Danyl McLauchlan at The Dim Post is no friend of the right - he even describes himself as a "long-term left wing voter". But that doesn't stop him from taking a big swipe at those who author The Standard for their support this week of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Beginning by calling them "worthless little hobgoblins", Danyl later says:
"In this thread pseudononymous Standard author ‘John A’ argues that investigative journalist Phil Kitchen is indeed just being a wanker for daring to ask Peters questions about the undeclared donations from various millionaires to his various secret trusts; here we have Standard stalwart Steve Pierson dismissing the entire story as an irrelevant waste of time (evidence of massive corruption + very senior politician = nothing to see here).
One doesn’t know whether to laugh in their faces or vomit on their laps; it is rare for a day to go by without ‘The Standard’ regurgitating another tantrum about National and their sinister secret trusts and demonic corporate donors, yet when confronted with behavior that is just as bad - if not far far worse than anything National has gotten caught at - their response is to clutch their pearls and wring their little lace hankies and plead for the media to change the subject."
Ouch! That's pretty harsh criticism. And whilst many of the Dim Post's offerings are highly satirical (and very funny - read this!), this one does NOT carry a "satire" tag. Danyl notes that the unconditional support for Peters would be understandable if he were a Green or Labour MP, but then condemns The Standard's support of "one of the most abhorrent politicians of our time" - a logic which is hard to argue against! And he closes with a warning to the authors:
"The Standard is the tasteless Labour flavor of The Hollow Men; but at least the spin and lies pouring out of National win votes for the party, while the wretched drones at The Standard makes even a long term left-wing voter like me recoil in disgust."
Congratulations to Danyl for an honest, even brutally honest analysis of The Standard's "unique" brand of propoganda. The left is far better served by blogs such as his or Jafapete's where rational debate is encouraged, not shut down.
Ouch! That's pretty harsh criticism. And whilst many of the Dim Post's offerings are highly satirical (and very funny - read this!), this one does NOT carry a "satire" tag. Danyl notes that the unconditional support for Peters would be understandable if he were a Green or Labour MP, but then condemns The Standard's support of "one of the most abhorrent politicians of our time" - a logic which is hard to argue against! And he closes with a warning to the authors:
"The Standard is the tasteless Labour flavor of The Hollow Men; but at least the spin and lies pouring out of National win votes for the party, while the wretched drones at The Standard makes even a long term left-wing voter like me recoil in disgust."
Congratulations to Danyl for an honest, even brutally honest analysis of The Standard's "unique" brand of propoganda. The left is far better served by blogs such as his or Jafapete's where rational debate is encouraged, not shut down.
3 comments:
Danyl is a dickhead, as I commented on his post.
The writers at the standard have expressed disapproval of the anonymous donations sections of the Electoral Act 1993. But they have also expressed an unwillingness to single out yet another moral abuse but probably legal use of the act. Danyl is stupid enough to view that as support - well he is wrong.
The widespread moral abuse of these questionable provisions of that act especially by National, Act, and Labour in that order by value deserves more scrutiny than NZF's.
Obviously the point is probably too subtle for his intelligence level. Danyl appears to be attacking the writers at The Standard for not joining in the lynch mob rule that he wishes.
At this point I can't see anything that is probably worse than Nationals use of the same parts of the Act to conceal the andecents of at least 2 million from the Waitemata Trust in 2005. That was immoral. We also have no idea of how much was also passed using the what are probably the same legal means as the Spencer trust. Using $9999 lumps would be sufficient to not have to declare it to the EC.
Frankly the Electoral Act 1993 had enormous holes that National put in there for their own benefit. The EFA 2007 cleaned some of them up - just didn't go far enough.
And don't ya just love the way Lynn, jumps in again?
Lynn, the fact that you can't see the difference between National's use of the Waitemata Trust and Winston's Spencer trust only demonstrates Danyl's point. Let me spell it out for you:
National:
Donor (secret) -> Trust (known) -> National (known and declared
NZ First:
Donor (secret) -> Trust (secret) -> ?????????
Spot the difference...
Well said McDoc - but still probably too subtle for Lynn!
Post a Comment