Saturday, March 05, 2016

Let the mania and the manic phase and the white-anting and the sniping continue, thanks be unto the bromancer ...



Quelle surprise, quelle surprise ...

The pond, as always, is only here to help the reptiles and their failing business model, and so it faithfully maintains an interest in all their efforts ...

But talk about pitiful. Only the HUNsters tag teamed with the lizard Oz on the book designed to rock the nation, yet sadly in its core function as gossip, the Savva turned into a damp squib ...

Along with much well-rehearsed and repeated ancient history, the pond came to this central bit of the burnt offering ...


That's it, a comparison to Wallis Simpson, but not meaning to imply an affair? No wonder they've already knocked 35% off RRP for dedicated reptile lovers ...

Now the pond has long been serviced - if one may indulge in a Trumpism - by the best deliverers of common, preferably sordid, gossip.

Whenever Wallis Simpson is mentioned, the pond goes into overdrive.

We learn that the Prince was a little man, sexually inadequate, and prone to premature ejaculation. We learn that Wallis Simpson was a femme fatale with the legendary ability to make a matchstick feel like a cigar. We learn that Simpson was an adept at prolonged and carefully modulated hot oil massage, a woman who had perfected sundry arts called the Baltimore grip, the Shanghai squeeze or the China clinch. Moreover, she was an expert at oral sex and perhaps wasn't a woman at all. At the least, she might have been an intersexual who had actually never had conventional sex.

And so on and so forth, if one is to follow the Daily Troll's Was Wallis Simpson all Woman?

Now that's common, sordid gossip as it should be done.

Please, no fey comparisons to Wallis Simpson and the proto-fascist King Edward VIII, or it might set the pond to blathering about the wayward king's love for Hitler as an explanation for why the young uns like to don fascist gear for a party ...

Meanwhile, the matter of Savva set aside, it was tremendously reassuring to hear the news that Tony Abbott was no King Edward, no wrecker he ...


The reptiles felt so strongly about this, the need to repair the damage that they themselves had inflicted, that they sent their hardiest troops into the frontline ...


Now the tragedy for the reptiles is that this message came before Malware had spoken ... and meanwhile, the Fairfaxians had jumped on the bandwagon ...


Yep, it was all about Abbott, Abbott, Abbott, and quelle surprise, the reptiles were also all about Abbott, Abbott, Abbott ...


Oh thank you Polonius, thank you for noting that small-l liberals were always welcome. Why your love of small-l liberals has long been celebrated at the pond ...

It was a veritable welter of Abbott belly-button fluff-gazing and agonising, so much, so tediously long, that the pond simply didn't know where to turn, which way was Wallis coming and which was Simpson going, if one might continue the standard of American political discourse.

After all, the Fairfaxians had dropped Sheridan into it, along with Abbott, per Hartcher here:

The basis for the former prime minister's flabbergasting was that the Turnbull document committed to having the first new subs entering service in "the early 2030s" while the Abbott draft reportedly promised the "late 2020s". 
Sheridan quoted Abbott as telling him: "I'm not just disappointed, I'm flabbergasted at this decision." And: "It's the biggest decision we face. It needs to be made swiftly so that we get the new subs from the middle of the next decade." He said of the existing six Collins submarines that it is "a fragile capability at the best of times." 
There are three problems with this. First is that the drafts written for the Abbott government are classified. The Defence department has asked the Federal police to conduct a leaks inquiry to find the leaker. 
Suspicion immediately fell on the former prime minister, but Abbott and Sheridan both said on the record that Abbott was not the leaker. Nonetheless, many of Abbott's colleagues are themselves flabbergasted that he would, in effect, confirm and endorse the leak with his comments to Sheridan. Second is that the Abbott outrage appears to be built, once more, on a fond imagining of how things might have been, rather than the way they were. 
In rapid succession, the secretary of the defence department, Dennis Richardson, the chief of the defence force, Mark Binskin, and Abbott's own first defence minister, David Johnston, all attested that defence had consistently told the government that the earliest realistic delivery date was the early 2030s, which is exactly what the white paper says. 
The third problem for Abbott is that this intrusion has appalled many of his colleagues and confirmed him as a wrecker. Peter Reith spoke for the majority when he called it "a classic case of deliberate destabilisation". 
Even some hard-case conservatives were angry at Abbott. One defended him: "He puts his dissent on the public record – when those who destabilised him leaked against him, they did it anonymously." But others were harsh: "I think he's in a dark space and wants us to lose," said one. "There's now a chance we could lose, unthinkable six months ago" when Turnbull first took the leadership. The vengefulness of the betrayed leader reminded many this week of Kevin Rudd's conduct after Gillard's lightning coup against him. Asked about this on Friday, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said: "Tony Abbott is no Kevin Rudd." He's right. 
The defining difference? Rudd was popular before and after the coup. This meant that there was always a plausible pathway to a comeback for him. This does not justify disruptive conduct. But it does mean that there was a potentially positive purpose to his jihad against Gillard. 
But Abbott has never been popular. He was the uniquely unpopular prime minister. There is no plausible pathway to a comeback for Abbott. 
He will justify himself by saying that he is defending his record, that he is speaking for the conservative movement. But however he might rationalise it, the net effect of his destabilisations can only be negative for his party. There is no happy ending here. 
Can he be assuaged? He has not asked Turnbull for anything for himself. But he asked Turnbull to appoint his former chief of staff, Peta Credlin, to the post of Sex Discrimination Commissioner. And to appoint her husband, Brian Loughnane, former Liberal federal director, to the post of ambassador to the Vatican. 
Turnbull let Abbott know that the post of high commissioner to London could be available to him, but refused the requests to appoint Credlin and Loughnane. 
Abbott was uninterested in London. He persisted in lobbying the prime minister on Loughnane's behalf, but to no avail. The government has since filled both posts. 
Abbott probably cannot be assuaged. He seems only to want to be avenged. If so, the chance of an end to the manic phase will have passed. The mania will continue unabated.

And at that point the pond knew what it must do, knew where it must head, knew it must check on the manic phase and reassure itself that the mania might continue unabated ...



Yep, there was the bromancer, faithful and loyal, still proudly following the tradition of wrecking, white-anting and sniping.

Talk about water off a duck's back or a submarine surfacing, as Sheridan continued to cling to a government press release as the basis for everything ...


The pond felt a deep sigh of relief at the way the sniping would continue, with the bromancer citing as character reference such unbiased sources as Stephen Conroy ...

And so to that press release ... and Stephen Conroy being very, very clear ...


As Stephen Conroy so clearly put it ... Malware is hopeless. And Tony Abbott is right, right, right!

As for the lickspittle lackeys that seek to serve that humbug lawyer, with his fine lawyer's sense, why they're hapless, hopeless. 

Let's face it, that Marise Payne is just utterly ridiculous ...

Oh dear, and then there was even more ... as the undermining bromancer proceeded to channel the sniper and to discuss grievous errors of judgment by a government that thought it might escape the stern, steely, gimlet eye of the white anter and the bromancer ...


Yes, it's blooody downright flabbergasting.

In the coming third world war with Russia and China, Australia will fall apart from the want of 12 submarines. Why already it might be necessary to turn to the pond's hastily prepared Gundagai line, with fortifications built to protect the dog on the tucker box, perhaps the last remaining sign of a genuine Australia:


It was about the point that "non-niche" capabilities were led in relation to East Timor and a Russian naval ship doing a bit of flag-waving, that the pond realised, with a deep and grateful sigh of relief, that we were deep into mania and the manic phase would not pass any time soon. 

The fever and the paranoia and the shirt-fronting and the tribal beating of chests like a jut-jawed primate on the prowl would continue ...

It was therefore with delight that we could end this phase of the weekend's engagements and retreat to a Pope cartoon, and more infallible Pope here (is it only the pond that finds Pope's Canberra Times broke? Is this a way to treat a Pope?)



13 comments:

  1. I don't know which is more nauseating DP, the thought of Abbott and Credlin playing find the salami, or Murdoch and Hall playing find the viagra.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)³³³, such a wickedly naughty set of images ...

      Delete
  2. Hi Dorothy,

    Maybe this whole imbroglio would be better understood if we just used the argot of submariners. Down below a “Wrecker” is simply a term for a mechanic and maybe that’s what Abbott thinks he is, helping with the smooth running of the ship of state.

    I’m sure he hasn’t “Gone Wibble” and he’s isn’t “Harry Threaders” and probably just wants to settle down and enjoy a “Shit on a Raft”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/aug/21/guide-to-submarine-slang

    DiddyWrote

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks to insightful comments like these, DW, the pond learns something new every day, and this day it was Clagg the Intertubes, Malware one, so we can get on with the diddly-dossing ...

      Delete
  3. Ms Pond
    Time to clean the cobwebs out of your HFC. No probs here connecting with the Canberra Times, the ancient copper managed to find its way (but I did dry out the pit yesterday after the rain).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dammit, it must be a browser issue, and the pond is too tired to brood about it, so we'll just link to other sources ... or perhaps conduct a pit drying ceremony to bring on the rain ...

      Delete
  4. Dearest Dorothy, how could you pass this up?
    Statement from the editor-in-chief

    I have concluded a formal review into the column "The horrifying untold story of Louise", published on Monday, February 22. The article has since been retracted, and on behalf of the Herald, I once again unreservedly apologise for the column and the hurt and distress it understandably caused.

    The formal review, which included a comprehensive examination of editorial processes, found unacceptable breaches of fundamental journalistic practice. The columnist, who has also apologised for the report and admitted this serious lapse, will stand aside from his duties until further notice.

    The Herald's reputation is founded on the trust our readers give us to provide fair, balanced and independent journalism, and it is critical that the editorial integrity of the Herald is maintained.

    Darren Goodsir


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got you on the previous post, Unk.

      Delete
  5. Oh, the Loyalty! "Meine Ehre Heisst Treue", Jah.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sheridan's obsession with his imagined shortcomings of the Collins-class submarines is becoming akin to the dog-botherers fixation with the ABC.

    "no sub was available or capable of doing the job".
    Nothing to do with the submarines themselves. The expectation is the three to four will be available at any one time (others undergoing repairs, minor overhauls or their 2-3 year "Full-cycle docking" upgrade). At the time of G20, three were available, within tolerance.

    The problem was they were all operating out of WA (Rankin was in transit to the east coast, but went via Tassie), and they could not reach the area in time. That is because Australia's naval infrastructure is not located near our areas of strategic interest. And that is due to political and historical reasons, not the capability of a class of submarines.

    Defence should just build facilities near where the subs are likely to be needed. They can fund it by cancelling some of the future subs - they only need 12 to get around the fact that most of them will be a long way from where they are wanted at any given time. But fewer toys? Downsizing Defence in Perth and Sydney? Oooh, I can hear the whining aleady...

    More relevantly, it is widely understood that Defence has been planning for an extension of the Collins into the 2030's for at least 4-5 years, knowing that they had already left the replacement process too late to have it going in the late-2020's. The fact that Abbott and his ex-rackmate choose to think (or at least say) otherwise cant change that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dunno much about submarines, FD, but I did understand that the Collins Class was indeed a 'very fragile' platform. I'm quite surprised that there was as many as three operational 'within tolerance' at any one time.

      However, if the Chinese do have 70 or more subs (including some nukes), then, given our very large coastal boundary of approx. 25.760km, shouldn't Australia have at least 257 subs ? That's one per 100km (which a sub can travel in about 5 to 6 hours, I guess) and that would be enough to stop the Chinese in their tracks, wouldn't it ?

      Unless all 70 turn up at Sydney Harbour, at the same time, I guess. Maybe we should just go for a fleet of five or six hundred undersea drones instead ? And instead of "the little turd" (aka the F35 'can't turn, can't climb' do nothing much for a 'shitload' of money, airplane).

      But I guess that depends on whether we actually want to 'defend' Australia or whether we're still pretending we're a world power with global outreach. Which do you think ?

      Delete
  7. Just to clarify the "within tolerance", I didn't mean "operational within tolerance", but that having 3 available at one time was in the band that was acceptable. The minimum was three, the max that could be anticipated was four (that will rise to five in a few ears as the next FCD is expected to be much shorter). From memory, the average availability target was 3.7, which has been generally achieved since the very bad situation seen in the late noughties.

    What do I think? I don't think our current or foreseeable future capability is sufficient to do either of those things. I don't know what the solution is (though your undersea drone thingy might help) - perhaps we should get out of the game entirely. A few other countries have managed that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that about sums it up, FD. Australia, along with a fair few other 'micro militaries' has to really hope that WWII was the last of the Great Big Conflicts and that, in future, it will only be localized small conflicts and proxy wars. In which we can turn up with a few hundred diggers and an armoured vehicle or two, a couple of planes and maybe even a ship, and pretend that we are "defending Australia".

      Still, with the Aussie economy in such good shape (still the world's 12th biggest national economy by exchange rate valuation, I think) - such that Jeff Kennett, that old econorat, reckons Dan Andrews should borrow $100 Billion and build Melbourne a real Underground rail system just like London - so spending a couple of hundred $Billions on military toys over a decade or so is piddling.

      Delete

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