The Dim-Post

April 23, 2013

The Dim-Post interviews Conservative Party leader Colin Craig

Filed under: Politics,satire — danylmc @ 8:01 pm

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig cuts a likable, boyish figure: whether managing his billion dollar property portfolio, canvasing for votes in his home turf of Auckland’s North Shore, or lathering himself with soap as he prepares to show me around his new hi-tech pleasure dungeon, Craig is unceasingly cheerful and energetic. 

‘I bought this place to relax,’ he explains, a little sheepish about splashing out on such an indulgence. Craig is famed for his frugality, furnishing his home second-hand on Trade-me. But all the leather, chrome and rubber decor in ‘Colin’s Crypt of Agony and Ecstasy ‘ is brand new and gleaming, ready for use. ‘At the end of the day I’m wiped out, and I needed a way to wind down,’ he added.

And is it relaxing?’ I ask.

He grins and tosses me a towel and a leather ball gag. ‘You tell me.’

Craig is in pretty good shape for a man in his mid-forties. There’s a hint of a belly, but his arm muscles are defined – ‘All that political hand-shaking,’ he says, rolling his eyes – and the snarling wolf’s head tattooed across his buttocks still conforms to the ripe curves of his gluteal muscles. ‘The tattoo artist warned me it would sag,’ Craig said, adding simply, ‘He was wrong.’

Many people have been wrong about Colin Craig, dismissing him as a political lightweight or  a bible-thumping, homophobic misogynist reactionary dick, but Craig simply shrugs off the criticisms and when you see him squeezing into a red latex dress and tugging a chain-mail hood over his head you realise there’s more to Colin Craig than his critics are willing to allow. They underestimate him at their peril.

But what is it about the Conservative Party leader that sets him apart? I’d arranged this interview to try and solve this mystery, but as I hung upside down beside him, both of us screaming in exaltation and pain while hot wax from the candles strapped to our ankles ran down our thighs, I couldn’t decide what it was that separated him from other minor party political leaders. Was it his faith? His candor? His status as an outsider? Or his controversial statements about homosexuality and female promiscuity, which were as inflamed as our perineums after the wax pooled and hardened?

Craig denies that his statements on contemporary morality are dominated by his religious upbringing, or the fact that I was kneeling on his throat while grating his nipples with a citrus zester. ‘I stand by my statements, no matter how much blood I’ve lost,’ he explains, a little defiant. ‘And I’m very proud of my background,’ he adds, rubbing vinegar on his lacerated chest. ‘I’m not a regular church-goer, but I cherish the Baptist values I was raised with, and the Scottish emphasis on frugality which has been passed down to me.’

And Craig is certainly frugal, even in his hobbies. Every centimeter of electrical tape and every liter of urine that enters his pleasure crypt is closely monitored and accounted for. ‘And I’ll bring that same level of attention to detail to government if elected,’ he vows.

Craig also intends to repeal the anti-smacking legislation and get tough on violent criminals. He speaks at length about the need for greater efficiency in the public service, reducing waste, getting rid of red tape. The familiar litany of conservative policy platforms. Sometimes his voice fades as his knees press against my ears, but I don’t feel like I’m missing anything. Craig’s political agenda isn’t what makes him special. It’s something else.

Eventually I opened my eyes, expecting to find myself staring into the wolf’s head, but instead I found myself face to face with Craig, his eyes rolled back, his cheeks flushed and his teeth clenched, and I finally realised what made him different from, say, Peter Dunne or Hone Harawira. It was those eyes: glittering, chromatic, fragmented: they captured the light and threw them back at me, and I gasped in sudden comprehension.

His eyes were fifty shades of Colin Craig.

(Written in solidarity with The Civilian, who is being sued by Craig for defamation.)

About these ads

89 Comments »

  1. Is the plural of perineum perinea?

    Comment by jack — April 23, 2013 @ 8:09 pm

  2. Oh god, YES!

    Comment by Wimmy — April 23, 2013 @ 8:33 pm

  3. And I *know* that Craig really said these things to you, because you used quotation marks.

    Comment by steve — April 23, 2013 @ 8:40 pm

  4. Wow. A tour de farce.

    Comment by Thomas Beagle (@thomasbeagle) — April 23, 2013 @ 8:40 pm

  5. oooh so he did. Can’t wait to see what Chapman Tripp have to say about this.

    Comment by jps — April 23, 2013 @ 8:44 pm

  6. I am a coward. Those lawyer letters scare me. So I’d just like to say that Colin Craig is totally awesome, and I will be delighted for him and the country if the Conservative Party should achieve 4.99 % of the vote at the next election.*

    (*subject to review, depending on future threshold changes)

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — April 23, 2013 @ 9:08 pm

  7. Good on ya, Danyl! Good stuff.

    Comment by David in Chch — April 23, 2013 @ 9:26 pm

  8. Roflnui

    Comment by Sacha — April 23, 2013 @ 9:31 pm

  9. I think you’ll escape a cease and desist letter; your solidarity did not extend to quoting Maurice Williamson.

    Comment by MeToo — April 23, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

  10. Their letter of reply was pretty good, but really, why would Craig make it so easy for them?

    Comment by Alex Braae — April 24, 2013 @ 12:35 am

  11. I believe every word of this.

    Comment by Michael S — April 24, 2013 @ 7:28 am

  12. i wuv u

    Comment by petronious — April 24, 2013 @ 8:52 am

  13. This is good for Phil Goff

    Comment by Cnr Joe — April 24, 2013 @ 8:52 am

  14. I have to admit, I was aroused… :-)

    Comment by Kevin Welsh — April 24, 2013 @ 9:24 am

  15. Well done. Just as scary as your interview with John Key way back when.

    Comment by Ataahua — April 24, 2013 @ 9:57 am

  16. I am still aroused.

    Comment by BlackBag — April 24, 2013 @ 11:10 am

  17. How great it would be to meet such a colourful richly integrated young man. Would be interesting to see Mr Key and Mr Craig working out together. Oooo!

    Comment by xianmac — April 24, 2013 @ 11:20 am

  18. Set up a tip-jar for when Chapman Tripp demands legal costs for the defamation serving. I’ll put in my share.

    Comment by Eric Crampton (@EricCrampton) — April 24, 2013 @ 11:28 am

  19. I’ll contribute too, but I gotta say those lawyers are a bit slow today. How long would it take to edit the last letter and send it out?

    Comment by jps — April 24, 2013 @ 1:13 pm

  20. Roflnui

    Receives Obscene Flailing Languishing Naked Under Inquisitor.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 24, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

  21. Well, I’ll put my hand up and say it – you have stooped to satirise, Danyl. Colin Craig may not be my favourite politician, and satire can be a wonderful thing (especially when the MSM fail to adequately grill politicians), but…. this just has the feel of a lengthy character assasination of Craig, guised as satire. Sad.

    Perhaps Colin Craig sicced the defamation lawyers on the Civilian because he just got tired of people abusing and mocking him instead of engaging in political debate on the issues? Either way, he has though better of it and withdrawn the action now (after a light hearted apology from the Civilian).

    Really, this post just felt like those liberal-right blog rants against the ‘communist lesbian Liarbore misleader …rant…’ Helen Clark. Y’know?

    Comment by bob — April 24, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

  22. Actually, just to clarify; good satire should be like a good caricature – exaggerating and lampooning features and idiosyncracies of a person. Your Interview with John Key did that Danyl, picking up well know Key features like his ‘relaxed’ nature. This post just attaches the most vile and crude BDSM innuendo to Colin Craig, something he is not associated with in real life at all. So how is it satire, and not just vilification?

    Comment by bob — April 24, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

  23. ‘bob’ is the usual pseudonym of Rolf Harris when commenting on blogs, right bob?

    Comment by richdrich — April 24, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

  24. “this just has the feel of a lengthy character assassination of Craig, guised as satire”
    Bob – Colin has left himself completely open to being satirised for being sexually repressed. He himself said that homosexuality is a choice, and that he could be gay if he chose to be (http://www.3news.co.nz/Colin-Craig-Gay-parents-not-good-role-models/tabid/1607/articleID/262919/Default.aspx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter).

    Now, for the rest of us, who didn’t choose to be gay/straight/bi – this seems pretty repressed! I couldn’t be gay if I wanted to be – I’m just not attracted to men. Colin could be gay if he wanted to be, so that means ….

    Comment by BLW — April 24, 2013 @ 2:43 pm

  25. it’s short for Kate

    Comment by Sacha — April 24, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

  26. CC is a misogynistic homophobic dick, but he doesn’t even have the excuse of being Bible-thumping. People whose prejudices arise from deep and genuine religious commitments (and I’m feeling generous enough to include even John Banks in this category) have to be taken seriously – I think – at least for the sake of their sincere beliefs. Colin Craig, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to believe in anything much except that society has gone to the dogs since women stopped having babies every year and the queers got all stroppy. He’s a theological featherweight as well as a political one.

    Comment by Higgs Boatswain — April 24, 2013 @ 2:50 pm

  27. The challenge was to write something a litigious millionaire obsessed with gays would be reluctant to take to his lawyer.

    Comment by danylmc — April 24, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

  28. @ richdrich – Way to prove my point, champ! Just smear your opponents by associating them with celebrities up on sex charges. What a legend of tolerance you are, rich.

    @BLW – Fair point. Craig did say he thought gay was a choice. So you could satirise him for that. But I think CC was talking about gay sexual acts/’living an actively gay life’ being a choice anyone can make, not that people can control any thoughts/Same Sex Attraction that come into their heads.

    Either way, that wasn’t really my point. Danyl didn’t satirise CC based on CC being a sexually repressed, in the closet, gay. He associated CC with some pretty fringe sexual deviancy (BDSM), which we are constantly told has nothing to do with people being gay (just ask ex-ACT MP David Garrett, who was pilloried for mentioning gay and paedophile behaviour in the same sentence, even though he wasn’t actually equating them). That is why I thought this post was OTT by Danyl – because it painted CC with ‘character traits’ that CC has never shown or indicated. It is as bizarre as if Danyl suddenly did a spoof interview with Russel Norman portraying Russel as a neo-Nazi, because Russel stands up for Palestinian human rights, so he must be anti-Jewish, so he must be a neo-Nazi, right? Too weak a link to satirise.

    Comment by bob — April 24, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

  29. Who the fuck is Colin Craig?

    Comment by eddym — April 24, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

  30. It is as bizarre as if Danyl suddenly did a spoof interview with Russel Norman portraying Russel as a neo-Nazi,…

    Not really Bob, given that there is long and well documented history of uptight, religiously dogmatic, douchebags secretly (and vigorously) practicing what they rail against as opposed to lefty politicians routinely being outed as closet fascists.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 24, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

  31. There are probably a reasonable number of neoliberal nutters who, in their more hysterical moments, would see Russel Norman’s politics of active state intervention on, for example, power markets, as closet Nazism. It’s not a huge jump to that from being accused of sharing the politics of a North Korean dictator, which a number of politicians and journalists did for real last week.

    Comment by Dr Foster — April 24, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

  32. @bob, the only reason this satire works is because it is clearly related to Colin Craig’s vexatious litigation. Without that context, it would be simply puerile.

    If you are the kind of millionaire who doesn’t understand the Streisand Effect and thinks you can bully satirists into submission, this is *exactly* the kind of post to put paid to those particular misapprehensions.

    Nice one, Danyl !

    Comment by mikaerecurtis — April 24, 2013 @ 8:28 pm

  33. Craig said on 3News that his sense of humour is “well developed”.

    He’s humourously well-hung. And he dressses so stylisshly.

    Comment by Aztec — April 24, 2013 @ 8:45 pm

  34. he is not that bad, and it was not a hanging offence. He is a genuine, democracy-loving bloke.

    Comment by Tanya Stebbing — April 24, 2013 @ 8:59 pm

  35. And yet Tayna, he tries to use vexatious litigation to gag people.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 24, 2013 @ 10:54 pm

  36. And yet Gregor and Mikaere, the Civilian did attribute a fictional quote to CC that mocked his religious views & his views on gay marriage, juxtaposed with a (modified) actual quote from Maurice Williamson MP (see Hansard for 3rd reading of Wall’s Bill). So, while CC’s defamation threat was silly, and he must have realised that as he has withdrawn it, it was hardly vexatious.

    And defamation is precisely to gag people from saying factually inaccurate things about us. Just that we (and judges) normally cut a loooot of slack for comedians, as a vital cog in society holding politicians to account. So we shouldn’t act all horrified at someone using defamation lawsuits to ‘gag’ someone else – that’s what it is for, and the best defense is one of truth! Think about Judith Collins failed effort to sue Mallard and Little for defamation – it was an effort to gag, so what? It failed precisely because she had to prove it, and couldn’t. CC would have similarly failed. Chilling effect? Yes – perhaps the Comedian’s Union should have a defamation defense fund or insurance deal?

    Oh, and Gregor, can you name any “uptight, religiously dogmatic, douchebags secretly (and vigorously) practicing what they rail against” in NZ politics? I can only think of kiddy fiddler Graham Capill. By contrast, there are a surprising number of “lefty politicians routinely being outed as [kinda] closet fascists.” Anti-democratic overruling of S59 referendum, Labour MPs so keen on passing ever more draconian spy laws (as used in Urewera trial), not to mention Helen Clark sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq against widespread public opposition. Admittedly, few on the scale of outright fascism as exhibited by National PM Sid Holland, who literally used troops and jail against Kiwis, but hardly healthy democracy.

    Comment by bob — April 24, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

  37. And defamation is precisely to gag people from saying factually inaccurate things about us.

    No it’s not. If Danyl were to write a blogpost praising me as being the most handsome, intelligent and articulate man in New Zealand, I would have no legal cause of action despite the obvious inaccuracy.

    Just that we (and judges) normally cut a loooot of slack for comedians, as a vital cog in society holding politicians to account.

    So the actual chance of his claim succeeding had it ever come to court was minimal-to-nil? That sounds a lot like a vexatious claim to me.

    Think about Judith Collins failed effort to sue Mallard and Little for defamation – it was an effort to gag, so what? It failed precisely because she had to prove it, and couldn’t.

    No. Collins had to prove that Mallard and Little’s comments had a defamatory meaning. It was then for them to prove that this meaning was true … or, more likely, that this was an occasion of qualified privilege.

    CC would have similarly failed.

    So it was a vexatious claim after all!

    Chilling effect? Yes …

    So you are defending Craig for using his financial resources to pay his lawyers to threaten legal action that you yourself say could not have succeeded in order to try and scare off other people from mocking him? That’s quite some hero you’ve chosen to put on a pedestal.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — April 25, 2013 @ 7:33 am

  38. I wouldn’t call it vexatious so much as really dumb – it was a naïve move on Craig’s part to think that threatening legal action wouldn’t make the issue bigger and more public than it was. His better course of action would have been dignified silence.

    Comment by Ataahua — April 25, 2013 @ 8:05 am

  39. I wouldn’t call it vexatious so much as really dumb…

    Why are these alternative interpretations?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — April 25, 2013 @ 8:17 am

  40. Colin Craig is so awesome, all the people who used to write about Chuck Norris now write about him.

    Colin Craig gives Arnie fitness tips.

    Colin Craig will save us from the next asteroid.

    Colin Craig’s breath will reverse global warming.

    They changed the name of Colin Craig Power to Mighty River Power because they realised it couldn’t live up to his name.

    Comment by Hugh Young — April 25, 2013 @ 9:19 am

  41. This is brilliant and effect is heightened by responses from the humour-challenged

    Comment by john — April 25, 2013 @ 9:19 am

  42. I love the way you manage to mix your own hobbies with political expression.

    Comment by ZenTiger — April 25, 2013 @ 10:28 am

  43. Bob, a couple of points.
    There is a big difference between anti democratic / autocratic and fascist.
    Secondly, my pont about hypocritical zealots was not intended to be NZ specific. Otherwise I would have said “in NZ”.
    Thirdly, defamation as AG points out is not about stopping untruths being aired. It’s about the harming of reputation. If you read the quote attributed, you wold be hard pressed to see that.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 25, 2013 @ 11:19 am

  44. Colin will get into Parliament next year, people are realising that the majority of MPs ignore the majority of the people, time and time again.

    Comment by Tanya Stebbing — April 25, 2013 @ 11:25 am

  45. “He associated CC with some pretty fringe sexual deviancy (BDSM)”

    Ha, Bob, you really need to get out more if you think that’s fringe,hey, for a couple of hundred bucks you can enjoy the thrill, you never know you might just enjoy it.
    Why does Key spend so much time in Hawaii? Because no one knows who he is.

    Comment by frank_db — April 25, 2013 @ 11:48 am

  46. Thirdly, defamation as AG points out is not about stopping untruths being aired. It’s about the harming of reputation. If you read the quote attributed, you wold be hard pressed to see that.

    Especially given the following (from Claire Trevett’s article in today’s Herald)

    More than half of the National MPs supported the bill – and that was manna from heaven for Conservatives leader Colin Craig, hoping to get enough of a boost to become a serious contender in 2014. After the vote, Craig appeared to find flaws in Williamson’s claim that the world would not end.

    “The day of reckoning is still to come” he tweeted, prompting one follower to ask him to be more specific: “I’m hosting a BBQ and I’d hate to get locusts in the potato salad.”

    Given what Craig himself says, how exactly did The Civilian’s “quote” damage Craig’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable New Zealanders?

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 25, 2013 @ 12:01 pm

  47. Why are these alternative interpretations?

    Fair point.

    Comment by Ataahua — April 25, 2013 @ 12:25 pm

  48. I thought The Civilian fictitious quote was actually quite on the mar, and a good rebuttal of Maurice’s speech against the “big gay rainbow”.

    However, it just goes to show – some douchebags need legal advice, and some douchebags need social media advice.

    Comment by kupo (@kupofan) — April 26, 2013 @ 8:52 am

  49. “Colin will get into Parliament next year”

    i dont know tanya – CCs polling is very low, down near act levels. Hes gonna need an electorate seat, and i would put $$ on epsom going national before going conservative

    Comment by framu — April 26, 2013 @ 10:36 am

  50. “…Hes gonna need an electorate seat…”

    Isn’t he more putting his money on the bloc of conservative chicken run Jaapies on the upper North Shore getting him over the line?

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 26, 2013 @ 11:06 am

  51. “I’m hosting a BBQ and I’d hate to get locusts in the potato salad.”

    As far as jokes go, that’s actually pretty funny.

    Comment by Phil — April 26, 2013 @ 11:16 am

  52. As far as jokes go, that’s actually pretty funny.

    It is. Which makes it even more strange that Craig didn’t find The Civilian’s piece amusing.

    Which lead me to conclude that (a) Craig didn’t find the piece defamatory at all and kicked up a fuss for an alternative reason – maybe some misguided ‘any Press is good Press’ advice? – or (b) some flack runs his Twitter account.

    I’m leaning towards (b).

    Comment by Gregor W — April 26, 2013 @ 11:45 am

  53. at least this site believes in freedom of speech, even if we don’t all agree, all of the time.

    Comment by Tanya Stebbing — April 26, 2013 @ 8:59 pm

  54. he is not that bad, and it was not a hanging offence.

    It was not. But it was a “ridicule him” offense. Which is, of course, exactly what happened.

    Comment by steve — April 26, 2013 @ 9:24 pm

  55. One thing I like about Colin Craig- he pisses off all of the right people.

    Comment by Redbaiter — April 26, 2013 @ 10:26 pm

  56. Your endorsement surely means the world to him, Bedwetter.

    Comment by Sacha — April 26, 2013 @ 10:35 pm

  57. Sadly Colin Craig is too soft on communists to get the full fledged Redbaiter thumbs-up.

    Comment by Hugh — April 26, 2013 @ 11:59 pm

  58. Here’s a fun challenge. Write the comment that Redbaiter would have written had this post been about John Minto threatening to sue Cameron Slater and Truth for defamation.

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 27, 2013 @ 7:42 am

  59. Really FL??

    What delusional state do you live in wherein you imagine I would spring to the defence of that sleazy loser Slater? He’s another progressive dipshit who should fuck off out of the National Party, check in with Labour and leave National to return to its original Conservative roots.

    There is a lot wrong in NZ politics at the moment, but most of the problems we have are down to the progressives (like Slater) who prevail in the National Party.

    Comment by Redbaiter — April 27, 2013 @ 8:22 am

  60. @50 Sanc, your electoral geography is off if you think North Shore = Rodney. Upper, yes, but not many yaapies here. It will come down to this: will National sacrifice the local yet-to-impress nobody MP for Colin? Otherwise, CC has no chance at all.

    Comment by MeToo — April 27, 2013 @ 8:34 am

  61. BTW FL, you need to catch up on Dimpost commenting protocol. It is decreed that all comments from Redbaiter are studiously ignored. You’ll be deluged with email on this issue I don’t doubt.

    Comment by Redbaiter — April 27, 2013 @ 9:08 am

  62. RB,

    It’d have nothing to do with Slater. It would have everything to do with “progressives” who “have no sense of humour” and “want to destroy free speech”. Or some such diatribe.

    But when your hero-de-jour does it? Well, that’s different, of course.

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 27, 2013 @ 9:09 am

  63. It is decreed that all comments from Redbaiter are studiously ignored.

    Really? Yet your first comment attracted three sarcastic/scathing put downs. Not so much ignored as treated in an appropriate fashion, I would have thought.

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 27, 2013 @ 9:12 am

  64. FL-

    people who say that suing someone for defamation is an attack on free speech only reveal themselves as utter knuckle dragging uneducated ignorant of history morons without the faintest clue as to what free speech really is.

    Only governments can be guilty of suppressing freedom of political expression. (colloquially “free speech”.)

    Comment by Redbaiter — April 27, 2013 @ 9:40 am

  65. It must be raining in Papamoa.

    Comment by Sanctuary — April 27, 2013 @ 10:31 am

  66. “Only governments can be guilty of suppressing freedom of political expression. (colloquially “free speech”.)”

    A genuinely fuckwitted comment on so many levels, Russell. You’ve exceeded expectations there, congratulations.

    Comment by Judge Holden — April 27, 2013 @ 2:05 pm

  67. I hope I’m not the only one to copy-paste Red’s staunch defense of the right to sue for defamation and its compatability with free speech.

    In more seriousness, though, it is an interesting look into the conservative-libertarian ethos whereby if your rights are not infringed by a government, they’re not infringed.

    Comment by Hugh — April 27, 2013 @ 2:46 pm

  68. @Redbaiter: Better add Stephen Franks to your list of communists who should fuck off and join Labour:

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/defamation-laws-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/

    Comment by Hugh — April 27, 2013 @ 2:48 pm

  69. Only governments can be guilty of suppressing freedom of political expression.

    Simple civics test, ‘baiter … the Government consists of the legislative, executive and which other branch?

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 27, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

  70. Franks is a good man but he misguidedly believes in playing the game according to the rules set by the left. Hence he will always be ineffectual.

    Comment by Redbaiter — April 27, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

  71. “It is as bizarre as if Danyl suddenly did a spoof interview with Russel Norman portraying Russel as a neo-Nazi,…”

    Well: Russel DOES fly aeroplanes after telling the rest of us not to.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 27, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

  72. Redbaiter. He’s no-one else’s man. He doesn’t play by anyone else’s rules. No – he does it his way, or he doesn’t do it at all.

    He’s a rebel, he’s a guru, and he’s a beatnik.

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 27, 2013 @ 4:27 pm

  73. “Franks is a good man but he misguidedly believes in playing the game according to the rules set by the left.”

    Well, he occasionally tries to use logic and facts (rules not set so much by the left, but by sane people), something of which you will never be accused Russell, you psychotic and nasty old fuckwit.

    Comment by Judge Holden — April 27, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

  74. He’s a rebel, he’s a guru, and he’s a beatnik.

    Ha!

    Comment by Gregor W — April 27, 2013 @ 7:19 pm

  75. Well: Russel DOES fly aeroplanes after telling the rest of us not to.

    Is this the new bar for crypto-fascism now, CF?

    Comment by Gregor W — April 27, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

  76. hypocrisy, Gregor.

    And yes, I feel that being told to not do something by someone who is doing it to be a form of fascism. Are you are comfortable with Al Gore and Prince Charles telling you to refrain from flying?

    “People who have what they want, are fond of telling people who haven’t what they want, that they really don’t want it.”
    Ogden Nash

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 27, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

  77. PS did anyone else laugh at todays news: Anarchists trying to storm the Spanish parliament to protest austerity…

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 27, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

  78. And yes, I feel that being told to not do something by someone who is doing it to be a form of fascism.

    Wow. I mean, ‘fascism’ is a term that’s difficult to define exactly, but I’ve never known anyone to suggest “being a hypocrite” as the measure.

    Comment by steve — April 27, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

  79. I feel that being told to not do something by someone who is doing it to be a form of fascism.

    Wow. Dinner time conversations at your house when you were a kid must have been fraught.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 27, 2013 @ 7:50 pm

  80. True, Gregor, we questioned nearly everything our parents told us. Dinner time was noisy & stimulating. How was your dinner time: did your mum and dad explain why it did not matter if global warming theory did not turn out to be factually true? That the theory itself would drive desired changes in individual behaviour and social and economic changes. And did you and your sibblings simply sit there nodding?

    Steve, when the hypocrites are those in power, then it is a form of fascism. Or do you think that a powerful hypocrite has to kill before becoming a fascist?

    I can’t help but feel that folk who are pushing CAGW are simply the latest incarnation of the useful idiot.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 27, 2013 @ 8:18 pm

  81. Steve, when the hypocrites are those in power, then it is a form of fascism. Or do you think that a powerful hypocrite has to kill before becoming a fascist?

    Was he proposing a ban on flying? For everyone? Except him?

    Comment by steve — April 27, 2013 @ 9:44 pm

  82. How was your dinner time: did your mum and dad explain why it did not matter if global warming theory…

    Jesus. You define broken record, CF.
    Anyhow, dinner at my place was nice, mostly because I accepted that my parents weren’t infallable without needing to label the fascists.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 27, 2013 @ 10:10 pm

  83. I can’t help but feel that folk who are pushing CAGW are simply the latest incarnation of the useful idiot.

    And your proven ability to turn any given thread into an anti-AGW diatribe kinda marks you out as an idiot without much use. Just sayin’.

    Comment by Flashing Light — April 27, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

  84. @Clunking Fist: I agree that ‘do what I say, not what I do’ is annoying, and I agree that Russel Norman and the Greens more generally are often guilty of it.

    But if you literally believe that that’s what fascism is… wow.

    I guess it’s not your fault, there are plenty on the left who are guilty of labelling any political tendency they find threatening ‘fascism’, too.

    Comment by Hugh — April 27, 2013 @ 11:47 pm

  85. Can’t wait for Greece style austerity to hit NZ.

    All the smug statists/ public servants and urban liberals commenting on the Dim Post out on there arses and begging the private sector for work.

    Sure to be a change of attitude then.

    Comment by Redbaiter — April 28, 2013 @ 9:34 am

  86. A crusty old pricks like you out of a pension, eh Russ.

    Comment by Gregor W — April 28, 2013 @ 10:31 am

  87. Poor Russell. His life’s so horrible the only solace he can get is through fantasising about misery being visited upon people he’s never met. It’s sad in a funny kind of way.

    Comment by Judge Holden — April 28, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

  88. Why is it that I get the feeling that this is a retelling of a true story?

    More satire …

    http://www.liberalpartyofnzandotherinsanestuff.blogger.com

    Comment by Dan — April 28, 2013 @ 7:46 pm

  89. ‘And your proven ability to turn any given thread into an anti-AGW diatribe kinda marks you out as an idiot without much use. ”

    Anti CAGW, not AGW. Just sayin’.
    :)

    Comment by Clunking Fist — April 28, 2013 @ 9:05 pm


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. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 350 other followers

%d bloggers like this: