typing is not activism….

environ mentalism, fresh articles, interviews & checkitouts from Sydney.

America The Stupid: prejudge this outcome.

with 3 comments

WHAT THE F#$K??!!!!! The United States effort to again derail climate change negotiations utterly defies any possibility of undamaged brain tissue.

Here are the two mantras for the little piggy cumsacks of the US delegation at the UN’s Bali conference.

– Including any detail regarding emission reduction targets for the wealthiest emitters of greenhouse gases is unacceptable, because it would be “to prejudge the outcome“.

– “All options are on the table

Now you may remember “all options are on the table” from such diplomatic triumphs as the overturning of the Geneva Convention, the invasion of Iraq, the hastened descent of the US into a complete police state, the 2008 aerial bombardment of Iran, climate change denial, and going down on Laura Bush. Obviously, the policy needs rewriting.

US delegations should instead declare that “all options are on crack“. That would at least be plausible.

But as for this new line of razor-edged anal beads, that committing to the minimum level of response necessary to marginally reduce the acceleration of global warming would be “to prejudge the outcome” of negotiations…. How goddamned brain damaged are you Nazi-bait bucket-c&%ted fist-whores in the Bush Administration that come up with this shit?

“Prejudge the outcome”? Is this the antithesis of “preemptive defence”? Which is itself analogous to “let’s rape and pillage that country before they get a chance to look at us funny”.

Preemptive defence – a nonsensical doctrine dreamed up by balding middle-aged neofascists who sniffed their mother’s panty-drawer hard enough to produce a lavender-infused psychotic aneurysm – is the military equivalent of stabbing cancer patients to death with a stick to reduce their risk of dying from a stroke.

Now the same genii who came up with this piece of diplomatic HIV have sent their new big gun to the review of Kyoto. Wouldn’t setting binding targets of at least 25% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 be a step toward producing, rather than ‘prejudging’ the outcome?

It doesn’t even make fucking sense. Look at it: “we don’t want to prejudge the outcome”? From the same fucking stupid assholes who brought the English language “embolden”, “enhanced interrogation techniques”, “they hate our freedom” and “flip-flopper”.

“Oh America, you look so hot in the red glow of this simmering planet tonight. The way the blood drips thickly from your clenched, trembling fist just gets me so… oohhhhh. And the sweat steaming off your chest, just caught in shards of moonlight, as you pause briefly to breathe… panting heavily from the exertion of kicking in the doors, faces, and genitals of a Columbian mountain village… Spit runs down your stubbly man-chin and your eye squint hard against the barrage of piss the world rains down upon you, but you raise your face up and bask in the spray as if it’s the winner’s-podium champagne. Oh God, America, I tremble with excitement as you loudly shit your pants, scoop a handful of the brown stain into your twisted mouth and proclaim it to be milk chocolate. Oh America, I just want to pull out one of your ribs and beat your stupid, fat, fucking skull with it until you promise to liberate me! Liberate me America! Feed me a big, nutritious bowl of your piss-champagne shit-chocolate acid-junk AIDS-blood Liberty!!”

“Sorry baby, not tonight.”

“Why America? Oh why? Why? Why not here? Why not now? Why not yet?”

“Because, baby, that would be to prejudge the outcome”. 

Advertisements

Written by typingisnotactivism

December 14, 2007 at 6:56 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well I think its time to play hardball. The fuckers have got themselves into a very untidy mess with their little sandbox of sub-primes, & are expecting everyone in the world’s central banks to bail them out.

    We’d love to – but there’s a price. Carbon emission reductions you fuckwtis & tough ones. 50% by 2020 thanks.

    Works for me

    Bernice

    December 15, 2007 at 3:21 pm

  2. Ha! me too! Good call B., have been looking at press coverage, like http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/15/bali.climatechange1
    and can’t believe that there is talk of negotiating to agree to a 50% cut by 2050. It is now firmly clear that cuts of less than 80-90% by 2050 will still see an utterly devastating crisis unfold. 4 degrees increase means 5, means 6, means 9, means it’s all over for millions of species and billions of people. Agreeing to 50% cuts by 2050 is like signing a peace treaty that allows the other parties to bomb half your country, rape the other half, shit in your water supply and cut off your food. Certainly not an agreement to write home about.

    typingisnotactivism

    December 15, 2007 at 3:57 pm

  3. why don’t you just say what you mean 😉

    the PTB in the US what a series of crisis, aka ‘shock doctrine’
    there is more money to be made in crisis than in green solutions

    kazak

    December 17, 2007 at 11:25 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: