Why National is not announcing a new satirical DPB policy

So I was considering joining in the satire on “our” abortion policy that we never announced, but decided that this sort of gutter-based straw-personing isn’t funny for any definition of the word, and is exactly the type of thing that politics has too much of- that is, childish bickering where we all try to score points off each other instead of helping to debate the real problems our country is facing.

Needless to say, while the Green Party really does think global overpopulation is a problem, we’d rather address that by helping people lift themselves out of poverty and educating them about the environment than by doing something even along the hamfisted lines of David’s parody. People have less children when they’ve had the opportunity to get out of poverty, and that should be a focus for any government that wants to address overpopulation.

So I suggest an agreement, say, that if I don’t say National wants to feed concentrated industrial solvent to babies to save costs on waste disposal, that National supporters in turn won’t say we want people to go into an abortion lottery. Even “parody” has its limits, and I think it makes far more sense to actually try and characterise each other’s views fairly.

update: David replies. For what it’s worth, I think he’s got a very strange definition of satire that he thinks it doesn’t have to be funny. Satire without humour is a strawperson argument, which strangely enough, is exactly what I accused him of 😉


2 thoughts on “Why National is not announcing a new satirical DPB policy

  1. And then there is Farrar’s post rather meekly defending his supposed satire Ari.

    He 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. He didn’t provide one solitary argument against reducing dairy stock intensity – 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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s