Cartoon: By Zeg.
Being talked down to by a condescending prick is irritating enough, but in cases where said condescending prick is a complete idiot like Oakeshott there is a whole new dimension to getting the shits with politicians. Rob Oakeshott for the benefit of overseas readers is one of the independent members of parliament who did a deal with Gillard to keep her in power and beholden to the Greens.
A week or so ago, Obama tried talking down to Americans with his sneeringly contemptuous admonition to them to “eat your peas.” It has to be noted though that he has become increasingly matronly during his term. It is about what we have come to expect.
Now Oakeshott is insisting that although there will be plenty of kicking and screaming about the carbon tax during the next few months but he's confident it will get Parliament's backing. It seems that winning an election can turn even the village idiot into an infallible member of the ruling class.
OK, so we are all going to throw ourselves on the floor, beat our fists into it, and hold our breaths till we turn blue in the face, but it is not going to do us any good. He and Aunty Jules are going to pass it anyway, and smack our bums for being naughty.
And a bit more craziness:
My mate Angry pointed me to a reference to some of the rules on emissions that I had missed while working away. Its so bloody stupid that I had to check it out as some things that get reported seem so batshit crazy that you think that even a government would not accept them. But it comes from Penny Wong:
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia's feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol. That equates to only a small number of the beasts, the sort found lugging tourists around Cable Beach in Broome and at Monarto Zoo, southeast of Adelaide.
So a camel in captivity is a threat to the planet but a feral camel in the wild is OK. But wait, there’s more:
Emissions from bushfires caused by lightning are not anthropogenic. But:
Emissions from bushfires lit by arsonists is. And:
A bushfire in a national park does not cause human emissions. But:
If it spreads to private land it contributes to greenhouse emissions as measured by the UN's rules.
Why does the term, “cognitive dissonance,” come to mind here?