Debbie Codfish and The Absence of Reason

Herald journalist Deborah Coddington indulges in yet another attack on Don Brash and his one law for all policy.

Shouldn’t one-law-for-all policy also obliterate other specially-tailored departments and courts, such as those that are age-based or occupation-based? There goes Child Youth and Family, the Children’s Commissioner, Veteran’s Affairs and the Retirement Commission.

Some might dismiss my argument as reductio ad absurdum but I’m trying to point out Brash can’t posit his one-law-for-all policy as an excuse for dumping Maori-only departments and say it’s not racist.

Actually, I don’t know what to say. The media is just full of halfwits who cannot reason, cannot think and know very little about what is really going on. I’m perhaps taking it too seriously, given that in the end, Deborah’s columns are meant to be a diversion and an entertainment of sorts, but surely we do not have to be insulted by this kind of deranged lunacy. Surely better can be made available. Bloody Garth George the other day and now this on Sunday. Good grief…!!

13 thoughts on “Debbie Codfish and The Absence of Reason

  1. Nice try Deborah. You and the majority of columists are out of touch and you can stop trying to educate people, the way you think.

    Don Brash is what NZ needs.

    Special treatment, policy, welfare, It is not working.
    There is no more money to waste and the taxpayer is over it.


  2. Is she trying to be relevant or what? Where is her Libertarian views? Out the window I supposed. Why is she then criticizing Dr. Brash? Brash views on one law for all is closer to her (former – if it was at all) Libertarian views, then what she’s criticising? Is she criticizing herself for having a libertarian views or she’s running out of things to write about or say , therefore she attacked her own political philosophies in order to stay relevant? I suspect that it is the later.


  3. Mr Fisi, I’m not sure it’s even that deep a thought process. Mrs (Molly) Coddled-egg is a disgusting populist who believes (by reading the inane witterings of the likes of Mmmmmatt Mmmmmcccccaarten and David Cluster Farrar) that she has read and understands the public’s mood. And to be fair, if one were to read the comments published by the Herald viz. Farrar’s inaugural article one might conclude the public are generally happy with the Quisling Key’s selling out to the politics of Apartheid and the Dipton Double Dipper’s spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

    She is wrong, and if that’s from where she is judging the public mood, she is foolish. Although I reside offshore I speak with large numbers of ‘ordinary’ Kiwis on a daily basis. Almost without exception, those on the ‘right’ who held their nose and voted for Hide, or enthusiastically voted for (and have subsequently been betrayed by) Key last time around are looking forward to supporting a Brash-led ACT this time around. They finally feel they have an advocate, in the same way they did in 2005 before the Dipton Double Dipper and the Communist Lesbian contrived to steal the election from Brash.


  4. I just got home, read that Coddswallop article and felt like puking. What a slimy collection of half-truths, distortions and wilful ignorance that is!


  5. In the end though, she’s got a point, albeit that she probably doesn’t even realize that to be the case. Mrs Carruthers (indeed, wife of a QC who recently made a fortune in taxpayer legal aid monies defending a crooked SC judge) is patently shallow by trying to spin off her analysis as some prophetic argument, while its logical consistency is plain to see. Of course the logical conclusion of Brash’ argument is to get rid of a phalanx of Marxist initiatives hiding as benevolent ideas “supporting” some specific interest that feels in some way mistreated by the alleged “capitalist” power and influence structures.
    I Brash is consistent in his approach (let’s hope so), the entire array of agencies and funds maintaining an army of social scientists and other leftists cabal will be eradicated forthwith. This simple act would already reduce spending on completely different budget items, because the indirect impact of these professional water carriers for special causes is huge. Let me elaborate: an agency like the Families Commission not only costs a fortune for the useless activities it undertakes itself, it leads to all manner of advocacy and initiatives that have very significant downstream costs, varying from impact on policy development to additional administrative costs in order to ensure that “relevant” issues are properly “monitored”.

    Removing these agencies altogether thus results in a flow on effect that acts as a leverage to the actual savings that may be achieved. It is thus imperative that Brash achieves enough support to get a firm hand in decision making, preferably as the person holding the purse strings (i.e. finance minister) together with that of coalition partner dominating the issue of supply. In order to fulfill these objectives, ACT must achieve a minimum of 10, but preferably 15 parliament seats.

    Bez has last week registered as a member of ACT to assist in this, albeit that previous initiatives to vote by feet appear to come to fruition at the same time. His support may well have to be conducted from overseas.


  6. If Brash did not know that the media were going to do everything to discredit him, he will now. Just like last time. They can’t stand having someone threatening to excise the cancer of Marxism.


  7. “There goes Child Youth and Family, the Children’s Commissioner, Veteran’s Affairs and the Retirement Commission.”

    And good riddance.



  8. The worst thing re Coddington is that her staunchly held premises when she had any were routinely tainted with her pomposity. For all the allegations made re Ayn Rand I have never read a statement alleging she was pompous. Deborah most certainly is. (Fragile ego to go with it!)


  9. Well I see someone?? is trying to run the Brash luv child story. Act and Hide are being blamed by Hooton.
    Now I wonder if we should ask Hooton about a certain set of emails that surfaced a wee while back.
    I have no idea but Hooton seems to me to have a certain destructive political nature. Everyone else has been blamed one way or another.
    Often criminals will return to the scene of a crime.

    Now who would have thought eh? 😯

    Nick K (81) Says:
    May 8th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Best post on this comes surprisingly from someone called Eddie over @ The Standard.

    Money quote:

    The first time I heard of the love-child story was from one of the Brash-ists, Matthew Hooton. He dropped it into a Kiwiblog thread back before Brash rolled Hide, which was then reported by one of our commentators:

    Matthew Hooton (14) Says:
    April 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    You are so right that Key and Goff would want to stay away from this. Otherwise they might be involved in something where anything could happen on live TV, something as appalling as one of those mentioned above, say, accusing another of, say, having a love child, which might mean that that person could then be forced to accuse the other of something as equally untrue, like – god knows? – something like sending texts to his girlfriend when his wife was in labour. False and disgusting accusations like these are the last thing NZ politics needs.

    So before Brash rolled Hide, Matthew Hooton was already softening up this smear. Amazing that he could read Hide’s mind or predict his bahaviour.


  10. quite true, i remember this post.
    he then did not reply to commenters asking wtf he was talking about.


  11. Send the Maoris back to their ancestral homeland of Hawaii! Mixing a backward and advanced race never works. Look at what has happened in South Africa since the blacks took over.


  12. Yawn…..
    Sow and reap….
    You teach your “pig’s mouth” kids how inferior they are and how submissive they must be to failed ethnic cultures to avoid unspeakable Fabian anger and now wonder how anyone could run a “some people are more equal than others based on their race” line in NZ politics?



Comments are closed.