks.) He regretted saying that famous bon mot but it’s true. Because political leaders are the alpha males in the community, women are attracted to them, even though the men may be ugly and much older, as was Bill Clinton when he and Monica Lewinsky indulged in kinky cigar sex in the White House.

It’s the same with the recently resigned Italian prime minster, Silvio Berlusconi, whose orgies, or bunga-bunga parties, have become notorious. What repelled many people was the thought of this plump former cruise singer in his 70s, with a rigid, shiny face courtesy of plastic surgery and Botox, bedding teenagers.

But, as I know from my own past, the allure of the dominant male is strong.

A relative of mine was a prim and proper woman and a fanatical Labor supporter. Although she was married, she had flings with a charismatic prime minister and an unappealing but highly intelligent state premier. She not only admired these men but justified her behaviour as a feminine way of supporting the Labor Party.

Many political leaders have had enormous sexual appetites. Chairman Mao Zedong was a legendary sleaze and the recently murdered Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, fuelled by dangerous amounts of Viagra, had sex five times a day with any women his aides could find for him. Mussolini and Napoleon were just as voracious.

The thing is that we might be shocked by the amount of sexual excess but not surprised, which is why it’s strange that we continue to have politicians’ careers ruined or besmirched by sexual allegations.

So it appears that politicians break the no rooting rule because they can.

What appears common to most of these politicians is the risks they take, whether it’s sex in the Oval Office or mooching around for hookers in a Paris park. But then it could be said that most politicians succeed by taking risks.

It’s the nature of politics to gamble on making a grasp for leadership or to outfox one’s opponents with a risky strategy. Fuelled by a lust for power and driven by vast reserves of testosterone, which he needs to make it to the top, the alpha politician regards women as a just and proper reward for someone in his position.

Politics is about power and with it comes the exhilaration of being the dominant male. The risks of discovery these men take in their private lives is a part of the allure of such adventures. The excitement of the risk of being caught is underpinned by their arrogance and feelings of invulnerability, something that was clearly evident in Clinton’s dangerous fling.

But there’s more to it. The art of politics is being able to seduce your backers and the public to vote for you. It’s only a short step to these men thinking it’s only natural that they can also seduce any woman they want. If you believe Tiffanie – and there are many reasons for doing so – then Macdonald said to her: ”If you knew who I was, you would be very surprised.” It sums up both a politician’s massive ego and the thrill of being a powerful man.

 

 

Schadenfreude?

scha·den·freu·de

[shahd-n-froi-duh]

‚Äďnoun
satisfaction¬†or¬†pleasure¬†felt¬†at¬†someone¬†else’s¬†misfortune.
Origin: 1890‚Äď95;¬†¬†<¬†German,¬†¬†equivalent¬†to¬†Schaden¬†¬†harm¬†+¬†Freude¬†¬†joy

Bernard Hickey, the NZ Herald and Stuff are all crowing about Mark Hotchin again. It is almost gleeful. A touch of H-Utu. This time about his name suppression and falling for a dirty Ponzi scheme back in 2o04. They are mocking a victim. They don’t mock the victims of all the other frauds out there so why mock the victim in this case?

The point of name suppression in many cases is the protection of victims, in this case Hotchin was the victim and yet the NZ Herald saw fit to seek to overturn a permanent name suppression order designed to protect victims. They did what Judge David Harvey said could not be done, that the only people who could overturn a court ordered permanent name suppression was either the victim or the court who ordered it in the first place.

It appears now that any name suppression can be validly challenged by any news organization or indeed any interested party seeking to crucify a victim.

My campaign against name¬†suppression¬†was for the removal of the¬†practice¬†for the criminals. The Herald’s actions and the¬†gleeful¬†vitriol and running of sensationalist headlines by financial commentators who are themselves a bunch of broken-arses by comparison. There is a old line that if you can’t do, you teach and if you can’t teach, you write about people who do. This fits the financial correspondents perfectly, who collectively probably don’t muster enough in assets to cover¬†the¬†amount lost by Hotchin and Finnigan in¬†the¬†Ponzi scheme.

Using the logic of Bernard Hickey:

Hotchin was given permanent name suppression, which has only now been lifted after a challenge from the NZHerald. Strategic Finance boss Kerry Finnigan was also duped and also got name suppression.

If only the Rotorua District Court judge James Weir hadn’t granted permanent suppression, thousands of Mum and Dad investors might not have lost over NZ$500 million in Hanover and over NZ$300 million in Strategic Finance…and counting. Thanks for that.

then none of these people should be anywhere near running a company or even investing or indeed offering advice:

Victims from big business include hedge fund manager Arki Busson and US property magnate Larry Silverstein, who is currently working to rebuild the World Trade Centre in New York.

A number of large banks, including UBS, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and Bank of America, were also named in the filing.

From the world of politics, trusts belonging to the family of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger appear, as does the name of current New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg.

The full¬†list¬†of Bernie Madoff’s wealthy and famous victims is¬†available¬†on the internet in an easily accessible format. Is Bernard Hickey suggesting that none of those people should ever run a company or give investment advice and all should also be a target of derision for having the temerity to fall for a complex and elaborate long-term fraud?

In a Ponzi scheme, the Bank cops a¬†flogging¬†too, and are essentially part of the fraud. I hope that Bernard’s bank isn’t the same one as the bank used by Papple and West, Westpac. I note that Bernard Hickey has all the Westpac investment products listed on interest.co.nz….given his new position shouldn’t he really be¬†recommending¬†to his readers that, since they participated and fell for the Ponzi scheme themselves then investors in Westpac would be best to take their money elsewhere.

Then again, some already did that when they walked out of the country with $10 million of Westpac’s cash. Funny thing is, I didn’t see¬†Bernard¬†Hickey telling Westpac customers to stop investing in the bank when they couldn’t keep track of $10 million. So long as Westpac keeps the cheques coming to interest.co.nz then¬†Bernard¬†will stay mum.

The logical conclusion of Hickey’s farcical suggestions and “analysis” is that anyone, and I mean anyone, who has had an accountant nick cash from their firm, handed over funds to a Nigerian 419 fraud, or “invested” in a Ponzi scheme, or indeed thought Amway was a path to success, should be barred from running a company.

What is worse though is the history of the Herald’s involvement in this case. They clearly, back in 2004, used Hotchin and Finnigan as a confidential source for their story:

One prominent company director told the court he did not want the public to know he was “conned” for more than half-a-million dollars.

The man, who has been granted name suppression by Judge James Weir, said he was advised to apply for suppression because it would be better if the Papples and West were not publicly associated with his companies.

It was revealed in court that the man had been a director of 71 companies, including a prominent finance company, although he said he had recently moved to Australia and had resigned from a number of directorships.

It was important for him not to be connected with the Papples and West, as he had been “duped into doing an investment with people who conned me for a lot of money”, he said. “I don’t want to make that public.”

The man had told the court he invested $561,066 with the trio.

He received a payment of $120,000, followed by a further three sums totalling $336,000.

The Herald has known about this for 6 years and they shamelessly used the confidential information for their story then used that information 6 years later to over-turn a name suppression case. People should be very wary of providing confidential information to a Herald journalist from now on, they will turn on you and cut your heart out just to sell papers. They will betray a confidence to justify a taudry headline.

Not only that during this whole time they ran Hanover ads in their paper, and on their website,. They have performed the business equivalent of raping the victim all over again except they did it to sell papers.

Bernard¬†Hickey isn’t much better, he too took¬†advertising¬†revenue from Hanover. Did he know about this all along? Remember Bernard Hickey still writes for the Herald.

In the interests of fairness, surely the Herald and Bernard Hickey should pay back all the “dirty Hanover cash” they took while sitting on this information for 6 years. If the investors should have been told back then, then their cash for advertising is just as tainted as anyone elses.

To get back to the name suppression issue, the wonder is that the Herald isn’t in court seeking the overturning of every person’s name suppression but then a great many of those people won’t sell tell many papers, but Mark Hotchin’s name does.

Bernard Hickey and other financial media might like to think and enjoy the schadenfreude but they should really hang their heads in shame at their utter hypocrisy and breach of their own ethics and standards that they hold so dear as the reason why they are superior to bloggers. If they had even a modicum of decency they would apologise and pay back all the filthy loot they took in advertising revenue and related puff pieces at the time.

If I was Mark Hotchin, or even one of his advisors, I would be laying a complaint with the Press Council for breaches of ethics.

Goff gets it wrong…again

Phil Goff is making a pig’s ear out of everything he touches at the moment.

David Farrar notes his incosistency with his position on poll results and today he made a terrible error in a speech  at the Fourth US NZ Partnership Forum. His rhetoric is catching him out terribly.

‚ÄúAs David Lange once put it ‚Äėwe are a strategic dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica!‚Äô

Lange never said that — Henry Kissinger did but he was talking about Chile! In 1985 George Schultz quoted Kissinger but substituted NZ for Chile.

Goff’s memory of the Lange years when he was a right wing Rogernome is obviously faulty.