America The Stupid: prejudge this outcome.

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”. 

Pulp Mill Decision: can Peter Garrett get any Tamar?

WAAH HA HA HAHAHAHAHAAAAA WAH HAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAA HAA.

Malcolm Turnbull denies the fact that as Federal Environment Minister, he has both sufficient mandate and resources to step in where state forestry mismanagement threatens national commitments and international obligations on biodiversity and species protection. As a result he has come out with what is likely the most heavily publicised recommendation ever on how best to run a big tube full of crap into an ocean.

This somehow makes the mill assessment complete and above board? I think that Geoffrey Cousins has spoken best to this new flag of the mill-mill-milly-mill crew:

EMMA ALBERICI: Well, he says the conditions are based on the management of effluent, and also on the protection of wildlife.

GEOFFREY COUSINS: Well, they’re based on the two issues that he decided to look at, namely, the marine environment and migratory species, not all wildlife at all. And when the Chief Scientist says that this mill will meet world’s best practice, he means in respect of that particular issue, because he didn’t look at all of the other issues, I’m not being critical of him, he wasn’t permitted to do so. That wasn’t his brief.

Now, Malcolm Turnbull’s job is to protect the environment. He was critical of the Tasmanian Government himself, for closing down that broader public hearing process, and yet he chose not to reinstate it.

I have held out from completely giving up on Peter Garrett but I can’t stand his tinny words any longer. You can’t be the shadow minister for environment and climate change in the party which is supposedly going to drag Australia back out of this 1950s attitude to the environment, and speak platitudes about how you’ve done your best to keep this process credible but now it’s time to really sit on your hands. It’s an utter load of crap.

Obviously his hands are tied by narrowminded politicking going on outside his office door, but even as environmental shadow he has failed to do his job. The general public aren’t aware that the Howard government has quite possibly legislated away the significance of both the Wielangta and Nathan Dam cases. In unison, these two decisions clarify major untested aspects of the EPBC Act, and give the federal minister the responsibility to assess indirect impacts of an action or development (like what might a pulp mill do to forest that isn’t so much growing next to it, but getting logged because of it) and the power to step in where a state isn’t managing forestry in a manner representative of international law – as has already been the case in Tasmania.

Sure that sounds a bit complicated, but at the heart of that information is a simple fact: the Howard government and its environment ministers have been systematically eliminating environmental provisions found to create protection and responsibility by courts. Worse than just ignoring other laws and agreements, this goes to the fundamental collapse of democracy which occurs when the separation of powers is corrupted. Have we heard about this?

The Labor Party is instead hooked into a two-pronged approach which is basically:

appearing united we win, appearing divided – especially on issues relating to Tasmanian logging and one very narrow section of the CFMEU’s national platform – we lose.

and

as long as we’re only clearly different to the Liberal Party on a couple of select issues of broad public concern, we’ll win

Um, here’s an idea –

a 10% lead plus common sense plus taking a popular stand plus showing some cojones makes for a bigger, better, surer win than pussing out in the last 2 months of the campaign to save Australia from itself.

So although Garrett a few weeks ago may have made a briefly outstanding promise to have the mill assessed for greenhouse emissions, he was quickly compelled (by ‘senior management’ no doubt) to clarify that perception.

So he’s screwed. He is unsupported within the Federal Party, and he is more or less trotted out like an over-qualified but otherwise discount Bono whenever meetings with the public or cool issues needing a supposedly progressive Labor approach are being discussed. . . in front of cameras.

It’s confusing – because the fact that he wants to have the mill’s fatal carbon load assessed is a good thing, and we really should support him for it, because his biggest battle isn’t against Turnbull or Howard, it’s against the Labor Party. But here’s the stupid thing – even with Labor and Garrett supporters, both are losing support by the hour over the lack of concern for the environment, due process, their own credibility, their lack of opposition to the Howardocrats, their lack of representation for the greater good on this resoundingly obvious issue, and their utter inability to stand for a principle – even one that will prove particularly popular come election day.

Stupid.

GetUp have thrown up a cool page here so you can read the L-party ghouls’ statements on just how big their balls are and make your own comments, which will hopefully get sent to the lame-o-crats’ in-trays.