I’m a little bit disturbed by the implication by a few here (no, I will not finger-point – that would be silly) that people should express their grief in “acceptable” ways, without qualification.
If you want to point that finger in my direction, go to -- because I wasn't the only person who thought your downright ugliness towards Matthew was well out of order. And, no, I'm not fucking senile but there's a time and place for all things, and this was neither. One thing I value about this community is the ability to have very strong differences of opinion with the high level of presumption that people are speaking in good faith.
an occasion that should be absolutely non-partisan
Seeing it in terms of NZ’s parliament is exactly the narrow vision that Cunliffe’s action showed up. This was a far bigger and more meaningful event than our Westminster system (still based on FPP notions) can encompass. Sharples deserved that seat because of his history in the protest movement and as Maori. Not because of where he sits in the chamber.
Cunliffe saw that and Key didn’t have much choice but to agree. No, they don’t get equal credit for leadership. Some of us want to feel proud on the international stage.
Some of us want to feel proud on the international stage.
Fine, Sasha. I'm going to detach myself from this, because I want to take my own advice and not respond to that in kind. I thought Key and Cunliffe both behaved totally appropriately, and unnecessarily, as it turned out.
As for the Trev Loudon/Kerry Bolton types who still think Mandela is a Red terrorist, you got to hand it to them for being honest about their jaundiced world views. It also makes them easier to spot.
Reasonably, you mean?
Jesus, give it a bloody rest. Seriously. Nice gesture from David Cunliffe, and full credit, but if you wouldn’t have had something nasty to say about the Prime Minister “snubbing” the Leader of the Opposition at an occasion that should be absolutely non-partisan plenty would have lining up.
I agree. Key would have copped it if he'd overlooked Cunliffe in favour of a support party leader, and Cunliffe did the right thing when he was asked.
In yet another reason I wish the Herald would stop relying so much on AP, I'm finding the AP reports of Mandela's memorial service, at least those appearing on the Herald website, to be inappropriately Obama-centric.
Yes, should have said "white military establishment". I just recall all these military men - the joint chiefs of staff I suppose - with lots of medals and so forth, saluting their new president. Not a single one (I imagine) would have voted for him and all would have fought against him but there they were. It was a symbol to me of a transfer of power so amazingly smooth compared with what so many had feared.
Cunliffe did the right thing
Hope we'll all learning from Mandela's example.
high level of presumption that people are speaking in good faith.
Indeed it is a high level of presumption. Don't be naive. Uriah Hoot has never shown any such courtesy himself and thinks that my mental health problems are absolutely hilarious and an opportunity for a cheap shot. Go ahead, cuddle the opportunist creep and talk about "decorum" that you yourself have never respected if you like. I don't fucking care.
Exactly. I appreciate their honesty while reviling their politics. At least they didn't follow wearing "Hang Mandela" badges in the 80s with taking selfies at his funeral.
File under WTF or LOL - I can't decide:
Mandela service sign language interpreter a 'fake'
It's a little bit of both. He's a damn fool - every deaf person in South Africa now knows his face, and is pissed off at him. I wonder if he's considered that his cries for mercy will go unheard.
Some time soon, I'll post a more thorough parsing of this bizarre concoction of sentimental posturing and cynical falsehoods, but right now I'll deal with two statements that stand out above all the rest....
1.) "....he was alongside Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachev in the sense of bringing tyranny to an end...."
That is not true. I'll put Gorbachev to one side here, as I know as much about him as Barack Obama knows about irony.
Let's just deal with Reagan and Thatcher: they were the polar opposites of Mandela, who was a democrat and a champion of human rights and justice. Reagan and Thatcher openly sneered at such notions. Reagan's scofflaw regime backed and organized a brutal terrorist campaign in Nicaragua, for which it was found guilty in the International Criminal Court in 1986, and was an active backer of Saddam Hussein, the apartheid South African regime that imprisoned Mandela, Chile, Indonesia and Israel, as well as many other brutal anti-democratic governments and dictatorships. Thatcher supported all of the above, and even managed to go one better, when she announced her endorsement of the Khmer Rouge. Even Reagan wasn't that shameless, or that foolish.
2.) "Mandela was a guy who would do attack ads with the best (or worst!) of them."
Clearly, the implication Hooton wants us to draw here is that because Mandela was a robust and lively politician, that somehow makes him comparable to the likes of Hooton's scurrilous friend John Ansell, the director of National's attack ad campaigns and the genius behind National's race-baiting "Iwi/Kiwi" campaign in 2005. Ansell is a notorious antagonist and hater of all things Māori (he was and no doubt still is a supporter of Alan Titford)---and Mandela has nothing in common with him.
The nerve of that impostor. Look at him waving his hand here....
I've seen this before. When Rod Donald was alive and well, people (I use the term loosely) like Uriah Hoot attacked him relentlessly as a dangerous lunatic, but when he died, he suddenly became a saint and his memory used as a stick to beat his successors... as dangerous lunatics, so unlike that reasonable man, Rod Donald.
The same is happening with Nelson Mandela. People who supported his imprisoners such as David Cameron who wore "Hang Mandela" badges now claim that he was their inspiration and take selfies at his funeral. Hooton tries to use his memory to polish the haloes of Reagan and Thatcher - who branded him a terrorist.
Then others, like the... ah, um, "amusing" Pete George" say, "keep the politics out" in describing an intensely political man.
I get attacked for pointing out that this is in bad taste, but somehow the opportunists and perverters of history are embraced because they make soothing noises. So then, to Hell with "good taste" and "dignity".
I don't care about "good taste" or the "right time". A lot of people are going to start - and already have - using a caricature of Nelson Mandela to justify agendas that are utterly contrary to what he fought for.
Sorry, I see an emperor parading by and he isn't even wearing a g-string... and I have to say for his sake, I really hope that it's the cold that's causing that shrinkage, but it's summer.
Thanks Morrissey, thanks for being impolite at the dinner party.
being impolite at the dinner party
have a go at twats like Cameron by all means. or NZ PMs whose retinues leave out a large chunk of the conversation.
In the way I view the world, being a child of the 1980s, he was alongside Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachev in the sense of bringing tyranny to an end - but he stood so much further above them because personally had been persecuted and imprisoned, and yet he forgave.
Probably depends how you understand 'tyranny' and the 80s but he seems the odd one out in that group.
I get attacked for pointing out that this is in bad taste, but somehow the opportunists and perverters of history are embraced because they make soothing noises. So then, to Hell with “good taste” and “dignity”.
Fine, Kracklite and too hell with this community -- which a lot of people come to precisely because "good taste" and "dignity" are easier to find than around Kiwiblog or The Standard/Daily Blog. And I guess to hell with Russell when he specifically asked folks to "show respect for each other" too? I get you're totally unapologetic, and nothing I say is ever going to change your mind, but it would be really cool if you were just a touch less condescending.
Actually, despite my stated contempt for good taste, what I really despise is kitsch.
I respect everyone who is honest and sincere and that describes almost everyone in this community... but not an opportunist like Uriah Hoot, who has made a career out of manipulating the truth.
I am genuinely outraged by the extremity and the rapidity of hypocrites sanitising and distorting the memory of a truly great man to suit their own agendas. It's happened so often, it's insidious and it has to be shown up for what it is. People who do this exploit the rules of politeness, using them as cover. I know that those rules are strong, but they can be manipulated, so I'd rather break them to show that they're being exploited.
Yes, I'm angry, but it's because I care.
... and Craig, despite the enormous respect I have for you and the honesty, integrity and intelligence that you've shown for many years, you're in no position to lecture anyone on taste or condescension.
“Thanks Morrissey, thanks for being impolite at the dinner party.”
Actually, Kracklite, I (like you and a few others not impressed by Russell Brown’s pious little exhortation to “show respect”) have not been impolite at all. It is the “moderators” here who have tolerated the behaviour of a cynical impostor writing provocative statements in the knowledge he is granted immunity because everyone else has been ordered to “show respect”. I am not impressed by the obscenity of an impostor speaking with a forked tongue, and I am even less impressed by the gullibility of the likes of Hebe and Craig Ranapia, neither of whom seem to be perturbed by Hooton’s comparing of Mandela to the people who actively and defiantly supported Pinochet, Pol Pot, Saddam, Suharto, Begin and the terrorists who tore apart Nicaragua in the 1980s.
I truly appreciate Russells' intentions (piety is a virtue, sadly devalued), his management of this blog and the fact that it is HIS blog among a range of others that include W****O** and K***B***, so generally I respect the tone and atmosphere that he is maintaining. PA-HN is a good, safe place to discuss serious matters in a civil way, but when, as you say, an impostor like Uriah Hoot turns up, then I'm not ashamed to lose my cool. His craven dishonesty and opportunism is a contamination to the discourse - just look at his record for misogyny and racism. A few sugary words now just aren't enough - instead, they're an insult.
I've always appreciated the honesty and civility of Public Address/Hard News. To see someone like Uriah Hoot try to pervert it to his advantage has disgusted and angered me.
PA-HN is a good, safe place to discuss serious matters in a civil way
And it's a good, safe place because by and large people act respectfully and speak civilly.
When people like you and Morrissey start firing off personal abuse, the place stops being good and safe. It's you who are the problem here, not Hooton. Hooton has commented in good faith and with respect. You have every right to disagree strenuously, but this place only works if we can be civilised.
Remember when I told everyone you weren't a troll? Don't make me regret that.