Oh Colin James….
Oh Colin James…..She still walks the furrowed fields of your mind…..oh yeah, come in Kenny Rogers. The senior moments are coming more frequently in the extending mid life crisis of Colin James. His continuing infatuation with a younger Helen Clark is reducing the objectivity of his writing, column by column. If his obsession is Helen, and his compulsion, to indulge subjectivity, one wonders if he is spending more time with the picture on the back of his toilet door, than his desk. This man’s pen idolises the laurels of Clark, his eyes are blind, his mind lost to an affair, with a vague temporal moment. Male menopause perhaps, or is his feminine side wrecking havoc with his emotions. Is his titanic sinking?
Hanging off her every word, digesting and regurgitating her, phrase by phrase. He is mystified by zero she has added to her turnover. She is now giving a 1000%. Having not grasped basic accounting, he is at a loss to accept that if the expenses are greater than the turnover, you are soon to be out of business. It is not surprising that John Key, who he describes as “spunky”, (now that has me worried too), is now preferred as Prime Minister. If you took away Clark’s breakfast show and her guest appearance of the 6 pm news each day, people would wonder where the Government had gone. If you’re ready to retire, then go quietly and bury your infatuated pen, while gardening. If you are only good for fiddling in your old age, go play Nero in a stage show. If not, wake up man; rejuvenate your mind with stage two economics. That only requires you to say ‘I used to be a parrot, but I am better now’; however it may raise the demand for your supply of opinion.
In response to a contribution 11 Sept 07, in that feminst rag, otherwise known as the NZ Herald
I read that article of James’ as well, with open-mouthed disbelief.
This commenter I read in awe – I doubt the NZ Women’s Daily could get their hands on such a talent on a more permanent basis.
Good spotting Bevan.
I read it too, the first of his writing I had read for a while, urging me to write to him in reply.
What I agree with him on is that Helen Clark is an extraordinarily capable administrator with the confidence that would have to be demanded of any captain if any waka is to sink. And sink it quite well might if those at the helm are incapable of steering the vessel out of what is presently a very tight and ice Berged sea. That they consider this obstacle their enemy the reason enough to presume that they do not have a hope of staying afloat.
As for John Key – I just cannot see him as capable, where his rhetoric is directly dismissive of necessisty to deal with anything other than what he figures he could want.
Mrs Clark is a desperately sad soul because she is:
She sees New Zealand recreated as the “perfect” Marxist state. Unfortunately, the power has gone straight to her head; we now find ourselves operating under a fascist government and racing towards a police state…
…the limiting of election spending [unless it upholds the current]
…”hate speech” law that will put anyone calling her or Cullen or Carter or Wilson or Cunliffe or Bradford “queer” in jail without consideration for the actual meaning of the word (queer, adj: strange or unusual)
…testing of parents against an imaginary scale dreamed up by people without children (???)
…the ability for child support to go back after CS has ceased and re-evaluate previous years in case your “capacity to provide” is now greater than it was then
…a move further towards children “Of The State” and no parental involvement in their upbringing [based on the sound assumption that childless people like her know anything about raising children]
Not a bad CV for Mrs Clark, but a shocking position for New Zealand and more especially New Zealand Families.
Key is yet to be tested and he is, at present, relying too much on advice from his feminist SS (Collins, Blue et al).
Mrs Clark is a known quantity and beyond admiration; we should only feel pity for such a lost and impoverished soul.
That’s the best observation or commetn on how I feel that I have read or heard. Yet I don’t see this condition as a bad thing – and this is important.
What I believe and admire of Clark is that she is the best administrator I have seen. Functionally there is a need for these adverse conditions, those that you articulately describe to be part of a societal norm. After all this is why the freedom from any oppression intellectual construct was ever invented.
Some have good cause to say –
Bad Church –
Bad Royalty –
These are reasonable forms of status about which to complain – ( cause for complaint should not only be limited to these).
And with thhis comes the need to determine a future. Yet we have advanced away from the basic principle of values incorporating the above power bodies, and those principles are the work in development of countless years – or time immemorial as people tend to say – or should I more rightfully say from the bastions of those institutions. And as I said before with the bastions comes a demand for freedom – and the greatest as necessary oppression in order to protect our species from its collapse is our sexuality. With the breakdown of rules on our sexuality replying to freedom, arrives, logically a relaxation of the practice in sexuality that protects us. And then naturally, of course, we query the word queer – and we are free.
This is where the second tier arrives and that freeedom becomes perverse. And Helen Clark as our best administrator becomes an effective vessel to transfer the collected as corrupted knowledge into mainstream society. So the family, as you say, gets broken down.
Yet I am not as cynical as you. If I were cynical I would have to believe that those in power were fully aware of this and these truths and practiced them deliberately. I have more faith in human nature – and after all it has taken me an age to recognise thisa myself – so who am I to suggest that HC has it figured into a practice that is directly detrimental to human wellbeing. She and her chronies just haven’t figured it out. They think they are involved in a practice of good – of equality – of love and kindness, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…
The practice directly discriminates against the child. And that’s not good.
I repeat that so far John Key hasn’t impressed me, although this morning on Breakfast TV I thought in reply to the Bill English’s son writing on the internet story he handled the adversity fairly well. His problem is that he has out and ought been caught trying to fool the public over his position relative to war, attempting to convince us in reply that an experienced politician is JUST a very good liar. Inexperience indeed.
So my money is still on Clark – no matter teh accuracy of your comment and no matter how much I could agree with any one particular point of your comment. What needs to happen is that her skill is enhanced. Her particular political bent where it is inconsistent with the objective practice of law, civilisation and evolution, time immemorial is a bent that needs to be capped. Social policy setting is not specifically the function of mainstream parliament – That, I believe should be set by a representation of people who have a direct steering capacity to monitor and affect a humane and compassionate state of human existance and productivity. In NZ we already have a societal frame that we choose to ignore, which is tikanga Maori. In order to recognise effectively tikanga Maori we have to balance ourselves into the objective reality which in turn has to “honour” and in “good faith” recognise the United Tribes”.
And again, we ahve arrived at a place where our corruption is excusing the kinds of behaviour you accuse of Helen Clark: and as an excellent adminstrator she is putting the as corruptable remedy of corrupted practices into play very effectively. Her and Sian Elias I should add.
Thank you for the opportunity to reply: Happy Dominion Day tomoroow.