Pickled Paula picked a pair of Peters

56 comments on “Pickled Paula picked a pair of Peters ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jum 1

   6 May 2010 at 12:43 am

   LOL
2. felix 2

   6 May 2010 at 1:16 am

   Wayne Mapp’s “Oh you’re fucking joking” look says it all.
3. eye saw 3

   6 May 2010 at 6:54 am

   no no no it’s not that paula bennett it’s the other one,isn’t it.
4. Ron 4

   6 May 2010 at 7:20 am

   Wayne’s look is a classic isn’t it.?
   Nothing in the media yet. They’re probably confused.as well, poor things…
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     6 May 2010 at 7:43 am

     Herald’s got a piece.
   • toad 4.2

     6 May 2010 at 9:08 am

     And the Dom Post.
5. ghostwhowalksnz 5

   6 May 2010 at 7:43 am

   There must have been blind panic in Bennetts office last night, so they tried the defence of saying they are twins and arent they cute and cuddly
6. mickysavage 6

   6 May 2010 at 8:02 am

   There is also Peter Saunders the wine critic who I have this recollection of being a National Party candidate for Mangere many years ago.

   Maybe Paula was sharing a couple when she made the decision.
7. just saying 7

   6 May 2010 at 8:05 am

   Which photo is which? Is the ‘left-wing’ or the ‘right-wing’ Peter on the the left above?
   Cause I’ve made my guess (purely on appearances) and I want to know if I’m right (that left is left).
   • toad 7.1

     6 May 2010 at 8:30 am

     Correct. It’s that steely-eyed, mean visage that gives the one on the right away.
     • Lew 7.1.1

       6 May 2010 at 8:52 am

       You mean the determined, self-reliant, triumphant, exaltative, mocking, heroic visage?

       [/rand]

       L
   • Marty G 7.2

     6 May 2010 at 9:02 am

     I love that you can tell just from their pics. The good one looks like Santa. The bad one looks like your cousin’s dodgy business partner who’s cooking the books.
     • HitchensFan 7.2.1

       6 May 2010 at 9:34 am

       hee hee I picked the Santa guy too! Just confirms a conversation I was having with my partner the other night, that righties fundamentally lack empathy which colours the way they think about everything. And you can tell it from their eyes LOL!
8. tc 8

   6 May 2010 at 8:07 am

   See what happens when kids play with sharp knives and matches
9. Inventory2 9

   6 May 2010 at 8:11 am

   “Pickled Paula”? Whatever could you be suggesting?
   • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1

     6 May 2010 at 8:41 am

     Well to suggest she was thinking rationally is too horrible to contemplate, so its better to say it was the end of a long day and …

     The Herald photo in their version of the story says it all!!
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10643025
   • Marty G 9.2

     6 May 2010 at 8:58 am

     Unlike you, Inv2, most of us weren’t raised in sensory deprivation tanks. And we remember the tongue twister about the Peter Piper who picked a peck of pickled peppers.

     The title is a play on that.
     • Anne 9.2.1

       6 May 2010 at 10:25 am

       An absolute classic Marty G. 😀
10. Craig Glen Eden 10

    6 May 2010 at 8:38 am

    Everything about this woman is a disaster but no surprises in that we have all become accustomed. The speakers ruling however? That was a interesting way to help a sinking Minister!
11. Lazy Susan 11

    6 May 2010 at 8:41 am

    Which is the real Paula?

    Paula 1
    – the struggling solo mum who worked hard to become a member of Cabinet. She feels honoured and humbled to hold this position and is able to empathise with people who struggle. She is delighted that she can use her position to really help better the lot of the less fortunate members of society and make New Zealand a decent and responsible society.

    Paula 2
    – the struggling solo mum who worked hard to become a member of Cabinet. Sitting at the Cabinet table, she feels entitled and priviliged and looks down her nose at the rabble of a society that surrounds her. Now she can really punish those losers who simply just aren’t smart enough to do what she’s done.
12. Olwyn 12

    6 May 2010 at 8:53 am

    Does anyone know which Peter she’s appointed, or will the Welfare Working Group wait with baited breath to see which one shows up?
    • well, well, well (3 holes in the ground) 12.1

      6 May 2010 at 9:27 am

      I don’t know – even in the Herald article they don’t say which one was actually appointed. Though Gordon Campbell recently wrote an article ‘On Paula Bennett’s decidedly strange welfare panel’ about a right wing nut job named Peter Saunders.

      http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/04/20/campbell-paula-bennett%E2%80%99s-strange-welfare-panel/

      So it must be the nutter.
      • toad 12.1.1

        6 May 2010 at 10:18 am

        It is the nutter. Here he is a few days ago arguing that Britain needs a new Thatcher.
        • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.1

          6 May 2010 at 10:26 am

          “Oh, poll tax, how I love ya, how I love ya,
          My dear old poll tax.”

          http://www.mp3lyrics.org/t/tom-lehrer/i-wanna/

          Always enters my thoughtstream about a second after Thatcher.
      • Bright Red 12.1.2

        6 May 2010 at 10:20 am

        The simple explanation is that Bennett appointed the Rightwing nut job, her staff were told to look for something normal he had written, found a book by the wrong Peter Saunders.

        But that doesn’t explain her press release. If it’s so simple, she could have cleared it up by identifying which Saunders she was talking about.

        Maybe they know which Saunders they wanted to appoint (the nutjob) but were still trying to check that was the one they did appoint.
        • Killinginthenameof 12.1.2.1

          6 May 2010 at 3:22 pm

          My understanding is that every employee with a degree or at least triple digit IQ has been running scared from her office.
13. uke 13

    6 May 2010 at 9:09 am

    Reminds of that song:

    Will the real Pete Saunders please stand up, please stand up, please stand up…?
    • freedom 13.1

      6 May 2010 at 9:56 am

      i was thinking its more like a telling of ‘ Who’s on first?’ by wayne and schuster
14. exbrethren 14

    6 May 2010 at 9:15 am

    Not smart enough to do what Paula Bennett has done? Paula and smart in the same sentence does not compute.
    • Lazy Susan 14.1

      6 May 2010 at 9:24 am

      Yeah, but Paula thinks she’s smart. That’s the tragedy.
15. Craig Glen Eden 15

    6 May 2010 at 9:20 am

    This story has got some legs to grow as Owen has pointed out, Its like a trip to the beach with the family, the anticipation ( it will be fun kids).

    I think this could well highlight what this Government will be remembered for, basic mistake after mistake after mistake.

    I wonder how the privacy settlement is coming along?
16. NickS 16

    6 May 2010 at 10:07 am

    And it might just be the lack of coffee talking, but that press release does not make any sense to me what so ever.

    Perhaps Bennett sidelined her media people to write it herself?…
    • Lew 16.1

      6 May 2010 at 10:10 am

      Nick, my read on it is: “whichever one we picked is the one we meant to pick”. Sort of like the Gandalf Defence, viz: “A wizard is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to.”

      L
      • pollywog 16.1.1

        6 May 2010 at 10:46 am

        I think her argument is so powerful that it’s not neccessary to talk about it.

        Key being the banker that he is needs to step in and bail her out, cos frankly, she’s too big to fail
        • Lew 16.1.1.1

          6 May 2010 at 11:00 am

          Gold, PW.

          L
        • Rex Widerstrom 16.1.1.2

          6 May 2010 at 3:39 pm

          Ahhh damnit PW, I sniggered and in the process lost any chance of that political correctness gold star I’ve been working towards 😀 Brilliant!
17. HitchensFan 17

    6 May 2010 at 10:32 am

    Obviously the briefing paper contained words, rather that diagrams and pictures, so poor Paula got herself in a pickle because she can’t read…..
18. Hilary 18

    6 May 2010 at 10:33 am

    If it is the British based one, who pays his travel expenses to the Wellington meetings of the Working Party (NZ taxpayers I presume?)
19. randal 19

    6 May 2010 at 10:58 am

    well this is what happens when you tap the inmtes to run the asylum.
20. Pat 20

    6 May 2010 at 11:40 am

    Marty – I like the title of your post. Very good.
21. Jeremy 21

    6 May 2010 at 11:43 am

    The really sad thing is, her fall back career option was lost when Rodney Hide abolished the Henderson Community Board…
22. marsman 22

    6 May 2010 at 11:55 am

    A “Distinguished Fellow of The Centre for Independent Studies,a Sydney based ‘Think Tank’ “……….A lofty title for a Nasty Ideologue in a Nasty Neoliberal Hoodwink Academy.
23. toad 23

    6 May 2010 at 12:25 pm

    No Nat patsy question today to allow Paula to gloat over the drop in unemployment. Presumably they’re running scared of it being turned around by more supps on the Saunders debacle.
    • JAS 23.1

      6 May 2010 at 12:28 pm

      maybe its just that her staff havent had time to draw pretty pictures so she understands the drop
    • Lew 23.2

      6 May 2010 at 12:31 pm

      Toad, yeah. Looks like English will be taking the credit, using supplementaries and responses to Qs 3 and 4. Clear response to yesterday’s events. Let’s see if there’s a reprise of the “many, not the few” gag, though.

      L
      • Lew 23.2.1

        6 May 2010 at 2:36 pm

        English benched for Joyce today as well. Crikey.

        L
    • felix 23.3

      6 May 2010 at 12:33 pm

      And no question to her from anyone else either. Bit disappointing.

      Although it’s probably safe to assume she won’t be there anyway.
24. HitchensFan 24

    6 May 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Do we know yet which one she picked??? I’m rather nervous, I have to say
    • Lew 24.1

      6 May 2010 at 12:32 pm

      They picked the Randian Hero, not the Bespectacled Uncle.

      L
      • The Baron 24.1.1

        6 May 2010 at 12:38 pm

        Having both would make for interesting meetings…
      • HitchensFan 24.1.2

        6 May 2010 at 1:26 pm

        Bugger-y bollocks. I had hoped the mistake had gone the way of the Bespectacled Uncle.

        So, an appointment similar to that of Brian Neeson to the Human Rights Commission. B*astards.
    • toad 24.2

      6 May 2010 at 1:35 pm

      But they meant to pick the Peter Saunders of McKinnon and Saunders who made the animated puppets for Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride.
25. Rex Widerstrom 25

    6 May 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Bennett: Don’t worry, I’ve wiped the vivid marker off the scree and typed up a press release clarifying the whole thing!

    Aide: *pales* May I have a look Minister?

    Bennett: See? It says ‘we got the right man’. Make me sound all decisive, and stuff. Like I’ve been mounted.

    Aide: Pardon? Oh, you mean, like a Mountie… so that’s what you’re going with? We got the right man? You do realise, Minister, that what you’ve just said is “we meant to choose the lunatic?

    Bennett: Shit! Why won’t this ‘recall message’ button ever work?!!?!
26. prism 26

    6 May 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Paula may have been thinking of the wrong person. Would she ever admit it? I think that Paula was chosen for her parliamentary role because she is so confident and cool and determined, not for her great enthusiasm for understanding her area of responsibility. When she says something that is it and the quotes (from Wikipedia talking to Alice in Through the Looking Glass) are rather suitable.

    When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.”….
    “They’ve a temper, some of them particularly verbs, they’re the proudest adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”[11]
27. Salsy 27

    6 May 2010 at 11:06 pm

    So if “low average intelligence == low class position”, what does that then tell us about both Key and Bennet, who have backgrounds on benefits?
28. PK 28

    10 May 2010 at 11:08 am

    ***Europe and said that “low average intelligence and low class position’. Not, um, not the most stable guy but Bennett appointed him.***

    Actually, there is a massive amount of research showing that psychometric testing is pretty reliable across cultures and predictive of a number of outcomes. Harvard Professor, Steven Pinker wrote last year in the New York Times (‘My Genome, My Self’ 11 Jan 2009):

    “To study something scientifically, you first have to measure it, and psychologists have developed tests for many mental traits. And contrary to popular opinion, the tests work pretty well: they give a similar measurement of a person every time they are administered, and they statistically predict life outcomes like school and job performance, psychiatric diagnoses and marital stability. Tests for intelligence might ask people to recite a string of digits backward, define a word like “predicament,’ identify what an egg and a seed have in common or assemble four triangles into a square. Personality tests ask people to agree or disagree with statements like “Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone I know,’ “I often was in trouble in school,’ “Before I do something I try to consider how my friends will react to it’ and “People say insulting and vulgar things about me.’ People’s answers to a large set of these questions tend to vary in five major ways: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness (as opposed to antagonism) and neuroticism. The scores can then be compared with those of relatives who vary in relatedness and family backgrounds.

    The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.’ By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS