Monday, August 31, 2009

Andrei Saul and Sue

You have to give it to Sue Bradford - she knows her Alinsky.

For those of you who have come in late Saul Alinsky is the guru of "community organizers". He systematized the process of remaking society in the way you want by stomping your feet until you get what you want.

One of Alinsky's favored techniques is demonization of your opponents.

Now poor old Sue suffered a minor setback a week ago when a referendum overwhelmingly rejected her Social Engineering Act outlawing smacking.

This was middle New Zealand speaking folks.

And middle New Zealand is not in favor of political violence - it just wants to go about daily life without disruption and interference from intrusive busybodies.

And Sue understands of course the way to get her way is to cast those who oppose her as wackos, which her opponents for the most part are not.

Hence we have her little tantrum over a twitter message suggesting she might be a target for assassination. And her attempt to cast of S59 opponents as being drawn from the same cloth as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Hell we have a fair idea who made this comment despite his pitiful denial and this gentleman is almost certainly in no position to cause Sue any harm.

On the contrary she knows his little twitter has come to her like manna from heaven -it presents an opportunity to cast those who oppose her look like fringe nutters.

And the last thing middle New Zealand wants to look like is a fringe nutter and so, she hopes, middle New Zealand will desert the cause and cease to oppose her radicalism.

16 comment(s):

ZenTiger said...

Sue will be doing her best to suggest that an extremely small group of people prove that 87.6% of the people that voted "NO" deserve to have their children removed and made wards of the State.

Because the State can do much better, all apologies for maltreatment and abuse of thousands of children over the past few years withstanding.

Here I Stand said...

Twitter turns people into twits - a case of mouth/fingers engaged while brain is in neutral.

If/when the state agencies come for my children because I break the law by correcting them, I will not stand idly by and let them tear my family apart. If they come armed, they will be met with arms. This will be used by the "YES" idiots as another example of why the law is such a good thing... in the immortal words of Bart Simpson:
"you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't."

I.M Fletcher said...

I don't think we have to worry about middle New Zealand seeing Sue herself has anything but a "fringe nutter".

Unknown said...

So much HATE directed at Sue
The majority of parliament supported her bill, you know democracy and all that.
If you have problem direct them at JK he is the decision maker.
Other then that "Build a bridge and get over it"

I.M Fletcher said...

tom, you're using "support" though, in the broadest terms, right? Helen whipped her Mps into supporting it; likewise, all of national was against it, but they didn't have the numbers to stop it. Eventually JK came up with a small compromise which made it slightly better; however, I don't see it as a good example of democracy-in-action.

I would like to have seen MPs voting according to the wishes of their constituents - THAT is democracy.

I find it somewhat irritating when someone uses "Helen Clark" and 'democracy' in a piece: she ran roughshod over democracy like it wasn't even there.

ZenTiger said...

So much HATE directed at Sue
A cheap shot, implying the small amount of hate mail is coming from this blog.

The majority of parliament supported her bill, you know democracy and all that.
Fletch puts paid to that ridiculous comment. I could add the government was voted out, and some of the commenters from the left acknoweldge this bill was part of the reason for that.
If you have problem direct them at JK he is the decision maker.
Have been. Also, whenever Sue Bradford pops up her head to use emotive language to suggest good parents are child abusers, or that the majority of us here condone threats of violence, we are entitled to respond. Democracy, freedom of expression and all that.

Other then that "Build a bridge and get over it"
Democracy. Get used to it.

Alan said...

Just started reading this blog. Tom is a nutter right in the Sue Bradford
category, his comments are not objective and are in the minority
11% who voted yes in the referendum. This matter has a long
way to go, the population at
large have long memories.

Unknown said...

I am nut a nutter I just don't think it is ok to hit children
The fact that I have parented three Kids to adulthood without hitting them. by taking time and energy and commitment doesn't make me a nutter
The fact that those young Adults are now all making a strong healthy contribution to society also tends to suggest that I am not a nutter
My comments are based on experience not only as a parent but having met and conversed with Sue on a number of occasions. and therefore not having to relying on some pot purri of quotes taken out of context to form my jaundiced opinions

I don't think it "going anywhere" that you want it to go Alan. Certainly not calling people who disagree with you nutters
face it. You guys asked the wrong question If you are going to go to the trouble of a referendum make sure you get the question right, not a leading one. that was able to be fobbed off so easily
Like, is it right to hit kids ?
Plain and simple

Yes or no You would say yes, I say no And I am the nutter?

Key and parliament have spoken get used to it
Use wooden spoons to make cakes

I.M Fletcher said...

Well, tom that may have worked for you, but I have also talked to many, many, parents, and also to people who were smacked as children and who have suffered no ill effects and grown up to be wonderful people.
I was smacked on the odd occasion when i was a kid and it never did me any harm.

I see you're again using the word "hit" instead of smack.

The next time you're talking to Sue, ask her how her kids turned out.

ZenTiger said...

My comments are based on experience

And when we say we benefited from an occasional smack from loving parents, what do you put that down to?

and conversed with Sue on a number of occasions and therefore not having to relying on some pot purri of quotes taken out of context

Not sure what you are trying to say here. There are many comments taken from Sue's radio shows and speeches around the blogs, and the context gets repeatedly confirmed by Sue herself. If she doesn't want to ban smacking she should come out on National Radio and just say so then.

Ciaron said...

Are you so blind,Tom?.I'll tell you this just one more time and I ll even type it slowly so you can keep up.


In other words, it's written in "legalese" follow?.

I also take great offense when you say We want to hit children, because we don't we just want the right to discipline our children as We see fit. And the more you argue that parents cannot judge appropriately, the more you prove the failures of social engineering.

Unknown said...

"We just want the right to discipline our children as as we see fit"

Which involves hitting them eh ?

Look this is going around in circles
I can not see the need to intentionally inflict pain on children
It's seems,well just wrong

You lot obviously do

You would have the majority of public opinion on your side

I have the child healthworkers, advocates,and parliamentarians on mine
My group tends to be more well informed methinks

So bye everyone I am out of here

PS And I, like you, really hope that hitting kids doesn't do them any harm

so we agree on something ;-)

Ciaron said...

It's only going round in circles because you lack the intelect to differentiate a light smack from a beating.

ZenTiger said...

Tom, I suspect there were times you weigh up choices and had to intentionally cause some level of pain and distress to your children, whether that was mental or physical, because you understood the importance of saying "No".

You might have a preference to exert a greater degree of mental pain than a lesser degree of physical pain because of your abhorrence of physical pain of any sort. That was your choice, and it would be good if government respected that choice providing it was within reasonable limits.

I am not looking forward to the day that any suggestion of causing mental distress is to be considered a criminal offence, but with the promise that light distress will not be prosecuted.

Maybe the left will remain comfortable with a level of mental distress caused by parents when they, in some way or other, say "No" to their children.

The children that react with loud and very public tantrums in response will surely be a measure on just how much pressure and pain such parents have inflicted on their child in a public venue? Or perhaps a handy supply of sweets and a willingness to walk out of a shop when the 2 year old has had enough, leaving groceries and frozen food melting in the trolley will increase in frequency.

Time will tell.

KG said...

"My group tends to be more well informed methinks'

Aaah yes. Much better informed than the mere peasants....and therefore entitled to inflict their preferences on the rude mob.
Which perfectly encapsulates the totalitarian mindset that thinks it's ok to dictate to others how they must raise their children.

Ciaron said...

Tom, you're just a retard who can't read.

what part of this can't you follow?:

"I also take great offense when you say We want to hit children, because we don't."

A smack is not a hit, and like i said, I'd be willing to demonstrate the difference...........

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.