Thursday, September 18, 2008

What's the big fat Winstonian deal here?

While the world's markets burn -- while McBama and O'Cain make promises making them indistinguishable from each other -- while Helen Clark campaigns on "trust" that she's already demonstrated she's lost ,and John Key promises to "change" New Zealand when he's already promised not to make any change that will in any way make a difference -- while all this happens, New Zealand's media is still fiddling around with Winston Peters, his dancing monkey, and the question of which dog ate whose homework, and in which motel Brian Henry might have been when it all happened.'

Bizarre, don't you think?

Bear in mind here that the chief concern of the politicians questioning Winston on the privileges committee are not that he or his lawyer lied to us, their employees; they're not even concerned that they lied to the Electoral Commission, their referees; all that concerns them is that they might have have lied to them, the politicians, and got away with it.  In the land just south of Molesworth St, that's the only 'crime' they recognise from a colleague.

But what's the real point with Winston for the rest of us?  As Nigel Kearney asks, what's the big fat hariy deal here:

    Am I the only one who doesn't care what happens to Winston Peters?
    He lied and he got caught. But he didn't lie about something that makes any difference, in the overall scheme of things. It's nothing compared to Cullen saying tax cuts are inflationary when he knows it isn't so.
    Winston also broke the law by failing to declare donations. But a law that requires parties to tell the government who supports them is dangerous and wrong. We wouldn't want it in Zimbabwe so why should we want it here? Governments are vindictive towards people who oppose them so the right to participate in the electoral process absolutely must include the right to participate anonymously.
    Clark's decision to back Peters doesn't tell us anything about her ethical standards that we didn't already know and was not evident from her decision to make Peters a minister in the first place.

So why should we care?  Anyone?

Labels: , ,

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But of course the BIG question is what hold does Peters have over Clark

Clues
Airport
Diplomatic Passport

mention these to Clark and watch the blood drain from her face

gd

9/18/2008 04:23:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

Kearney makes valid points, but why should anyone care, PC?

Spkg personally, after screaming Big Bad Business for years, it's just a little satisfying to see the Slippery One hoist upon his own petard.

9/18/2008 04:31:00 pm  
Blogger Blair said...

Because we want rid of him. It's very important if we want more freedom and less government to get one of the primary proponents of less freedom and more government out of a position of influence.

Sure, it's very hard to care about the details. But I do care about destroying his political career.

9/18/2008 04:38:00 pm  
Anonymous Justin said...

What Blair said. For those of us who distinguish between National and Labour, we don't Winston to have any influence over a future National government, compromising their already limited commitment to freedom. The best way to ensure that is to be rid of him.

9/18/2008 05:24:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Come on guys! Whether Winnie survives or not has no effect on the direction this country is headed. Neither the National Socialists, nor the Labour Socialists are intersted in freedom. Nor are the vast majority of the voting population. So, prepare for more socialism. BAU!

Worrying about Winston and his so-called "influence" is misguided and futile. Face it- it's a soap opera which is entertaining to some, but in reality is of little significance.

LGM

9/18/2008 06:16:00 pm  
Anonymous Redbaiter said...

"Come on guys! Whether Winnie survives or not has no effect on the direction this country is headed. Neither the National Socialists, nor the Labour Socialists are intersted in freedom. Nor are the vast majority of the voting population. So, prepare for more socialism. BAU!"

I always reckon that before you criticise one way of doing something, you should have analternative suggestion. You obviously have some political objectives LGM. Getting rid of winston doesn't seem to be something you think matters. So what's your plan for achieving those objectives?

9/18/2008 06:31:00 pm  
Anonymous Redbaiter said...

Nothing. Fucken knew it.

9/19/2008 12:33:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Redbaiter

I wasn't on-line when you posted. It may not have occured to you that people don't stand by the computer every minute wating for the likes of imbeciles like you to post inanities. I certainly don't. You should try not to act the spoiled brat.

Interesting you ask about attaining political objectives, yet not what those objectives would actually be- you're keen on means but not goals. That speaks volumes about you. Think about it (assuming you actually can think and comprehend at some level).

Winston Peters makes little difference to the nature of the government in New Zealand one way or another. The House and all the Departments and Ministries and govt institutions etc. etc. etc. are configured and populated in a particular way. They operate under particular premise and apply a particular ideology. That is, there are hundreds of thousands of people acting every day to drive the country in a particular direction. There is a tremendous institutional and social inertia to continue in that direction. Try very hard to understand that.

Now added to that mess you have all the consultancies, cronies, special interests, corporate welfare recipients, guild members, favoured vocations, etc. etc. etc., all hugely interested in their corner of the govt and the favours and largess and guarantees they receive. On top of that you have the social welfarists, "charities" and agencies, quasi-govt outfits and finally the welfare beneficiaries themselves. That is, there are hundreds of thousands of people acting every day to drive the country in a particular direction. There is a tremendous institutional and social inertia. Try very hard to understand that.

In comparison, Winston Peters political survival makes little difference to any of that. He's a sideshow- a soap-opera of minor import. Whether he stays or goes makes next to no difference. You shouldn't get so overwrought about it.

BTW consider that he is not being threatened with political retirement over an issue regaring freedom or its opposition.

Now the alternative to all collectivist mulch is something known as freedom. You may have heard about it. You may have a vague idea of what it actually is (although I suspect your understanding to be limited).

To attain freedom requires a complete change of direction. The results of the up-coming election are not going to yield that sort of change. Nor is the state of Winston Peter's political career. Certainly you're not going to see it when the vast majority of people (voters) support collectivism- always have because that's all they have experienced. To attain freedom requires that a particular set of ideas, a hierarchy of them is learned and understood by hundreds of thousands of people. Not only that, but acted upon as well. That is going to take a whole lot of time to occur.

So here is the plan. Whenever possible what is required is that the ideas that underpin freedom get promoted. I do that every opportunity I get every day- at work, at social occasions, at the pub, etc and so on. There are other people who do this as well. Gradually their number increases, as does the number of people who learn and accept the ideas. The point is to spread the philosophy of freedom to people who have not considered it (they have not considered it because they have not come across it). Of course this takes time- a considerable amount of it). Acceptance of the new is something that always takes time for people to accomplish. In the meantime it is likely that political, social and economic circumstances are going to get a whole lot worse- much worse before a change of direction is sought. As that occurs some people will be more receptive to new ideas. What is required is that the ideas they are exposed to are those which promote freedom, not yet more of the same poisonous collectivism. In the end, this is about a competition of ideas. The goal is to see that the best ones win.

LGM

9/19/2008 07:13:00 am  
Anonymous Redbaiter said...

"I wasn't on-line when you posted."

Sure you weren't.

No plan. Knew it. Bereft of strategy navel gazing self indulgent religionist dreamers. A waste of oxygen.

What about standing candidates? What about seeking funding?? What about some fucken political reality??? Dipshits.

9/19/2008 09:17:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Redbait

What a sook! Look, you got caught out. Take it on the chin and improve your behaviour in future. Avoid disingenous posts and you won't embarass yourself so badly.

There is a political party which promotes freedom. That is the Libertarianz Party. It has been referred to right here, on this site on many, many occasions. It has been the subject of report and comment here and in the media. There have been candidates selected to stand for the next election. There are leaflets in distribution and they are erecting hoardings and billboards. They have funding and all the things you feigned ignorance of. Oh dear, what a sad little man you are- caught out again!

You ought to cease pretending you have not come across Libertarianz and their policy (especially when much of it has been published right here, on this site), as you have been a regular reader and contributor to the site for an extended period of time. All you have achieved by feigning ignorance is perpetuation of your own self-deception. You fool no-one else. Try to understand that building yourself a reputation for dishonesty does nothing to advance your position or person.

Moving on, an important point to realise is that the selection of a particular political ideology, as expressed in the election of a particular group of politicians to government, is rge result of a long slow process of exposure, learning and acceptance of particular ideas. After that comes action. People act on their ideas. That includes selecting who to vote for (assuming one votes). An election result is best understood as the expression of certain ideas and values held by thousands and thousands of people (as is culture). To expect a complete change of political (and cultural) direction in one election, a few weeks from now, is naieve. Imbecilic really. As previously explained, there is much inertia and special interest resistance. A real change of magnitude takes significant time to occur. It can only be achieved one mind at a time. Think abou it.

In the meantime don't be so stupid as to expect anything different from collectivists such as the Labour/National/NZ First/Green/ACT etc coalition. That sort of silliness demeans you further.

LGM

9/20/2008 03:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is, there are hundreds of thousands of people acting every day to drive the country in a particular direction. There is a tremendous institutional and social inertia to continue in that direction

There is nothing here that a rational, radical government couldn't resolve in months.

To attain freedom requires that a particular set of ideas, a hierarchy of them is learned and understood by hundreds of thousands of people. Not only that, but acted upon as well. That is going to take a whole lot of time to occur.


Nope. It requires all alternatives to be removed. That again can be achieved in months if not weeks.

In the meantime it is likely that political, social and economic circumstances are going to get a whole lot worse

precisely. much worse until there is no option but freedom.

In the end, this is about a competition of ideas. The goal is to see that the best ones win.

No: in the end, this is about pragmatism. Sooner- rather than later - NZ will realise it simply cannot afford to pay benefits and pensions even if it wanted to. It will realise that it cannot staff socialist hospitals, even if it wanted too. It will realise that the "skills" taught in the socialist state schools and "universities" are completely useless in the real world.

It happened in Russia in the early 1990s. GDP was halved as socialism died
But Russia is now more free than New Zealand has ever been.
Ditto Argentina in the early 2000s.

And it can happen here - in fact - it will happen here, as once again, NZ is hit harder than any other "Western" (really: socialist) country by the "credit crunch" --- like in 1987 and the 1930s the last two depressions hit much harder in NZ than anywhere else.

Face it: bludgers, WelfareForFamilies, and all the scum working on my tax dollars will never give it up, and will never vote for freedom.
(which is why they shouldn't be allowed to vote) After all: freedom for many of them, no skills, their only assets (if they are young) being the value of their transplantable organs - will not be very enjoyable.

But they deserve nothing else: they've bludged long enough.

9/20/2008 03:37:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home