In which the pond does its best to avoid a Sunday meditating with prattling Polonius and the man who routinely bothers dogs with rhetorical questions ...

 

Gone.

Gone the chance to use the reptiles in the lizard Oz to segue to stories and snaps that amused the pond. 

Like the snap that started Emma Brockes piece in the Graudian, Digested week: I agree with Jeremy Clarkson – my enemy’s enemy is still kind of a jerk

What a ripper, and now the pond can make a natural jump to a 'toon, without any reptile help ...

Gone the chance to bear witness to the Cantaloupe Caligula shaking down law firms in best Mafia don style, or trying to shake down Canada - elbows up! - or trying to acquire Greenland by any means...

Best just cut straight to the chase of a good Hydeing in So many souvenirs for JD Vance to take home from Greenland: oil, gas, minerals – and that’s just the start

There was much to delight ...

Anyway: Greenland. Like I say, the trip has evolved this week both in style and substance. Originally, it was announced that the second lady was going to take one of her sons, immerse herself in various local events – she’s apparently simply fascinated by Greenland’s culture – and attend the famous Avannaata Qimussersua dog sled race. No more. Now, it’s her husband instead of her son, and the Vances are only going to a military facility. This is a little bit like announcing you’re travelling to Kyoto to see the blossoms, then “recalibrating” your trip so that all you’ll actually be taking in is a tour of the storage facility where they keep the most boring documents from the signing of the 1997 climate protocol. Extremely important, no doubt – and extremely, extremely boring. Or as the White House has chosen to characterise this shift in emphasis: “The Second Lady is proud to visit the Pituffik Space Base with her husband to learn more about Arctic security and the great work of the Space Base.” It is unclear at time of writing if Pituffik has spa facilities. Presumably it’s got something of a year-round après-ski vibe.

And Vlad the sociopath scored a mention ...

Meanwhile, a series of proxies are emerging to push America’s case – or, in the case of Vladimir Putin, to not argue with it in a way that is tantamount to cheerleading. “In short, America’s plans in relation to Greenland are serious,” the Russian president observed this week. “These plans have deep historical roots. And it’s clear that the US will continue to systematically pursue its geo-strategic, military-political and economic interests in the Аrctic.” On Friday morning, Stephen Moore – a former Trump economic adviser-turned-Heritage Foundation wingnut – explained cheerfully to the BBC that the Greenlanders were “the people who would benefit the most from this … let’s call it a sale, or acquisition.” Let’s not, but go on. “They could, overnight, turn into millionaires.” This somehow reminds me of that old statistic suggesting that instead of going to an expensive war to protect them, the British government could instead have just made every Falkland Islander a millionaire to soften the unwanted blow of having been taken over by Argentina. After all, what else do people want in life, except for money?
“There could be trillions of dollars’ worth of minerals and oil and gas and other types of … precious minerals that could be of value to the United States,” speculated Moore, adding, almost by way of an afterthought about the Greenlanders, that there’s “essentially a treasure chest right below their feet”. Mm. The trouble with the nakedly rapacious hawks of Trumpworld putting it that way, of course, is that it’s only a very short hop to seeing the Greenland people as the obstacle. If only they, and their feet, could just be dug through, then the treasure chest could be rightfully – or wrongfully – claimed.

There was a link to the Beeb, Rosenberg: Putin nods to Trump plans to seize Greenland

In Murmansk, the largest city north of the Arctic circle, President Vladimir Putin vowed to "strengthen Russia's global leadership in the Arctic", while warning that "geopolitical competition in the region" was intensifying.
The first example he gave was Donald Trump's idea to acquire Greenland.
But from the Kremlin leader there was no criticism of his US counterpart.
And that's telling, as the White House and the Kremlin try to rebuild relations.
"In short, America's plans in relation to Greenland are serious," President Putin said in an address to Russia's Arctic Forum in Murmansk.
"These plans have deep historical roots. And it's clear that the US will continue to systematically pursue its geo-strategic, military-political and economic interests in the Аrctic.
"As for Greenland this is a matter for two specific countries. It has nothing to do with us."
So said the president who had launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign neighbouring country and claims to have annexed whole swathes of Ukraine.
When Joe Biden was in the White House, Moscow and Washington were vocal in their criticism of one another.
How things have changed.

But the pond can only tootle so long before returning to the lizard Oz tracks.

On the other hand, the pond has refused to run on certain hive mind tracks, such as Dame Slap rabbiting on in her inimitable way, Upend the curriculum, upend our legal system, The project to ‘indigenise’ law school curriculums will mean upending the curriculum from what the law is to what activists think it should be.

Aka the blonde fear of the black?

Nope, not tempted, though there's a 'toon at the very bottom of this outing that deals with the syndrome.

With Dame Slap a briar patch that didn't tempt the pond, again the pond was left with interminable boredom, starting with prattling Polonius, Why it’s in Coalition’s best interests to preference Labor, If the Liberals and the Nationals want to demonstrate that they put Australia first then it makes sense to put the Greens last at every election.

It was, to be fair, rated only a four minute read, and it began with a snap, Reports from the Sydney electorate indicate Tanya Plibersek will pay a political price for supporting the government’s legislation that will allow the salmon industry to continue farming at Macquarie Harbour. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The pond happens, by a quirk, to be in Tanya's electorate, alongside Lord Howe islanders, and wasn't just about the salmon industry, but the wider implications. Per The Conversation ...A bill introduced to parliament this week, if passed, would limit the government’s power to reconsider certain environment approvals when an activity is harming the environment.

Tanya has in the past done things that would have benefited from reconsideration ...

Boggabri Coal Mine, Caval Ridge Mine, Lake Vermont Coal Mine.Three coal mines avoid reconsideration of environmental impacts

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has given an early Christmas present to coal companies by refusing to reconsider the impacts of three mine expansions.

She was an approval machine, Tanya Plibersk approves three coalmine expansions in move criticised as 'the opposite of climate action'.

Obvious questions were asked: Expanding coal mines - and reaching net zero? Tanya Plibersek seems to believe both is possible.

She also seems to think it's possible to forget all this ... and perhaps she's not worried that she's been given an (albeit very limited Aldi style warranty) Polonial blessing ...

Believe it or not, there was some good news from the final sitting week of parliament before the May 2025 election. The Coalition supported changes to the Albanese government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate that will allow the salmon industry to continue farming at Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania, in the short term at least.
The former does not matter much. After all, Labor has a majority, albeit a narrow one, in the house. The seven so-called teal independents – all of whom won seats from the Liberal Party – get great media coverage on the ABC. But they have no legislative clout. Unlike the Greens and independents in the Senate, where the government does not have a majority.
The EPBC legislation is complicated but it essentially reduces the authority of the environment minister to review previous environmental decisions if they have been in existence for five years. This curtails Tanya Plibersek’s ability to reconsider additional salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour.
It so happens the closest main town to Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania’s rugged west coast is Strahan. It is in the seat of Braddon, held by the Liberals. Labor’s Tasmanian focus in the election is to win Braddon and retain Franklin, where an independent candidate is opposed to the salmon industry in its current form.
The EPBC bill became an act when it passed the Senate by 30 to 14 votes. The decision by the Coalition to support the legislation meant it would neither be defeated nor amended by the Greens plus some independents and minor party senators. As it turned out, amendments moved by the Greens and the Coalition were defeated. However, since Liberal and Nationals senators broadly supported the legislation, it succeeded.
Now attention focuses on the Labor seat of Sydney, held by Plibersek. At the 2022 election she won 66.7 per cent of the two-candidate-preferred vote. Plibersek won an absolute majority in her own right of 50.8 per cent. There followed the Greens on 23 per cent and the Liberals on 19.7 per cent.
Reports from the Sydney electorate indicate Plibersek will pay a political price for supporting the government’s legislation. Under Labor’s rules, if a Labor parliamentarian crosses the floor he or she will be the subject of automatic suspension, at the least. If Plibersek publicly opposed the legislation, she would have had to resign from the ministry and go to the backbench. However, it is not evident how the environmental cause would have benefited from such an act of symbolic politics.
The Australia Institute, an avowedly leftist Canberra-based think tank whose leaders get ready access to the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster, has commissioned polling in Sydney. It suggests 61 per cent of voters in Plibersek’s seat support removing salmon farms from Macquarie Harbour if this is necessary to save the endangered Maugean skate.
The polling by uComms also indicates 65 per cent of Plibersek’s Labor base hold this view. In other words, there is evidence that Labor support in the Sydney electorate is dropping and there is some risk Plibersek could lose her seat to the Greens. There is a clear way that this could be prevented.
In June 2024, Peter Dutton told The Australian it was Liberal Party policy to “put the Greens last” at the next election. It is understood Dutton’s position would change only if, say, there was a neo-Nazi candidate running for election.

Ah, a neo-Nazi. 

The pond must take its segues where it finds them. 

The pond did enjoy Timothy W. Ryback's piece in The Atlantic, What the Press Got Wrong About Hitler, Journalists accurately reported that the führer was a “Little Man” whom the whole world was laughing at. It didn’t matter.(archive link)

...Although Hitler’s political struggles, and the general perception of him as a figure of ridicule, almost led him to suicide in late 1932, he was well accustomed to overcoming mockery. It fueled his ambition. Not long ago, while researching my most recent book, I listened to an audio recording Hitler had produced in the summer of 1932, in advance of the Reichstag elections, part of his effort to reach beyond the audience who read the critical mainstream press. The two-disc set is titled “Hitler’s Appeal to the Nation” and is emblazoned with a swastika that spins at 78 rpm. The recording was intended to be played at rallies across the country, and sold in bookstores, music shops, and newspaper kiosks for 1.6 reichsmarks (about $8 today). Hitler speaks in a notably measured tone—no ranting, no raving, no “Sieg heil!” choruses in the background. Still, despite the moderated tone, his seething, grievance-laden political message and his simmering mendacity penetrate through the hissing and crackling recording of the eight-and-a-half-minute address.
“Thirteen years ago we National Socialists were derided and disdained by our opponents,” Hitler says. “No one is laughing now.”

Yep, no one's laughing now, unless they happen to be a prize loon, or it's an ironic Treasure of Sierra Madre laugh ...

Sorry, the pond needs a 'toon fix to go on ... especially when the reptiles attempt their own AV distraction for Polonius, The Senator held up the fish in protest of proposed laws that would protect salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour.

Sheesh, what are they doing to Polonius? 

When Jack the Insider ran the yarn, the reptiles gave him a handsome fishy gif, with little fishes falling through the air ...

Poor Polonial watch doggie, always being stiffed, always being ignored by the ABC and literary festival ...

Now, neither Dutton nor Albanese controls the respective Liberal and Labor party organisations. In fact, Dutton has less influence than Albanese since Labor has a national organisational structure that is more dominant than its Liberal Party equivalent. Moreover, Albanese excels in party organisational matters, including the art of getting the numbers.
A decision by the NSW division of the Liberal Party to preference Plibersek ahead of the Greens almost certainly would entail that Labor holds Sydney. Since the Liberals have no hope of winning this inner-city seat there is no downside. Whether Liberal voters like Plibersek or not, she represents a more moderate approach to politics than the Greens.
It should not be forgotten that radical Greens leader Adam Bandt won – on Liberal preferences – the traditional Labor seat of Melbourne in September 2010 following Labor frontbencher Lindsay Tanner’s retirement from politics. Maybe this seemed like a good idea at the time to the Victorian division of the Liberals Party. But it was counter-productive, since Melbourne, like Sydney, is never likely to be won by the Liberals.
A quick glance at the Greens website reveals this message: “Our pledge to you. The Greens will never use our numbers to support a Dutton Liberal government.” For his part, Dutton has stated that the Greens are an anti-Semitic party and described Bandt as a “radical … unworthy of public office”.
Dutton has called on Labor to put the Greens last on their how-to-vote cards. Labor and the Greens are political enemies. Even so, Labor is unlikely to favour the Coalition over the Greens. No problem for the Coalition really. Since such a preference swap would give legitimacy to Dutton’s claim that a vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens.
If the Liberals and the Nationals want to demonstrate that they put Australia first then it makes sense to put the Greens last at every election. Even if the Coalition does not win the 2025 election, it would benefit politically in the long term by supporting Labor legislation rather than lining up with the Greens and the Green-like teals in Canberra.
The events of this week in the parliament with respect to the EPBC Act are a positive move. Let’s hope they are not a one-off.

Bonus from reading Polonius? 

Why not give Tanya a scare? Isn't that what preference-enabled voting is all about?

As for the Liberals, it seems that they like to talk amongst themselves...

Isn't that Facebook innovation also called doing a beefy boofhead from down Goulburn way?

And now for something different ...

And that was a way to cue in the lizard Oz editorialist, with a brief detour into Getting airborne with defence, After decades of bipartisan neglect of the national defence, Peter Dutton’s budget reply speech was as refreshing as it was relevant.

It's just a two minute delay before getting on to the dog botherer, and the pond will seize any refreshing excuse, at least if you think car rental deodorant refreshes the vinyl smell ...

After decades of bipartisan neglect of the national defence, Peter Dutton’s budget reply speech was as refreshing as it was relevant. The problem for an incoming Coalition minister would be how the Australian Defence Force could have its equipment cake and eat it too. The Opposition Leader promised to invest so Australia could “deter aggression and maintain peace”. He is airborne already, previously promising $3bn to buy a fourth squadron of F-35 joint strike fighters to add to the 75 now in service.
RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Nicholas Hogan welcomes the possibility of 28 more F-35s, perhaps because the RAAF expected them until they were cancelled by the Albanese government. The fighter, when equipped with on-order air-to-sea capable missiles, will be essential to our maritime defence – certainly whenever the navy’s resupply ships are out of service with mechanical faults, as they are now.

Um, if the USA provides operational support ... and we know about that ...

Another win for Vlad the sociopath.

The lizard Oz editorialist then wandered down another path ...

But hi-tech, low-cost kit the F-35 is not, and it certainly does not deliver on Mr Dutton’s other promise “to energise our domestic defence industry” and “re-tool the ADF with asymmetric capabilities to deter a larger adversary”. This makes a case for the Ghost Bat, an uncrewed aircraft designed and test-flown in Australia by the RAAF and partner Boeing. Whether it will be armed – indeed, whether the RAAF will deploy it at all – appears undecided, but its purpose is to fly combat missions as a lower-cost force-multiplier that preserves the air force’s most valuable asset, aircrew. The air force must pick the drone that does the most for the least cost and can enter service in the quickest production time, but the Ghost Bat is an obvious example of how to meet Mr Dutton’s brief for more of Australia’s defence materiel to be made in Australia.
Critics of the cost of such an expansion say, variously, it can’t be done or need not be done. The response to the first claim is that we need to learn how and learn now. There is a bipartisan commitment to start work on a nuclear-powered submarine in Adelaide this decade. Defence industries need the practice in the immensely complex planning and training programs that will require. As to the second claim, any argument that Australia faces no threat was answered in February by a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy squadron circumnavigating Australia. It was a projection of power intended to intimidate. And the idea that Ukraine’s heroic defence demonstrates wars can be fought by off-the-shelf drones does not apply – close-order infantry fighting on the steppes and short-range air raids are nothing like the vast distances of the Pacific. The US gets this, announcing a new fighter aircraft program, the piloted F-47, which will work with but not be replaced by drones.
There is now no low-cost exclusive AI option to expensive, human-crewed aircraft and submarines. But, as the Ghost Bat could show, affordable AI could increase their firepower. Australia’s strategic environment is transformed and we no longer can assume that we are free of threat for years to come. This means we need to arm up or be willing to give up. The more of our defence that can be made efficiently in Australia, the better. 

Says an American owned firm, owned by the man and his family consortium who own Faux Noise ... and we all know what that has produced ...

If that's security and defence, might as well surrender now...

And so inevitably, reluctantly to the dog botherer, purporting to just ask questions ...

As usual, the header was meta-ironic ... 

Just give it to us straight, ministers – why should you get back into office?  Across the next five weeks voters will be looking for answers but they are unlikely to get them without the right questions. So, I thought it might be worth listing some crucial queries for the government.

With that mysterious injunction ...

This article contains features which are only available in the web version Take me there

Here's a question. Is he going to list some crucial queries for the opposition and for the Queensland plod? (No, the pond isn't Frankie Howerd or Kenny Everett and isn't going to do a queries routine)

No doubt we'll see, but the pond has its doubts. This is much more the dog botherer's turf ...

When Jim Chalmers was asked about the nation’s soon-to-be $1 trillion debt on the morning after the budget, he responded with a howler.
“First of all,” he told Sally Sara on ABC Radio National, “gross debt this year is $177bn lower than when we came to office.”
I almost choked on my Weeties. The government’s own budget papers demonstrate this simply was not true. At the end of June 2022 debt stood at $895bn and the budget tells us the figure will be at least $940bn in June 2025, before topping $1 trillion in 2026.
So I kept listening, eagerly awaiting the next question to Chalmers: “Treasurer, that is simply not true, your own budget papers show gross debt has swollen by at least $45bn since you took office and will increase by more than $80bn in the coming year, so shouldn’t you be up-front and honest with voters about the debt burden?”

He eats Weeties? 

Each week the reptiles offer up way too much information, together with snaps of villains... When Jim Chalmers was asked about the nation’s soon-to-be $1 trillion debt on the morning after the budget, he responded with a howler.. Picture: NewsWire/Martin Ollman

It didn't take long for the dog botherer to drag in his favourite topic, denying that he was a climate science denialist ...

Sadly, that question did not come – the falsehood stood unchallenged – as Sara moved on to other topics.
Such are the frustrations of our political debate. Across the next five weeks voters will be looking for answers but they are unlikely to get them without the right questions. So, I thought it might be worth listing some crucial queries for the government.
These are the questions I would like Chalmers, Anthony Albanese, Chris Bowen, Penny Wong and others to answer during the three dozen campaign days ahead.
Have living standards improved or fallen after three years of Albanese Labor? A $275 annual cut in electricity bills was promised, along with reduced mort­gages and a lower cost of living, but what materialised?
If the lowest personal income tax rate is too high, why was it not lowered when the stage three tax cuts were adjusted? Why is it not being lowered in July 2025 rather than 2026?
Why put a heavy burden on taxpayers and the private sector with climate and energy policies designed to reduce carbon emissions when there can be no environmental benefit because global emissions continue to rise? Why deliberately create economic pain when there is no climate gain?
If a renewables-plus-storage electricity grid is cheap and reliable, why does it require subsidies and grants? If a renewables-plus-storage model is affordable and plausible, why has no modern economy implemented such a model and why has no other developed economy even attempted to make the switch?
If the expensive transition to renewables (including generation, transmission, storage and firming) has pushed electricity prices upwards, how can more of the same deliver the opposite outcome?
Why should regional and coastal communities be forced to put up with wind farms, solar factories, offshore turbines and transmission projects to satisfy the impractical green ideals of Greens and teal voters in city seats?
If nuclear energy is too expensive, why do 50 countries use it and why have 31 nations committed to triple their nuclear energy output by 2050? Given the International Energy Agency claims that half of the emissions reductions to get to net zero will have to come from technology not yet in commercial use, which technologies will Australia employ to get to net zero?
The IEA also declares nuclear energy is essential to achieve net zero, so how can Australia reach that goal without nuclear?

The pond has its own question. 

Why should Australia attempt to achieve net zero, when each week, one reptile or another, including the dog botherer, is busy explaining that (a) climate science is a hoax, a religious cult, only believed by zealots and (b) net zero is unachievable, a mirage, a phantasm, a delusion, a waste of time and money, and (c) when the planet is totally and comprehensively fucked, we can all get along perfectly well in our fully prepped bunkers?

Why should we nuke the country to save the planet when the planet doesn't need saving, it needs dinkum clean virginal Oz coal ...

The reptiles helped the dog botherer with a snap of the nuke cult, If the United Arab Emirates can build and commission four 1400MW nuclear power plants in little more than a decade, why is it beyond us? Picture: AFP

The pond feels like the nuke debate has been done to death, what with the chances of SMRs littering the country by 2035 as remote as the dog botherer understanding and accepting climate science, so please allow the pond to take a break with a 'toon, vaguely relevant to the dog botherer's double speak questions, done with forked tongue ...

As a rhetorical device, this dog botherer carry on quickly began to wear thin ...

How much government money has already been spent on green hydrogen projects? With at least 10 major green hydrogen projects scrapped, despite the promise of massive government subsidies, should Labor admit its “green hydrogen revolution” will not be happening?
Given the 2024 net immigration target was 260,000 and it resulted in net migration of 335,000, how many people will migrate here under the 2025 260,000 target?
If the federal government does not have the legal authority to deport or detain dangerous criminal non-citizens, what will it do to gain such powers?
Why did the government threaten to deport an American influencer who picked up a baby wombat when it has failed to deport Islamist hate preachers and it issued 3000 tourist visas to people from Gaza without thorough security checks?
If corporate tax rates are higher in Australia compared with other nations, why would companies choose to invest here? If taxes are higher here, should we expect corporations to repatriate profits elsewhere?
If Indigenous cultural heritage claims can be used to block developments, should we ensure there are effective ways to investigate and verify those claims? If taxpayers fund governments to make decisions about projects, including after environmental and Indigenous assessments, why are taxpayers also forced to pay for activists at the Environmental Defenders Office that seek to overturn or block those decisions?
What is the point of having official Indigenous heritage bodies if their views on projects are pushed aside in favour of less representative groups? Have Indigenous cultural heritage claims gone too far?

Spoken like a cult member ...

On and on he went ...

If we allow government debt to reach $1 trillion, are we not foisting an unfair tax burden on to our children and their children? Is it responsible to live beyond our means now and leave future generations to pay for it?
Has government become too large, raising and spending too much money, running too many organisations and intruding on too many aspects of our lives? Is the National Disability Insurance Scheme sustainable or is it spending too much money with too little accountability?
Do we have the requisite defence equipment and personnel to defend our nation? Would it be cheaper and more effective to buy all our AUKUS submarines from the US rather than try to build them here?
If, as the Prime Minister recently claimed, Australians stand up to bullies, why did he make excuses for China when its navy bullied us with unannounced live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea? Why did a commercial airline pilot know about these exercises before our defence forces?
Are our children being taught about the social and economic successes of our country? Do high school students understand the basics of our economy and governance?

That last one is undiluted cult. Are children being taught the basic fundamentals of how to conform to a bullying cult? 

And do they properly and fully appreciate their rewards? Just substitute Oz for USA ...

The reptiles offered a different visual distraction... Why did the PM make excuses for China when its navy bullied us with unannounced live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea? Picture: AFP

An alternative question. What did the reptiles expect him to do? Bung on a do, and perhaps start the war with China the reptiles yearn for, and well before Xmas at that?

Yet more tiresome questions flowed ...

How can the public sector become more productive when public servants are given the default option of working from home?
How have the additional 36,000 federal public servants employed over this term improved services or made government more effective?
Does Labor still believe the government sector should be no larger than 25 per cent of GDP? If so, when will it return to that level?
Are we over-regulated? How can red and green tape be cut?
Is it acceptable for a Muslim preacher to front a mob on a Sydney street and celebrate the slaughter of innocent Israelis? Is it acceptable for a similar mob to chant “F..k the Jews” on the steps of the Sydney Opera House? If not, why did the federal government do nothing in response to these events on October 8 and 9, 2023? Has the government’s constant and unjustified criticism of Israel helped to fuel anti-Israeli sentiment?

Alternative questions? Is the dog botherer in favour of ethnic cleansing? Does he enjoy watching a genocide unfold? Does he think even mentioning it makes the mentioner worthy of deportation?

As usual, the reptiles settled for a fear-mongering snap... Is it acceptable for a similar mob to chant “F..k the Jews” on the steps of the Sydney Opera House? Picture: NCA NewsWire/Jeremy Piper

Well they couldn't run a story or a snap about a Palestinian director being attacked by a mob of Israeli settlers...

And that, thankfully, was the end of the pond's meditative Sunday duties, though sadly with little to meditate on ...

If record education funding has not improved results relative to other countries, is it not time to look at other factors? Has the curriculum become crowded with social engineering and politically correct topics? Does education need to get back to the basics and how can a federal government make that happen?
Finally, if a country deliber­ately abandons its natural economic advantage of cheap energy, shuts down export industries such as the live cattle and sheep trade, and constrains and maligns other leading exports such as coal, gas and uranium, is that country not engaged in self-harm? Why would anyone choose a government that inflicts harm on its own country?

Who knows, because with that blather about coal and gas the dog botherer clearly doesn't give a flying fuck about climate science.

Maybe we'll find out about self-harm soon ...

Self-harm takes on all kinds of forms, usually backed by the reptiles' Faux Noise kissing cousins...

Guided by the lizard Oz, we too can do MAusGA ...