Friday, August 18, 2006



Blatant intellectual dishonesty

DPF has a post on the Acting Solicitor-General's opinion that Parliamentary Services does not vet spending or make decisions, but only "administers funding", which can only be described as blatant intellectual dishonesty. DPF worked in Parliament for eight years, and knows full well that actual Parliamentary practice bears little resemblance to the Acting Solicitor-General's opinion, and yet has decided to pretend that it does anyway because it advances his party's position.

This is what fucks me off about the political blogosphere. Too many of those involved are outright party hacks, willing to spread any shit even when they know it is false if it advantages their party in any way. I know that in the war of ideas truth is just a tactic, but even so the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that is so frequently on display is sometimes too much even for my cynicism.

13 comments:

I should add that this applies to people on both sides of the political fence, not just to DPF.

Its also not a matter of "partisanship" or having strong political opinions - I have strong opinions, and am partisan as hell. I expect people to fight for their views, and do so vigorously. But it would be nice if they also showed some basic intellectual honesty in the process.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/18/2006 03:18:00 PM

Not sure which is the most insiduous, the post on kiwiblog or this little comment he left at Law 179:

At 14/8/06 2:13 PM, David Farrar said…

More of a problem where the person who decides for Public Body B is best friends with Citizen A.

Posted by noddy : 8/18/2006 03:38:00 PM

Jordan, how can you make this accusation against DPF, given your own writings?

M'lud

Posted by Anonymous : 8/18/2006 04:29:00 PM

Oops, I sincerely apologise to I/S for calling him Jordan; I'd just been on JC's blog and thought that post was one of his, and it seemed too hypocritical to ignore, in that context.

M'lud

Posted by Anonymous : 8/18/2006 04:36:00 PM

idiot, don't beat yourself up too much. david is building a steady track record of lying online.

his attempt to quote me as if i had advocated labour voters unseat peters was a potentially serious matter that still rankles.

i've spoken to a number of persons who work in parliament that have pointed out that farrar's discussion of parliamentary practices very rarely bear resemblance to actual processes and procedures.

Posted by che tibby : 8/18/2006 04:42:00 PM

Firstly I point out the opinion is the Acting SG, not mine.

Secondly yes I could have pointed out there are some de factor processes involved.

But do you know why I didn't? Well it's not a matter of blog discourse being so dishonest, but that of the Prime Minister. When she makes outraegous claims that this pledge card thing is nothing to do with her at all, then sure as hell I will use what I can to discredit that.

Seriously, her behaviour sickens me, and I mean sickens.

Anyway I apologise if my disgust for the Prime Minister on this issue, means I lowered myself to her level. I'll try not to do it again.

Che - I don't even bloody recall what you are referring to. My God if this has been bottled up inside you for this long, then send me a bloody e-mail and ask for a retraction if I took you out of context. But frankly I don't at all recall which out of the 6,000 posts I have made you still have some grievance about.

And have you ever considered getting these anonymous people to post their disagreement with what I say, and maybe I'll respond to it.

Posted by David Farrar : 8/18/2006 06:35:00 PM

Farrar...get over yourself here. You are just playing spincity.

As I have said for weeks now, the real issue is the way the Chief Electoral Officer failed to make his decision until just weeks before the election. That was far too late. As you know better than I do, campaigns are planned years in advance, it was grossly unreasonable of Henry to impose tightened expenditure conditions at that stage.

Posted by Logix : 8/18/2006 06:58:00 PM

Logix - your attacks on the Chief Electoral Officer are a nonsense. He took the matter up with Labour within minutes of being notified about them.

Would you post such nonsense in defence of Bob Clarkson if he had been found over the limit? Would you defend him that his campaign was planned well in advance and it was unfair to rule against him?


Also at the time Labour were notified of the CEO's view, they could have reduced their spending to comply with the law. Three weeks out and most money is yet to be spent. They not only chose not to - they lied to the CEO and said they would and then reneged. Shameless.

Posted by David Farrar : 8/18/2006 07:20:00 PM

jesus david, don't be so precious. you know as well as i do that blogs aren't about an accurate presentation of the facts.

it's just that you are a greater master at that than i.

Posted by che tibby : 8/18/2006 11:18:00 PM

Che - I find the phrase "david is building a steady track record of lying online." as suggesting far more than partisan spinning.

Posted by David Farrar : 8/19/2006 03:33:00 AM

well, i suppose that's fair enough.

but your blog is not known for its integrity, unlike NRT here.

an example is the use of 'statistics' to indicate the risk of suicide bombing. your argument went:
1. "some dodgy survey" reckons that x% of muslims support osama
2. there are y number of muslims
3. therefore there are z number of potential suicide bombers out there, be afraid.

if your real-world statistics company was to bring me an argument and figures like that, i'd bill you for wasting my time.

Posted by che tibby : 8/19/2006 08:42:00 AM

I/S you are of course right, and the expected diatribe flows unabated because of it. I have posted the same point. Helen Clark agrees with it. Peter Dunne agrees with it. Winston Peters agrees with it. Rodney Hide agrees with it.

Suddenly David Farrar and his cohorts look a bit out of place...

Posted by Jordan : 8/19/2006 10:25:00 AM

Interestingly, while Mr. "disgusted" Farrar is on his high horse he still fails to justify the smear that he left on Law 179.

But butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

Posted by noddy : 8/21/2006 09:59:00 AM