Still too far

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, August 12th, 2009 - 45 comments
Categories: abortion, dpf - Tags:

Farrar has come back with a defence of his icky and outragous ‘satire’ post that proports to be a Green press statement announcing a policy of complusory mass abortions to fight climate change.

If people are seriously going to propose policies such as reducing the national dairy herd by 20%, then they should expect a robust response. To be blunt their policies and claims do not get enough scrutiny as it is, so I don’t regret for one second that post.

Sorry, but in what world is writing a post that pretends to be a Green policy calling for massive compulsory abortions scrutiny of the Greens’ actual policies? What the Greens are proposing is not horrific, it is not ‘shooting all the wee cows’, it is simply breeding fewer cattle to get greater profits per unit and lower emissions. Even if it were a policy of culling livestock and Farrar was trying to say that’s morally wrong, that’s simply not on the same planet as involuntary abortion.

And for those who get all yucky because it mentioned abortion, I’ll point out this post by a Labour MP basically stating John Key is responsible for increased abortions due to the folic acid in bread decision. And that was a serious post, not even satire.

OK. Just because Farrar’s use of abortion in a post was wrong does not mean it is always wrong – just like you driving dangerously does not mean that all drivers always drive dangerously. That said, it was a weak and unnecessary angle for Trev to take even though he’s right that most cases of spina bifida detected during pregnancy lead to that pregnancy being aborted. Folic acid in bread would mean fewer cases of spina bifida, so fewer of these abortions. His comments, based in fact if hyperbolic, are nothing compared to the frankly gut-churning extreme that Farrar went to and has chosen not to resile from. His post didn’t ‘mention abortion’, it used abortion as a punchline.

The post was not meant to be funny

Mission accomplished.

Admit that your post was what is was, David, an ugly, brutal attack on the Greens, environmentalism, and abortion. It was a dog-whistle too far. That you lack either the shame or insight to see that speaks volumes.

45 comments on “Still too far ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal 1
    12 August 2009 at 10:09 am

    another case of post modernism where it is what I say it is and nothing more and nothing less.

  2. Tigger 2
    12 August 2009 at 10:12 am

    If he was really okay with the post then he shouldn’t feel the need to defend it.

    But while I can understand why some have issues with the post I still say the only problem with it was that it wasn’t at all funny. Good satire is hard to write and Farrar clearly isn’t up to the challenge.

    LabourWillBeLiquidated – Mr Key, is that you? I mean, who else is so obsessed with popularity and being liked…?

  3. Macro 3
    12 August 2009 at 10:16 am

    LabourWillBeLiquidated – just wait until the unemployment rate hits 10% next year.

  4. infused 4
    12 August 2009 at 10:20 am

    It’s not going to hit 10%. God you guys are looneys.

    • marty mars 4.1
      12 August 2009 at 10:35 am

      Icky is a very apt description i think.

      And you’re right infused it won’t hit 10% – it will pass right through that and go higher… oh sorry, i’m just thinking of the maori and pasifica people – they are at 13% already…

  5. ghostwhowalks 5
    12 August 2009 at 10:24 am

    Just a few days ago reports had farmers saying they may have to ‘shoot young cows in the field’ as the price at the works wasnt worth the feed they would eat.

    Sounds like a Hooten idea that was fed to him to ‘pump and dump’

  6. ghostwhowalks 6
    12 August 2009 at 10:29 am

    Only because he comes back from the US and pumps up full blown lies having seen how the GOP works these days

    He has lied consistently over climate change for years

    Yet writhes with indignation if a report says MPs are paid perks instead of allowances

  7. Steve Withers 7
    12 August 2009 at 11:00 am

    I’ve always wondered why conservatives resort to extreme nonsensical irrelevancies in purporting to ‘expose’ policies they don’t like.

    Farrar (or anyone else) making ridiculous things up about the Greens says nothing about the Greens.

    It does say Farrar (or whoever else) hasn’t got a good argument, so they have to make stuff up and then be outraged by their own creations.

    The “Birthers” and other nutters in the US have turned this approach into a religion of sorts. I’ve been hoping the right here doesn’t become as nutty, but the trend is toward just that.

    • Ag 7.1
      12 August 2009 at 7:28 pm

      By treating them with respect, the left just gives them air. Conservatives can’t win the arguments so their only strategy is to obfuscate and disrupt. That’s all they do. They don’t care about facts. All they care is that government never solves anything, even if it could and even if it would be better overall.

      The left keep falling for this trick and trying to debate with them. But you cannot debate with a person who in the end isn’t sincere about their own arguments.

      When the left realizes that conservatives are not to be argued with, but must be marginalized and suppressed, then we might get somewhere. You can’t play clean against people who ultimately have no respect for the rules, and conservatives who are like that are almost extinct.

      • bobbity 7.1.1
        12 August 2009 at 7:33 pm

        By treating them with respect, the right just gives them air. Socialists can’t win the arguments so their only strategy is to obfuscate and disrupt. That’s all they do. They don’t care about facts. All they care is that government never solves anything, even if it could and even if it would be better overall.

        The right keep falling for this trick and trying to debate with them. But you cannot debate with a person who in the end isn’t sincere about their own arguments.

        When the right realizes that socialists are not to be argued with, but must be marginalized and suppressed, then we might get somewhere. You can’t play clean against people who ultimately have no respect for the rules, and scoialists who are like that are almost extinct.

        ….looking out the other eye.

      • Ari 7.1.2
        13 August 2009 at 5:16 am

        Marginalising and suppressing someone is not a democratic action. If we claim to stand for democratic values, we need to make our case without trying to shush up the other side, but instead pointing out their mistakes.

        Which is fine, because the right in New Zealand has plenty of mistakes to point out.

    • Mental Micky 7.2
      13 August 2009 at 1:02 am

      Perhaps this is the skill Farrer was learning at the Republican bloggers conference the other month – how to muddy a debate by making shit up.

  8. Maggie 8
    12 August 2009 at 11:10 am

    Farrar thinks his tasteless “satire” about the Greens is justified because of something written by a Labour MP?

    How the hell does THAT work?

  9. George.com 9
    12 August 2009 at 11:33 am

    It seems to me that Farrars attempt to justify his ‘satire’ is not so much ‘grasping at straws’, but scrambling around looking for some straws to grasp. He should have being honest and admitted it was a sarcastic and scornful attempt to take the piss out of the Greens position, albeit a very weak effort. Instead however, we get this kind of justification. Aside from the obvious lack of ‘scrutiny’ of the Greens proposal in his post, there is the attempted justification on the basis of the Mallard press release. Farrars seeming inability to differentiate between his efforts and Mallards is surprising. They both share some degree of hyperbole. However, Mallards effort plays up what might be the end result of not putting folic acid in bread there could be some extra abortions. Arguably a case of over exaggeration and taking the argument too far, though the extension could be argued. Farrars effort? I fail to see any link between reducing the size of our national dairy herd and a mandated target for aborting babies. Maybe Farrar would like to explain where he sees the link. Best advice David, put your spade away

  10. Con 10
    12 August 2009 at 11:49 am

    If people are seriously going to propose policies such as reducing the national dairy herd by 20% …

    My God! That’s heresy! Talk about “sacred cows”!

  11. Peter Johns - bigoted troll in jerkoff mode 11
    12 August 2009 at 11:53 am

    kill all greenies. They think there are too many humans on the earth. They should do their bit to help.
    No more aid to Africa (fuck off Helen), let them starve if they cannot grow their own food.

  12. toad 12
    12 August 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Farrar states:

    If people are seriously going to propose policies such as reducing the national dairy herd by 20%, then they should expect a robust response.

    But he didn’t provide a robust response at all. He didn’t provide one solitary argument against reducing dairy stock intensity and numbers he just mocked the proposal with a weak attempt at satire.

    I suspect that is because he doesn’t actually have any arguments against the proposal?

    I would have thought that it is very obvious to anyone who has studied it that the dairy industry is engaged in unsustainable farming practices that are maintained only by pouring tonnes of nitrogenous fertiliser onto the land with resultant nitrous oxide emissions and waterway pollution.

    I would have also thought it was very obvious that land that is patently unsuitable for dairy farming is being converted to dairying.

    These occur because the costs of nitrous oxide emissions and waterway pollution are externalised either met by the taxpayer or passed on for future generations to address.

    If the dairy industry had to pay the real economic cost of its pollution, the stock intensity reduction proposed by the Greens could be largely achieved by market forces without any need for the regultion those on the economic right seem to fear so much.

  13. The Voice of Reason 13
    12 August 2009 at 1:25 pm

    For mine, the fundamental problem with Farrar’s post was that it wasn’t funny.

    There are righties capable of humour, PJ O’Rourke being the most well known, I guess and I suspect Farrar’s favourite. But my favourite will always be Auberon Waugh, who was both a satirist and diarist, who pricked the pomposity of politicians of all hues, without losing his strong compassionate streak for the weak in the world. An old school English conservative, but just in his selection of targets.

    I had a read through the comments on the sewer for this post and a couple seemed to believe it was a genuine press release. Even with the obvious idiocy of some of his readers, this seems exceptional. Again, the failure to raise a laugh renders the whole exercise a complete misfire.

    Farrar should stick to what he does best; holiday snaps and spruiking C/T lines.

  14. roger nome 14
    12 August 2009 at 1:45 pm

    And in a National Party press release:

    National is planning on sodomising all school aged children whose caregivers earn under $40,000 combined. Minister of social development explained that “far too many parents, particularly solo parents are living on easy street, and the National Party wants to provide them with incentives to get back to gainful employment by firstly, removing the training incentive allowance, and secondly, sodomising all theire children, with National Party-appointed peadophiles, who are currently serving sentences in state prisons (we think it’s only fair that prisoners should be contributing toward society as well).

    Press release ends.

  15. roger nome 15
    12 August 2009 at 1:47 pm

    oh, and for anyone who finds that offensive, i was simply responding robustly to National cutting the training incentive allowance for solo parents, so get over it.

    • Bright Red 15.1
      12 August 2009 at 2:05 pm

      nice

    • Maynard J 15.2
      12 August 2009 at 2:10 pm

      Not offenseive per se, but pretty idiotic when the whole point is to criticise Farrar’s post as inexcusable and disgusting stupidity, without a skerrick of humour.

      Why you choose to emulate that is beyond me, especially when it is equally as unfunny. Leave it to them.

  16. roger nome 16
    12 August 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Maynard J:

    It’s not emulation, it’s parody! Ask John Stewart.

    • Maynard J 16.1
      12 August 2009 at 2:17 pm

      I just do not see that as being productive. His (Farrar’s) comments do not need to be satarised to illustrate how wrong they are.

      • Con 16.1.1
        12 August 2009 at 7:18 pm

        I just do not see that as being productive. His (Farrar’s) comments do not need to be satarised (sic) to illustrate how wrong they are.

        I think you mean satyrised

        • The Voice of Reason 16.1.1.1
          12 August 2009 at 9:47 pm

          “I think you mean satyrised”

          And I think you mean satirised, Con. Mind you, the thought of Farrar as half man, half goat is rather amusing. Which is more than can be said for his post.

  17. So Bored 17
    12 August 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Would that Farrar and his ilk were a carbon emmission (ex crematorium). They are half way there, lots of hot air.

  18. gingercrush 18
    12 August 2009 at 2:29 pm

    roger nome you pretend to be above David Farrar, Whaleoil and the right-wing bloggers but from what I’ve seen you post here and elsewhere. You are exactly the same. You’d sooner insult those people and discuss their bodies than debate what they actually say. You are a pompous piece of shit.

    • felix 18.1
      12 August 2009 at 3:45 pm

      Kinda lost it with that last sentence though.

      • gingercrush 18.1.1
        12 August 2009 at 4:02 pm

        Yes but ever since I called the Indian woman complaining about Worth a bitch. I can’t have any pretense of being above anything.

    • roger nome 18.2
      13 August 2009 at 7:54 am

      “you pretend to be above David Farrar, Whaleoil and the right-wing bloggers”

      Not true – i AM a good half foot above those rotund short arses.

      “You’d sooner insult those people and discuss their bodies than debate what they actually say.”

      Someone feeling left out? I can discuss your body too! just send a picture to my blog, i’m sure i can come up with something evocative for ya.

  19. gingercrush 19
    12 August 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Is it that evil to mention w h a l e o i l ??

    • lprent 19.1
      12 August 2009 at 3:46 pm

      Nope. But the usual comment consisted of a link to whales site in the middle of a post on something utterly different. Basically link-whoring by some of whales few but obviously under-employed friends. Since it created me work, I set the word to auto-moderate. There are a couple of other sites with similar link-whoring blocks.

  20. coolas 20
    12 August 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Sometimes there’s worthwhile debate on Kiwiblog but mostly it’s a slagging match between the same posters. Boring. DPF posts are mostly cut and paste with him saying ‘agree’ or ‘disagree.’ Tedious. His attempt at satire with the Greens piece is infantile. I’m amazed his blog is so popular. Now he’s posting a day by day account of a Pacific holiday with pics. Weird. I thought holidays were about a change of environment, privacy, rest and recreation. It appears David Farrar is determined to create a cult of personality around himself by inviting his fans to virtual holiday with him, and it appears he’s succeeding. Scary.

  22. Greg 22
    13 August 2009 at 1:47 pm

    “it is simply breeding fewer cattle to get greater profits per unit and lower emissions”

    Are you trying to argue that this policy will be more profitable for farmers? Because thats nonsense. If you force farmers to breed less, they will be producing on the decreasing part of their marginal cost curve. Preventing them from getting to their optimal production point.

    Save the environment all you want……..just don’t ignore the cost.

  23. Scribe 23
    13 August 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Someone else may have already pointed this out above (apologies if that’s the case), but there WAS a Wellington environmental group — Sustainable Wellington Net — that proposed a two-child limit for New Zealand families. So what was the remedy if a woman with two kids fell pregnant? You guessed it.

    The idea was apparently so ridiculous that The Press basically asked the group’s spokesman if they were serious.

    Farrar’s post wasn’t funny, but the idea of members of the green movement wanting abortions to stem the population isn’t a foreign concept.

    • Pascal's bookie 23.1
      13 August 2009 at 5:12 pm

      Got a cite for that scribe, I can only find something from catholic.org. Not saying they’d lie, but It doesn’t confirm that this outfit was proposing mandatory family size limits, let alone mandatory abortions.

      The stub on factiva says that ‘Families should consider limiting..’ or some other wording that suggests a whole lot of choice going on.

      In any case, so what? There are some fairly interesting persons out there of the christian persuasion. Do you mind if I start saying the Catholic Church is totally down with theories of ZOG?

  24. BLiP 24
    13 August 2009 at 4:57 pm

    the idea of members of the green movement wanting abortions to stem the population isn’t a foreign concept.

    You’re right. Its not a foreign concept. Its insane.