all right

Occasionally adding corroborative details to add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing,
but veridicous accounts
with careful attention, indefatigable assiduity, and nice discrimination.

30 May, 2011

Let Them Eat More Dirt

You must say Yes
Cate and Julia* address
the people, “You must say ‘yes’!
   “This country makes pollution
      far more than any nation;
   we’ll grant you absolution
      by means of more taxation.”

   On their proposed solution,
      upon examination
      I’ll give an affirmation;
I’ll agree with readiness
to a plan to fix their mess: 
   instead of revolution,
   a double dissolution.

*  Cate Blanchett, an actress (i.e., a woman who lies by vocation), and Hon. Julia Gillard, a prime minister (and someone who lies by conviction), both support a new tax on carbon dioxide.  Both women seek to persuade the people of Australia that impoverishing themselves, whilst ruining the economy, society and, mayhap, even civilisation itself, would be a Good Thing:  Blanchett does this by participating in an advertisement which lies about the advantages of a carbon-dioxide tax, and the Prime Minister does this, inter alia, by supplying a newspaper article wherein she provides over a dozen lies.  Gillard lies, for example, by insisting, “we [Australia] are the highest carbon polluter per person in the developed world.”
†  i.e., emits carbon dioxide, that beneficent gas, essential to plants and therefore essential to human beings.
‡  a double dissolution is the constitutional mechanism (§ 57 of the Australian Constitution) whereby both houses of federal Parliament, the Senate and the House of Representatives, are dissolved simultaneously, and the Governor-General issues writs for an election wherein every seat in the Parliament is contested.

26 May, 2011

Let Them Eat Dirt

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WARNING:  a vulgar term for the pudenda muliebrum is below.

If it doesn’t hurt, it won’t work

A columnist, E. Farrelly,* has said,
“Society will very soon be dead
unless you recognise your filthy ways
have brought about our doom, the end of days.”
Our culture—sooth!—is evil in its hope
to maximise the freedom and the scope
of opportunity for all to dwell
in comfort, not some pious, earthly hell.

The arrogant and smug, disdainful berk
says, “if it doesn’t hurt, it will not work.”

“The pain,” she says, “of doing as the Greens
commend (but do not practise) means
that we might just survive this awful age
as long as folk can overcome the rage
for medicines and hospitals and such
that use excessive power far too much.
We can’t allow the people to offend
against the future!  We shall make them spend
their filthy lucre, not on luxuries,
but, through taxation, on great subsidies
for solar power and the like; and then
the climate may not be so bad for men.
The government is useless, I concede,
but taxing CO2 must be agreed,
and any opposition is berserk
for if it doesn’t hurt, it will not work.”

The costs of living are so high for some
who dread the day when ‘carbon’ prices come;
they question whether Farrelly could say
how much the ‘carbon’ tax would make them pay.
“You ought to suffer, it will make you cease
polluting if your power costs increase,”
says Farrelly.  Some cry, “please tell us how,
we’ll pay bills then if we can’t pay them now.”
“Well, pawn your gems!”  The cunt adds with a smirk,
“You plebs prefer to dwell within the murk,
I know, you cling to arms—your gun or dirk—
or even sing some ancient songs in kirk
(against the imprecations of the Turk),
but when it’s time to suffer pain, you shirk.
There’s no defence to pardon such a quirk
for if it doesn’t hurt, it will not work.”

*  Elizabeth Farrelly, of The Sydney Morning Herald, in “Full steam ahead to oblivion”, writes:  “Let’s not pretend. There’s more at stake here than lifestyle.  A carbon tax that did not diminish our living standard would be futile and governments have no business promising, as Swan-Gillard rhythmically do, that petrol or electricity prices won’t rise or that big polluters won’t pay.  The whole point is to impact us, and not in a good way.  If it doesn’t hurt, it won’t work.”
†  rhyming slang, you’ll recall; short for Berkeley Hunt.

22 May, 2011

“The Leader Has My Full Support”

The Words of Doom

No party leader wants to hear
such words that ever bring great fear,
far worse than “guilty” in a court—
the leader has my full support.”

No matter how the polls might fall
there’s always hope that, after all,
some issue might reverse the trend,
internal opposition end,
and popularity might soar
unto the heights they’d been before.
For Beasley, Latham, then for Rudd
the words, in turn, that froze their blood
and made their visages distort?
the leader has my full support.”

Now Gillard daily reads the news
that, deep within the party, views
are these:  she’s past it, looking wan,
completely ruined, done-for, gone;
the party she “put on its tracks”
is ruined by a stupid tax.
So now she’s bunkered, feeling low,
reflecting things can hardly go
much worse than this, when comes a thought
of how her leader’s end was brought,
and how she’d guaranteed to all
she’d not effect her leader’s fall;
is Senator Arbib the sort
who’d plot behind her back? in short,
was he like her?  She hears, in dread,
the reportage of what he said;
her shoulders hunch, her eyes contort—
the leader has my full support.”

After the Rapture

I was taken up! I was taken up, and then sent back with a message for all mankind!
Verily, it is written:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [Matt., vii. 15-20]
The nasty, malevolent Clive Hamilton, the meretricious Naomi Oreskes, the avaricious Al Gore, the very silly Tim Flannery, the criminally insane James Hansen, the gibbering Bill McKibben, and their like—not forgetting the late Robyn Williams—, are as ferocious wolves in the shepherd-like garb of pastoral prophets, but the fictitious, spurious predictions of dreadful doom and their dire, maleficent maledictions are the foul, corrupt fruit whereby ye shall recognise them.
Rejoice!  Clearly, the world is not ending, the glorious globe is not warming dangerously from man’s inventive ingenuity; the foolish, alleged believers of the ancient earth-goddess Gaia do not have your interests at heart in their mischievous, misanthracist, misbegotten misanthropism, but their dismal days of influence are now numbered.  Rejoice, for the beginning of the end—of the lies from hypocritical hierophants in the fallacious, bogus religion of catastrophic, man-made global warming—is nigh.

11 May, 2011

Perhaps He Shouted, “Allah, Who’s in There?”

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WARNING:  a coarse term for excretion is below.
His Need Was Great*

The Yemeni arrested
and wrestled to the floor
had thought he had requested
an open toilet door:

“It was a simple error,

I thought I’d be too late,
I meant to cause no terror
by shouting ‘God is Great!’

“Though I teach mathematics

and am a clever swot,
the airline’s weird schematics
had baffled me a lot.

“Arthritic joints were swelling,

you must commiserate;
confusion set me yelling
so loudly, “God is great!’

“The pressure set me rushing

though I was told to sit;
now I’m the one who’s flushing—
I didn’t need to shit.

“Let all this be a lesson:

we should not be irate;
a man might need compassion
when shouting “God is great!’”

*  Daniel Bates, of The Daily Mail, reports, “The Yemeni man who was wrestled to the floor after pounding on the cockpit door of a plane approaching San Francisco may have mistaken it for the bathroom. Rageit Almurisi cannot speak English very well and could have misunderstood the signs inside the jet, his cousin claimed.”  See also Jihad Watch.

09 May, 2011

On the Unreliability of Polls

Vox populi habet aliquid divinum.—Bacon*

When a clear majority of the people opposes the Government’s planned “carbon” tax, for the ABC, that means that there is uncertainty:  “Australians unsure of carbon tax”.

(from Insiders)
Transcript of Barrie Cassidy asking a leading question of an obliging panel, 
Sunday, 8 May, 2011: 

Barrie Cassidy:  The latest poll showed that Australians are unsure about the carbon tax, with an uninformed 60% opposed to a carbon tax, with only 30% wisely, sensibly and correctly in favour.  The question was, “Do you support a carbon tax?”  How distortingly biassed!  Of course the ignorant mob answered incorrectly!  What—as, of course, should have been the case—if the pollsters had asked, “Don’t you support the essential but slight taxing (which won’t affect you at all) of the thousand naughtiest companies polluting the atmosphere with a gas which, though constituting much less the one per cent of the atmosphere, is essential to life on the planet, because a score or so pseudo-scientists, backed by loopy environmentalist groups, want to destroy western industrialisation—I mean, wish to save the planet?  Yes or no.”?  As it is, now, the media will inaccurately report that many Australians oppose this marvellous, necessary carbon tax!  With what result?  The evil polluters will keep on polluting!  Isn’t that plainly wrong? 
George Megalogenis:  Absolutely!  When people were asked whether they supported the war in Iraq, they weren’t asked a proper question, such as, “Isn’t the war in Iraq a bad, nasty, evil idea which all good people rightly oppose?”, they were just asked, “Do you support the war in Iraq?”! 
Brian Toohey:  The question should include compensation, which is so generous it won’t punish running-dog capitalists who laugh maniacally as they spew evil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, dooming us all to increased floods, droughts, heat and cold!  Yet, people will hardly notice the tax after they’ve been compensated!
 Nikki Savva:  No, I agree that polluters won’t be punished, and I’m the token conservative!

Note that Barrie Cassidy has never before criticised pollsters for their incompetent surveys or their push-polling questions, exemplified by this.

Instauratio Magna, Part I, Book vi, 9. 
†  all right, this transcription may not, in spots, be completely accurate.

06 May, 2011

Miscellaneous Transcriptions, Nº 2 – the Decisive President

(from weaklylips)
Transcript of a conversation in the Oval Office, 
Tuesday, 28 April, 2011:

Senior Adviser 1:  Here, Mr. President, are three options wherewith we can terminate or capture Osama bin Laden, but we do not advocate either Option One or Three. May I assume that you have no need to read them? 
Pres. ObamaQuite right; I was elected to lead, not to read! I choose Number One.
Senior Adviser 2:  Mr. President, Option One involves seeking the participation of the Pakistanis; but, since we suspect that some very senior figures in the Military and Government have been helping to hide OBL for years, we included that option only to allow the appearance of your making a choice.
Pres. Obama:  All right then, Number Three! 
Senior Adviser 1:  Mr. President, we don’t recommend the third option.  Option Three involves our bombing the compound wherein Obama— 
Senior Adviser 2:   Osama— 
Senior Adviser 1:   sorry, wherein Osama, dwells, and there is no way of knowing for certain afterwards that we have killed Obama, sorry, Mr. President, I mean Osama—gee, I’m always making that slip, for some strange reason—anyway, with all the destruction effected by a successful bombing mission, we’d likely have no firm proof of having killed Obama, um, of having killed bin Laden, I mean. Plus, he could yet escape. Furthermore, we could kill dozens or scores of civilians unnecessarily.
Pres. Obama:  Four, then!
Senior Adviser 2:  Mr. President, there is no Option Four. Halve it. 
Pres. Obama:  Five!
Senior Adviser 1:  No Five. 
Pres. Obama:   One!

Senior Adviser 2Add one—
Pres. Obama:  Two? 
Senior Adviser 1:  As you wish, Mr. President. We thank you for your wise and unparalleled leadership. 
Senior Adviser 2:   Oh, one final clarification, Mr. President. Option Two sends an assault team of SEALs to “kill or capture” OBL: do we emphasise kill or capture? 
Pres. Obama:  Um—

[Minutes pass.]

Pres. ObamaI’m inclined to say, Yes.  Or, rather, No.  Actually, Yes. 
Senior Adviser 1:  Ah, right. Yes, it is.  Thank you, Mr. President.