In which a Thursday placeholder features reptile climate denialist action, King Donald's Murdochian court action, and stale, mouldy days old genocidal "Ned" action ...

 

Early this morning the pond is tootling off to experience the joys of a "procedure", so there'll be no update on the lizard Oz this day.

The pond couldn't think of a better day to go MIA than a Thursday, what with the pond always struggling to get past the likes of petulant Peta to find something remotely droll and amusing. If something does turn up, say the Lynch mob, hopefully the pond will be able to deal with it on the Friday, assuming the pond isn't raptured by the RPA.

The pond thought a placeholder would at least keep the place open for any correspondent wishing to vent, and so did a sampling ... like this one ... Autism, MAHA, and the Face of God, One part junk science, two parts incompetent government, and with a dash of blasphemy, for seasoning.

Jonathan V. Last is a Catholic, but the pond doesn't hold anything against Xians who want to be genuine Xians and who can produce anecdotes like this ...

Some years ago, there was an autistic woman who went to my parish. She was nonverbal, but she would be at the 10:00am Mass every Sunday with her mother. She sat not in the main sanctuary but in a pretty chapel in the back, where she could watch Mass from a comfortable chair through large glass doors. I imagine they chose to sit there because she would continually stim and they felt self-conscious about the movements and sounds.
I liked to sit in the chapel with this woman and her mother at Mass; just a small act of fellowship so that they wouldn’t feel othered.
The priest in charge of the parish got transferred, as they often do. The new pastor was a MAGA priest. He did not like having this woman at Mass.
First he directed that the chapel be closed during Mass, in an attempt to discourage this woman and her mother from sitting there. When these two women continued to go to the chapel on Sunday mornings during Mass, the priest assigned an usher to physically blockade the chapel and prevent them from entering it.
The mother asked the priest if he might reconsider letting them sit in the chapel. His compromise was to put a single, hard wooden bench in the church vestibule, which was hot in the summer and cold during the winter.
This woman and her mother stopped attending Mass at their church. I left the parish shortly after.

The pond left the church years ago, but no matter, the pond still visits the church of the latter-day reptiles regularly and yet once again they disappointed the pond.

The pond had truly been hoping for discovery in the matter of King Donald v. The WSJ and others, but instead there was a motion to dismiss...(here, in pdf, though it can be found elsewhere without an overlay)

Plaintiff, President of the United States Donald J. Trump (“Plaintiff” or “President Trump”), brings this lawsuit to recover damages for the publication of truthful information. While this case’s threat to the First Amendment is serious, the claims asserted by President Trump are meritless and should be promptly dismissed with prejudice.

On July 17, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that a letter bearing President Trump’s name appeared in a birthday book (the “Birthday Book”) containing letters from Jeffrey Epstein’s family and friends (the “Article”). The Article reports that the letter contained a typewritten note, a sketch of a naked woman, and Plaintiff’s signature. The Article quotes Plaintiff’s denial that he wrote the letter and his warning that he would “sue The Wall Street Journal just like [he] sued everyone else.” The next day, Plaintiff followed through on his threat, bringing this lawsuit in which he claims the letter was “fake and nonexistent.” Compl. ¶ 27. Two weeks ago, in response to a congressional subpoena, Epstein’s estate produced the Birthday Book, which contains the letter bearing the bawdy drawing and Plaintiff’s signature, exactly as The Wall Street Journal reported. The Court should dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for three independent reasons. 

First, the Article is true. The Birthday Book as produced by the Epstein estate and laterpublicly released by the House Oversight Committee contains a letter identical to the one described in the Article.

Second, the Article is not defamatory. Even if it had reported that President Trump personally crafted the letter—and it does not—there is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend, and the Article cannot damage Plaintiff’s reputation as a matter of law. Plaintiff acknowledged his friendship with Epstein. As the Article reports, three months before the Birthday Book was gifted to Epstein, a New York magazine article quoted Plaintiff as saying that he had known Epstein for “15 years” and that Epstein was a “terrific guy,” “a lot of fun to be with,” and “likes beautiful women as much as I do.” President Trump has also publicly admitted to “locker room” talk and has made numerous bawdy public statements. The Article is therefore consistent with President Trump’s self-described reputation.

Finally, Plaintiff has not pled, and cannot plead, that Defendants published the Article with “actual malice”—i.e., a subjective awareness of probable falsity. The Complaint clumps together all six Defendants and does not include a single plausible allegation that any of them, much less all of them, caused The Wall Street Journal to publish knowingly false statements. The Article includes Plaintiff’s denial and is consistent both with his general reputation and the actual letter released by the House Oversight Committee. Plaintiff thus can never plead actual malice. The First Amendment’s protections for truthful speech are the backbone of the Constitution. And, “[a]t the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.” Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50-51 (1988). The Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, and the Court should award Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Spoilsports. What a fowl blow. 

Technically, legally, it might be allowable, and apparently the judge in the matter has ruled favourably on such matters in the past.

But where's the fun? Why not allow King Donald to put the Emeritus Chairman under a Spanish Inquisition of questioning, and allow the WSJ to do the same to King Donald? And then release the kraken and the interviews.

The entire point is the entertainment value of billionaires bickering.

Meanwhile, back to ongoing lizard Oz climate science denialism, this time in the form of reptile rolling coverage, designed to keep punters buzzing away inside the hive mind ...

Yesterday's hive mind came up with devastating news ...

LNP won't abandon net zero but 'coal in mix for decades'
Noah Yim

The Queensland Liberal National government will not abandon net zero despite suggestions the federal Coalition might, with state Treasurer David Janetzki saying his government is “laser-beam focused on Queensland’s interests”.
However, he maintained coal-fired power plants “will be in Queensland’s generation mix for decades”.
Mr Janetzki was asked whether the Queensland LNP would abandon net zero by 2050.
“You’re not going to walk away from it?” he was asked.
“Correct,” he said.
“We’re committed to net zero by 2050. We are laser-beam focused on Queensland’s interests. I’m focused on things we can control.
“We’ve got … extra levers because of our government ownership of generation, distribution, transmission. We’ve got these opportunities.
“We’ve got this vast opportunity with critical minerals in the northwest of Queensland. We’ve got significant private sector investment that wants to come to the state for renewables and gas generation too. “

Say what? The toads of the deep north aren't on board the Canavan caravan? Instead they're peddling lip service as a sensible solution, backed with lashings of coal and gas to help it go down.

What's the country coming to? The deep north toads more canny and cunning than Susssan's mob and the beefy boofhead from down Goulburn way?

Luckily an entirely disinterested player was on hand to help with the rolling coverage...

Santos boss questions 'more aggressive' 2035 target
Noah Yim

Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher has accused the government of making the 2035 emissions target “more aggressive” than the current trajectory to 2050, saying his company now has to “recalibrate” for the government’s 62 to 70 per cent target.
“You’d have to ask (Climate Change and Energy Minister) Chris Bowen if it’s really a 62 per cent target or not,” he said.
“We will work with the tools we’re given, with the targets we’re given, and Santos is on track to hit all of its 2030 targets. In fact, we’re way ahead of the game there.
“We now need to recalibrate for the 2035. I don’t quite understand the logic of why you’d make it more aggressive to 2035 rather than stay on the same trajectory that we’re on to 2050, but whatever it ends up being, we’ll work with that. We just need clarity and consistency, and we can work to that.”

The pond couldn't compute that one. 

One moment "they're way ahead of the game", and the next moment they're completely incapable of being "way ahead of the game"? It's all too hard, and where's a pearl to clutch?

Go figure, but again there was great luck to hand, because yesterday the lizard Oz editorialist was ready to help out ...

Climate targets costlier and slower than leaders admit
Thought police limitations on debate are not in the public interest.
Editorial
2 min read
September 24, 2025 - 12:00AM

Oh there was a mock turtle sobbing and a sighing, and much clutching of pearls about the cost ...

As Anthony Albanese competes in New York for investments in renewable energy, leading researchers warn the government is likely to fall well short of its 2030, 2035 and 2050 targets. The Net Zero Australia report by the University of Melbourne, University of Queensland and Princeton University’s Andlinger Centre for Energy experts say the targets are at serious risk because of policy shortcomings and bottlenecks, Perry Williams reports.
Writing in Business, two of the group, Michael Brear (Melbourne University) and Chris Greig (Princeton), praise Australia’s goal as commendable and point out that countries around the world increasingly are grappling with the growing gap between climate targets and progress.
The report comes as the Australian Human Rights Commission, in an extraordinary attempt at thought police meddling, urges Labor to regulate against “false” criticism of climate change ideology that is delaying action and sowing doubt.
Meeting the 2035 and 2050 net-zero targets, the Net Zero authors state, will require an increase in capacity of onshore wind and solar by around seven times and batteries by more than 25 times, along with new gas-fired generation to support reliability. “To connect these new renewables, we will also need to double the scale of the high-voltage transmission network,” they write. Nor will renewables alone be enough. Capacity of carbon capture and storage will need to be increased by at least 15 times, along with more carbon sequestration through reafforestation, and reduced emissions from fossil fuel production and animal grazing. All of which raises a question: who will pay?
Net-zero pathways are capital-intensive, the authors point out, with Australia needing capital flows to the energy sector to more than double from about $800bn under business as usual to more than $1.6 trillion over the next 25 years. Most of this capital must come from private markets, but government has a key role ensuring that these investments are bankable. Such costs are way beyond what the government has admitted. The team envisages average industrial energy costs rising by more than 60 per cent, and more in some industrial subsectors. Australia has a limited window to get its goals on track and it is important to be clear-eyed about “the speed and scale of infrastructure delivery, the challenge of bringing consumers and communities on the journey and alert to the vulnerability of industry”. It is also likely the world will not limit warming to 2C, ­elevating the need for climate ­adaptation.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was less realistic than the report authors, appearing to go out of his way at the UN Climate Week summit in New York to confuse common sense with climate denial. New manifestations of climate denial, he claimed, included acknowledging that decarbonisation was difficult to achieve and was worthwhile only if other nations did the same. On the contrary, doubts about difficulty and efficacy recognise the need for rigorous cost-benefit analysis. And given Australia’s minor contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, expecting other nations to act is common sense. From Paul Keating onwards, Australian governments have rightly demanded that our climate change response be calibrated to the actions of other nations. Mr Bowen, incredibly, also told the UN that paying an electricity bill was now optional in Australia because households could install rooftop solar and batteries. That defies the reality for most people and ignores the vast cost for taxpayers in funding government subsidies.
Mining billionaire Andrew Forrest also took things to another level, arguing that holding COP31 in Australia would restore hope in a younger generation that humanity could “end the spectre of global warning”. At the same time his company, Fortescue, has scrapped plans for hydrogen, pushed back its timetable for decarbonisation and grew its greenhouse gas emissions from mining by almost 300,000 tonnes in 2024-25 to 2.64 million tonnes, making it one of Australia’s biggest emitters.
Contrary to the AHRC mindset, the mammoth cost of ambitious climate targets makes debate a must.

As for the cost of inaction, as for the costs associated with the already observable impacts of climate change (insurance premiums anyone?), fergeddit Jake, it's reptile hive mind town ...

And so to "Ned" and his natter. 

The pond skated past "Ned" yesterday, offering only a teaser trailer. 

But the pond had a couple of cartoons to hand and needed to run them, and perhaps nobody bothered to Tootle off to the archive to climb the "Ned" Everest ... so here we go, a little late, but trying hard to celebrate yet again the try hard ...

The header: Albanese has walked into a Palestine trap of his own making, The October 7 massacres had a powerful political legacy in Israel – it convinced most of the population that it didn’t have a peace partner in the Palestinians.

The caption for an image designed to terrify the hive mind: Marchers, including former NSW premier Bob Carr, crossing the Harbour Bridge during a pro-Palestinian rally.

The reptiles clocked it at a relatively modest five minutes, such that some "Ned" climbers will barely feel like they've done more than stroll up Mount Kosciuszko ...

Being fortified by the numbers is reassuring but it cannot disguise the fraud being perpetrated by Western nations, including Australia, in their recognition of a Palestinian state – a decision more about their own countries than achieving enduring peace in the Middle East.
There are three vital elements to this decision by the Albanese government. First, it is unqualified. There are no preconditions on Australia’s recognition. Second, it is justified by a series of political assurances given by the Palestinian Authority that constitutes a reversal of almost everything the PA has ever stood for – leaving Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong exposed as willing fools in a diplomatic fraud that served as cover for theirlong-sought objective if these assurances are breached.
Third, this decision opens a bitter partisan rift in Australian policy, with the Coalition, while supporting a two-state solution, saying it “opposes this decision and calls for it to be reversed”.
Albanese and Wong are acting in concert with Western democracies – notably the governments of France, the UK and Canada, among others – that Albanese described as “part of a co-ordinated international effort to build new momentum for a two-state solution, starting with a ceasefire and the release of the hostages taken in the atrocities of October 7, 2023”.

Rarely has the foreign policy gulf between aspiration and reality been so great. The paradox is that the escalating international demands for a two-state solution are offset by declining support for the idea of a two-state solution among both Palestinians and Israelis – yet only Palestinians and Israelis can make it happen.
This sets the scene for many dangerous scenarios.
Let’s grasp what is happening: The key figure is Benjamin Netanyahu, his war policy and his refusal to deal with the Palestinians. The Western democracies, the US excepted, have given up on Netanyahu. Their frustrations have passed the breaking point, hence this epic policy change.
For years the idea of Palestinian recognition was seen as a diplomatic carrot – a golden reward – to be extended to Palestinians after they abandoned their opposition to Israel’s existence and accepted peace terms, but now it has been reinvented as a diplomatic weapon to be deployed upfront against Israel to persuade or bludgeon the Jewish state into recommitting to negotiations and a two-state solution.

The reptiles at that point introduced an AV distraction, featuring a dangerous use of a wide angle lens, Trump’s decision not to include Anthony Albanese in his official schedule of meetings in New York speaks volumes about the Trump White House’s priorities and its mood towards Australia right now. Chief International Correspondent Cameron Stewart explains what the move means for the alliance.

What a distraction. 

King Donald's performance at the UN was a clown show, from escalators to speech, and was an epic reminder of just how much the circus had come to town ...

First, the escalator stopped immediately after Trump and his wife, Melania, stepped onto it ahead of his major speech.
Video showed the president, 79, looking around before he and the First Lady started to walk up the unmoving escalator.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a tweet later, demanding an investigation into whether someone had intentionally halted the escalator.
But according to someone familiar with the situation, someone in the president’s own entourage accidentally tripped the emergency stop.
They were able to quickly reset it and move on, but the president’s UN challenges didn’t stop there, a source told The Daily Beast.
As Trump took the podium to speak, he complained that the teleprompter was not working. Instead, he had to read the printed copy of his speech.
However, a person with knowledge of the situation revealed that delegations are allowed to bring their own laptops and teleprompter operators, and the UN was not running it for Trump’s speech.
The source said that the White House had its own laptop, and UN technicians were not in the booth for the president’s address.

And so on, and never mind the deeply weird speech, with dementia speeding up ...but the pond had wanted to take up "Ned's" line about the need to grasp what is happening.

Whenever a reptile says something like that, the pond has to hare off to Haaretz to find out what's really happening ...

Sure enough there were two headers but the story stayed the same ... Widespread Destruction in Gaza May Play to Netanyahu's Base, but Goals Remain Out of Reach, Officers say Hamas has long ceased functioning as a hierarchical force, yet Israel's ground offensive continues, leaving civilians trapped and destruction mounting

Put it another way, With Hamas Military Long Dismantled, Netanyahu Aims to Turn the Israeli Army Into a Political Pawn

And so on, and so the killing fields continue, as does the mass starvation, the ethnic cleansing and the genocide ...

And "Ned" remains oblivious ...

It is a decisive shift in outlook and power, rejected by the Coalition. 

Ah the rejecting coalition, there's a cartoon for that ...

Back to the slog ...

It assumes Israeli policy is the real problem. It now believes the primary goal is not to entice the Palestinians to accept Israel but to intimidate the Israelis into accepting the Palestinians. Who is responsible for this shift? Netanyahu must wear the blame. His Gaza war has alienated public opinion in the democracies and his intransigence over any negotiations has infuriated the chanceries of the West.
For Israel, this is a deadly combination. Despite his immense military victories, Netanyahu has flouted one of the critical conditions for Israeli’s future security – retaining strong moral and diplomatic support from Western democracies. For a long time Israeli mobilised the horrific October 7 massacres by Hamas as a moral lever to justify its Gaza war policy, but that project is near exhausted.
There are two dismal consequences. Netanyahu has brought the rancour of Western governments upon himself yet the means of intimidation chosen by those governments – Palestinian state recognition – is likely only to backfire for them.
The real dynamic cannot be missed, yet no politician ever discusses it. The recruitment of global pressure is supposed to break Netanyahu, drive him into talks with the Palestinians or persuade the Israeli voters to get a more pliant leader.
What chance this? It completely ignores the abiding survivalist instinct of the Israeli state: that Israel must rely on its own efforts to survive since, the US apart, its friends are not friends of last resort. And what is Netanyahu doing in response to Western recognition of Palestine? He is doubling down even more. This was utterly predictable.
The Australian delegation that visited Israel in late May sponsored by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council was told repeatedly that if the West moved on recognition Netanyahu would retaliate by expanding West Bank settlements or annexation of sections of the West Bank or both, the aim being to further extinguish a two-state solution. If this was obvious to Australian journalists it would have been obvious to the Australian government.

At this point the reptiles introduced another distraction, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addresses the High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution at United Nations headquarters in New York City.

"Ned" nattered on...

The October 7 massacres had a powerful political legacy in Israel – it convinced most of the population that it didn’t have a peace partner in the Palestinians. Many didn’t need to be convinced anyway. Support for a two-state solution in Israel has sunk to a historic low.
Labor policy relies on the French-Saudi Arabian initiative and the breakthrough commitments made by the Arab League in relation to the PA headed by the ageing and corrupt Mahmoud Abbas. Albanese said Australia’s recognition is “predicated” on the PA pledges to reaffirm Israel’s right to exist, ensure Hamas has no role in a Palestinian state, hold elections within 12 months of the war ending, reform the school curriculum to remove incitements to violence, end payments for acts of terrorism and accept that a Palestinian state would be demilitarised.
How will the international community, the West, let alone Australia, guarantee implementation of any of these commitments? They cannot. Yet Albanese announces this political nirvana will follow the recognition process. In truth, the West is exposed: it has given upfront recognition ahead of any action from the Palestinians, who are assumed down the track to act with magnanimity. What sort of deal is this? How will the PA be held accountable for its promises?
The super-optimistic might think it will happen, yet that defies the entire experience of the Palestinian Authority to this time. Meanwhile the Gaza war continues, the hostages aren’t released and Hamas retains political control. How can the PA remove and disarm Hamas?
Polls show that in the past two years Palestinian opinion has moved decisively against a two-state solution, running at more than 65 per cent; that more than 60 per cent of people in Gaza oppose disarmament of Hamas; that dissatisfaction with the performance of Abbas has reached record levels among Palestinians; and that there is strong support to continue the armed struggle against Israel.

Polls show?

Did they show that any sane observer of the situation might think that the current Israeli government had already gone too far in its land grabs, in its cultivation of settlers, in its brutal suppression, in its comprehensive demolition of Gaza, in its desire to export Palestinians to other countries and in its desire to join King Donald in building a new Riviera from the river to the sea.

Perhaps that's why this May 2025 poll had such mixed results ...

Make of those results what you will.

Unlike "Ned", the pond has provided a link, and there's more results and an explanation of the methodology.

At this point the reptiles introduced a final AV distraction, Anthony Albanese addresses the Two State Solution Conference, ahead of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters.

...  and then it was back to a gabbling, gobbling "Ned" for a final gobbet ...

Contrary to Albanese’s claims, there is no evidence that Palestinian recognition, in its own right, will hasten an end to the war, or secure release of the hostages, or advance a two-state solution. Labor never explains how this will actually happen.

Whoa, we know what's actually happening. 

Perhaps a cartoon will help "Ned" understand ...

The pond suspects that the time for a two state solution is long gone, but at the same time, rather than seek peace and a fair solution, the current Israeli government will pursue a policy of endless apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide, with the hope of a united secular democratic state affording all citizens equal rights a pipe dream.

There's more than one theocracy in the middle east ...

In the meantime, anything that applies pressure to the theocratic desire for ethnic cleansing is better than nothing ... but "Ned" a determined promoter of the right to indulge in genocide carries on clueless to the bitter end...

Australia’s premature recognition of Palestine is just as likely to become an obstacle to peace as it is to promote peace. Yet there is no denying Netanyahu’s responsibility given his repeated efforts to thwart a Palestinian state. This has generated panic in parts of the West. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said Netanyahu was “working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established”. Albanese and Wong felt time was running out for a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu’s anger at the West, including Australia, reveals how much this hurts Israel and himself. His furious declaration that “there will be no Palestinian state” only convinces all these Western leaders that their decision is justified – yet at the same time Israel has the capacity to take decisions in the West Bank that largely undermine the Western game plan.
Albanese’s venture will become an enduring legacy of his prime ministership. He has elevated Middle East policy, where Australia has little influence, into the frontline of his foreign policy reassessments.
The Labor Party has repudiated its long history with Israel. It has prioritised gesture politics, its moralistic framing of the Middle East and its domestic electoral convenience while being blind to the history and power realities of the region. This decision will generate a toll of grief and trap Albanese into a web of his own making.

Meanwhile, on another planet far removed from "Ned", thinking it's all about domestic politics, local reptile navel-gazing and fluff-gathering ...

Which are the 150+ countries that have recognised Palestine as of 2025?, The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 UN member states, representing 81 percent of members.

Yes, there's still a genocide going down ...

... but all "Ned" and the other reptiles can think of is scoring cheap political points, as if 150+ countries can be blamed on comrade Albo's government.

In their own way, the lizards of Oz, "Ned" included, are as reprehensible and as morally responsible as the current Israeli government...

And after all that depressing stuff, the pond looked around for some light relief, but Kimmel has been out and about for a while now, and the TikTok talk of the rapture has been done down by it supposedly ending on 24th September.

Oh there were some barking mad Xian ripper yarns to hand on the intertubes, Mass Spiritual Psychosis on Tiktok, ruining the pond's logarithms, but the pond must try to last until September next year to feature them ...

Instead, as this has already been mentioned in logarithm despatches, here's another in the series featuring the resuscitation of Christopher Hitchens via AI, and luckily he's not talking about the virtues of bombing Iraq back into the Stone Ages... instead Joe Rogan cops a serve, and why not?