Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Apr 21, 2011

So, after we jail all those big polluters, then what?

Martin O'Malley, state secretary of the SA branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), has called for the taxing and jailing of all big polluters. Well with Treasurer Wayne Swan sobbing about the need for bigger deficits and expenditure cuts owing to everything other than his governments profligate spending, its nice to see Marty has his taxing priorities right.

Marty’s call is not the most extreme we have seen coming from lefties. Paul Krugman wants failure to believe in GW to come under a new definition of treason against the planet. He stated, “And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.” There have been more extreme examples, but it would not be fair to include those by people who qualify for treatment under the “Care for the confused and bewildered programs” run by most compassionate states.

Prince Phillip for example wants to be reincarnated as a lethal virus to wipe out humanity. This though, has been explained by the great old European tradition of many generations of incestuous marriage among their various monarchies. This is what gives them the ability to believe that they have by birth, the right to rule the nations they are inflicted on.

The important question though is, what happens when all of those ‘big polluters’ are jailed? It may seem a bit simplistic of me, but it occurs to me that seeing these are the people who run our power generation and major industry, we would immediately need new ‘big polluters’ to take their places if we are to maintain our current standard of living. Will we immediately jail them too?

The reality is of course; these ‘big polluters’ are guilty of no more than meeting the needs of the public for electricity, fuel, and industrial products. Without them we would be living a much more Spartan lifestyle at the mercy of the elements with much fewer resources to cope with it.

If idiots like Marty want us to have a lower standard of living they should just go out and say so. This can be done without calling for criminal sanctions against those who meet our requirements for the wherewithal to live as we do currently.


  1. If Phil the Greek feels that way he could perhaps have a word with that wing-lobed fruit-loop son of his, Chuckles FcKnuckles. You know, the tedious wanker with three palatial homes, several cars and a habit of flying all over the world to tell other people not to fly or drive anywhere or live in excessively large houses because we've only got 100 months to save the planet. Some months back I saw Geoffrey Lean in The Teletubbygraph had a gentle dig at him over it, but mentioned that Chuckles' aides say he can only do so much what with being heir to the throne and everything. I say he should bloody renounce it if he feels he could start to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, i.e. nagging the rest of us. Hypocritical prick, and my first choice as poster boy for republicanism.

    I'm not overly fond of Mrs Windsor either but that's a whole other rant.

  2. You have given me a profound sense of relief, Angry. I was concerned when writing this that I might cause you offence by criticising your former ruler. :)

    The current royal wedding is the first where I have not seen an article in the press on what relation the bride is to the groom, so perhaps they have been listening to my advice, "Stop marrying your cousins."

    Little Charlie is no different to the other pricks like Gore who wax sanctimonious on how we should live while doing the opposite. Perhaps, one day the penny will drop, but I am not optimistic.

  3. Yes, well, annoyingly she still is but I live in hope that there'll be another referendum, and there'll be at least one more yes vote than last time. Mind you, I've long felt that Chuckles on the throne would greatly increase the chances of the UK becoming a republic, and I worry slightly that if that happens before Australia does the house of Windsor and their novelty prime numbered chromosome collection might come and set up shop here. If the Royal Wedding fever raging in the UK is any guide I'm probably worrying over nothing, thank Christ.

  4. Oh, and agreed about someone high up the royal list of irrelevance finally having the common dog to marry someone he actually wants to be with as well as someone who isn't among the collection of inter-related European royals and aristos as well as, presumably, live together beforehand. Good for any children, who are less likely to be a bit strange if not actually amphibious, but probably also going to go down well with people that William is living his life more like everybody else does these days. I still wish he wasn't going to be 'my' king one day, but of course I'd say that about anybody.

  5. Well, perhaps young Chucky would go to New Zealand, after all they are the Poms of the South Pacific.

    Referendums have a bad track record here as few of us actually trust the government to change the constitution in a way that is anything other than an increase in its power. Funny about that.

    The main case presented at the last referendum on a republic here seemed to involve the argument that 200 years had elapsed and that meant something about changing the system being a good idea.

    There were two republican schools of thought and one screwed the other over which effectively split it. There was also a general distrust as to what the government would do in the way of constitutional changes in the process.

    Most of us thought that the risk of Chilla was not as bad as Howard.

  6. Jim, my republican friends said something not dissimilar. Had they been asked if in principle they wanted Australia to become a republic, the exact form to be thrashed out over the next X years and then decided by another referendum they'd have voted yes. As it was they felt that proposed form was designed to be a win/win for Howard. Either republicans who wanted a directly elected head, like my friends, would vote no and maintain the status quo or enough people who were anti-monarchy rather than pro-republic would accept as the price for sacking Mrs Queen and Canberra would get to appoint a sock puppet President. If that's the norm no wonder only a handful of referenda are passed here, though unlike Britain at least they do bloody ask now and again. The UK was famously promised a referendum on adopting EU Constitution by all three main parties, and which they promptly reneged on when the bloody thing was renamed as the Lisbon Treaty with almost the entire content unaltered.

  7. From memory there were two schools of thought, one being for an elected President, and the other, - led by Turnbull wanting one appointed by parliament.

    Turnbull conned the others to back a republic as a whole and settle the details later. This was agreed to and reneged on and most of the elected president group voted against it.

    Anyway Turnbull was probably the wrong guy to have up front in the first place. I tend to look at the bastard and think, "never buy a used car off that prick."