Thursday, August 13, 2015

Send in the sharks, there needs to be sharks, and look dear, at that fine pisces Abbottus with the pearly white teeth ...

A kindly correspondent sent along a copy of this Kudelka cartoon - no doubt the cartoonist thought that  this summary of all the worst fears of the Abbott government was a kind of comical exaggeration which would provide a little humour to relieve the tensions of the day.

In the usual way, it turned out it was only a scientifically accurate depiction of actual lived reality and no laughing matter at all.

Here's the Daily Terrorists today, going about the business of terrorising sharks:

The Terrorists have been blathering about this for a few days now:

A permanent solution!

Arbeit mach sharks frei! Prepare the concentration camps, exterminate, exterminate ...

Let there be a holocaust of flake ... and so on ...

The pond's suggestion? If by accident you find yourself in any way contributing to the Murdochians or Laura Banks' livelihood, it's time to cull ...

Your brain should be your domain, and Banks has no business destroying your intelligence with hysterical fear-mongering.

Of course it all becomes a little clearer when you look at the Terrorists' digital edition:

Laura Banks responds to online hatred! Talk about a goldmine for a tabloid. Spread the hate, then respond to the hate, treasure the hate, love the hate, feed the hate, maintain the hate, and soon it's a hate fest for the ages ...

Of course we've all been there before. This very week the NT News reminded an uncaring, completely indifferent world that a paper without a croc wasn't a paper at all ...

Meanwhile, on another planet back in 2014, Western Australian shark cull policy dumped: experts react.

But there'll be more of this, as oceans warm and sharks get more lively, and the Murdochians whitter away, not realising that the other great white shark, pisces Abbotus, still glides through the deep blue water, its glistening teeth triumphant and decorated with lashings of moderate flesh and blood ...

Yes, the Currish Snail even felt the need to put the Bolter's triumphant war dance on the front page, hurling spears at the dullards ...

A meisterstroke! Vee can vvalk ...

But as always the pond wondered how the reptiles at the lizard Oz were going about the difficult business of appealing to the young demographic, getting trickier by the day for a rag aimed at angry old white males ...

It seems there's still some terminological inexactitude surrounding the meisterstroke.

Here it is in the Oz:

Yet last night on 7.30, ScoMo the clap happy fundamentalist who speaks in tongues shifted very quickly from talk of a plebiscite to a referendum having a life of its own:

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, Leigh, that is not why I'm advocating a referendum.

SCOTT MORRISON: 'Cause, Leigh, what I'm arguing is it's not my view that counts, it's the Australian people's view that counts and that's why I want to see a referendum

SCOTT MORRISON: ...They're my personal views, Leigh, and I'm not going to impose those on the rest of the country. I'm going to say: everyone's views should be considered equally in this debate and that's why we need a referendum. 

 SCOTT MORRISON: Well, think about this, Leigh: I don't think a vote in this parliament is going to end this issue. That's why I'm a proponent of a referendum because I believe that is the best way to get to a conclusion on this issue which all Australians can accept. I don't want this issue to divide Australians, but I do want the issue settled and I think a referendum is the best way to achieve that outcome. (here)

And so on. This wasn't a flippant choice of words, it was deliberate, and it makes a mockery of David Crowe's headline.

Morrison has locked in on a referendum, a very different beast from a plebiscite, and yet there are delusionals out there still who think that Abbott is acting with some kind of good faith, as opposed to the deepest political cynicism imaginable ...

Abbott himself once went on record - and in detail - noting that SSM was rightly a matter for the federal parliament, but he now thinks he's found a way - at a humble hundred million dollars or so - to draw a further line in the sand. And a referendum is an even better line in the sand than a plebiscite.

But back to the reptiles, and once again there was a mix of moods and piquant irony in abundance:

Yes you know the punchline to that winning campaign to transform Tony Abbott's thinking:

Of course the oscillating fan managed to find hope in despair:

But the chief reptile was nervous:

Was there no reptile ready to stand up and celebrate? Why the pond is so glad you asked:

Yes the forelock tugging bromancer is in good voice and full throaty flight.

Clearly the bromancer has tried Coué's technique and the pond commends it to everyone:

But enough of this Murdochian headline approach, it's time to sink the pearly whites - oh that shark has teeth m'dear - into some Murdochian substance.

Feel the grit that generates the oyster, and what's the bet it's all the fault of Fairfax and the ABC?

Beyond the valley of the tired and the predictable. How's that young demographic working out for you Murdochians?

The rest is just more guff of the same desperate kind:

So Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, Cory Bernardi and the rest of the gang of luddites, clap happy fundies and Catholics to the right of Opus Dei are now going to assist in looking ahead to the referendum and building community support, and Wong underestimates the Bolter and the rest of the Murdochian gang and their hate speech and anyway it's Labor's fault for not doing anything?

Yep, the reptiles are slow on the uptake. It's not Wong who's saying there shouldn't be a plebiscite.

It's Scott Morrison. He wants a full-on referendum, with bells and whistles and all that it entails, and he wants it for his own duplicitous reasons ...

And you'd have to be a mug punter to underestimate Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott, or the other fundies and their utter deviousness and their steadfast opposition, which they will make plain during any campaign ... and no referendum has succeeded without bipartisan support.

And after that little stew fest of hate, bring on the flake! Or at least bring on the gospel good news and let's all dance with the happy clapper!

A roaring success! Soul clap hands with glee and ride a tattered donkey into Bethlehem:

By golly, that's exciting stuff. Let's bung on a do with Indonesia this very week ...

Yes, climate science might be crap, but we take crap seriously, and risk management is all the go and Australia is doing more than its share ...

Just look at this Graudian graph found in Tony Abbott's hubris is staggering:

But back to the bromancer for a final example of the power of positive thinking:

Except you goose, the hard liners are already campaigning, not for a plebiscite, but for a referendum, with bells and whistles ...

No wonder the country's fucked. Even the hagiographers can't get their lines straight.

Send in the sharks, there needs to be sharks, lots of sharks, or at least a good Rowe cartoon, and more Rowe here, as the sweet lad suggests that gay marriage might have ironically produced a most weird form of bestiality:


  1. Referendum is a no starter.

    Referenda are for constitutional alteration only. The right would therefore have to propose to alter the Constitution's wording in the relevant section to allow/limit SSM explicitly as a possible category.

    As insert limit, there's no way that would ever pass given the usual challenges and public opinion.

    As insert allow, it changes nothing substantive if it passes, as marriage is defined in the Act anyway and will require action. If insert allow fails, the wording remains the same and we can proceed by Act anyway.

    Morrison is just wooing the hard right. He knows his Attorney General will "advise against" such a referendum (that's the retreat tactic to leave the hard right out to dry), then he'll sit on his bum behind a safe house majority.

    Lots of enticing smoke for the Corgis and other nasties, but no fire.

    1. Riddle me this :

      In 2004 John Howard changed the Marriage Act to include the commonly accepted definition of a marriage as the voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others.

      "The government takes the view that not only is it a statement of its attitude towards marriage but it's also a necessary assertion by the parliament of the country above all others to define what is regarded in our community what is a marriage."

      So....The Parliament already has the means to immediately reverse Howard's opinion of such and dot the 'i's and cross the 't's when our community has changed its opinion?

      It makes me wonder..

  2. Hi Dorothy,

    From the start of the Roman Republic the free citizenry were organised into two distinct orders the Patricians and the Plebs (common people) and were distinguishable by their gens (names).

    The patricians had a near monopoly on political and social institutions. Plebeians were excluded from magistracies and religious colleges, and they were not permitted to know the laws by which they were governed. Plebeians served in the army, but rarely became military leaders.

    Fed up with their lot, the Plebs would often engage in a Secessio plebis or a general strike and would withdraw from Rome to leave the Patricians to their own devices.

    A series of such actions, the "Conflict of the Orders", eventually led to them wringing more equality from the Patrician class. These included political positions and the establishment of the Plebeian Council (concilium plebis) that would eventually be able to pass legislation on all Roman citizens, a plebicita.

    Another major concession the Plebs managed to gain was the passage of the Lex Canuleia, which established the right of intermarriage between Plebeians and Patricians. How things have changed!

    Finally a musical interlude for all us plebs;


  3. Equality, Simón Bolívar exclaimed, is “the law of laws.”
    - as last words quoted here.

  4. Environment Minister Greg Hunt outlined how the Government would achieve these targets without a carbon price. They will continue using the Emissions Reduction Fund with the addition of the safeguards mechanism. Other measures include developing vehicle efficiency standards, implementing ozone and fluoro carbon measures as part of the next round of the Montreal Protocol, and developments in technological change such as in battery storage technologies.

    Consistent with 2C? No. (comparative table)

    With a 25 per cent cut on 2005 levels this would reduce to 16t/CO2e per person, still the worst among developed countries. (comparative bar graph)

    1. A note on the concluding cartoon there: Stop the ... cats!


  5. Warren Entsch warns PM not to 'play silly buggers' on same-sex marriage vote Guardian.


  6. "Bomb Syria!"
    Hang on, Labor's foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek said there was "no clear legal basis" for Australia to move beyond the existing Iraqi commitment.
    How long before a suitable legal opinion is brandished?

    1. Well, Abbott allowed the B Bishop scandal to go for about three weeks.

  7. Their ABC reports: "Traditional media earnings have continued to come under pressure, with Fairfax Media reporting a sharp decline and News Corporation notching up a significant loss in the past financial year."

    1. What's the difference between a Fairfax decline and a News Corp loss, Anon?

    2. Pretty simple really.

      Fairfax reported a net profit, albeit a smaller one compared to last year. ie. a decline.

      News Corp reported a net loss. ie. a loss.

  8. Laura Banks has no place bitching about the lives and livelihoods of anyone.
    Laura, - do not stray onto a busy highway and you will be safe, do not go near an active volcano and you will be safe, do not read murdock papers and you will be safe, do not travel in trains/cars/planes/submarines/ships and snow-mobiles, and you will be safe, do not casually walk into a coffee shop/caravan park/motel near a beach and you will be safe, and, don't forget, it's much safer for you to have a dip in a sea among all those terrible sea-monsters you and other ignorant nutters seem to have an issue with.

    1. Ms Banks followed up with a "oh look at poor pitiful me surrounded by intertubes sharks" piece that was even more pitiful than her opening gambit, deserving only of contempt and indifference, and treated so by the pond ...


Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.