Mr. 1.9%: the Senate's village idiot.

Steve Fielding doesn't like Greens. I have an impressive collection of articles in which Mr. Morality launches childish attack after childish attack, each of which is unsatirable* in its petty partisanship and amateurism. The Bongmeister, however, has come to the conclusion that these past works are too subtle for his Christian base. Thus, Stevie has dropped all flimsy pretenses of professionalism and gone for the lowest, crudest and downright laughable smear he can imagine:

GREENS’ PLAN ECONOMICALLY LAUGHABLE, FOOLISH AND LUDICROUS

Says the fellow who's sole economic policy consists of cutting the petrol tax. I know Steve lives in the 14th Century, but that's no excuse for not using the caps lock hey.

The Greens would rather send Australia back to the Stone Age than use common sense in negotiating on an Emissions Trading Scheme, Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding said today.

“I don’t know what planet the Greens are on, but by the look of their ‘Safe Climate Bill’ they look like they're lost in space,” Senator Fielding said.

I don't know what Steve was gunning for with those space puns-it's not like NASA is involved. Anyway, the rest of the piece is utterly juvenile-calling Bob and co. "hippies" and sloppy accusations of hypocrisy-by using planes, no less. I don't know how Greens Senators are supposed to travel in a less gas-emitting way, given that planes are a form of public transport. I presume Fielding also think Bob is a hypocrite because he emits carbon emissions by breathing.

But seriously, I can't understand what Steve expect to gain from schlock like this. Anyone even considering voting Green is sufficiently left-wing as to dismiss Fundies First as a group of fringe nutters, and vice-versa for FF voters. If anything, Steve is alienating what incomprehensibly tiny support base he has by acting like like such a jerk. Compare this release to what freshman/woman Senators Ludlam and Hanson-Young have produced. These political youngens have only been in Parliament since July 2008, yet they have displayed a political professionalism that completely outstripes Steve (and most major party backbenchers as well, to be honest). The Fluke is a child in a grownups' world: he stumbled into the Senate through luck and Labor's cynicism, was irrelevent from 04 to 07, and, now having been thrust into the balance-of-power limelight, has demonstrated that he hasn't a clue in parliamentary processes. Steve knows that he has barely a hope of re-election on primary votes-barely being the operative word-and has resorted to stunt after stunt in the vain hopes that he will increase the visability of his party enough to scrap in a re-election.

I, like all groupthing lefties, simply cannot wait for the 2010 election. Asides from an anti-Greens propaganda overdrive from all parties (which will be a joy to read, I can assure you all), Rudd has shown that he is a skilled and shrewd politician. The likelihood of Labor preferencing the Fundies in 2010 is infinitesimal, especially how much Steve has pissed Kevin off (Medicare levies, alcopops taxes and luxary car taxes, anybody?). Labor is a right-wing government, but Rudd knows that the Greens are a better deal than Steve, and that's where Labor's 2010 preferences will be heading. To humbly quote Field Marshall Editor: Steve: you and your Pentecostal mates are headed for the political dustbin of history and no stunt on Earth is going to save you. Perhaps when you fail to get re-elected in a couple of years you could work for Today Tonight.

Cross-posted at Officer Cadet Orville Strayan.

Various article goodies found here, here and here.

*That's a word, OK?

Selective outrage

All of a sudden, Australia is now considered a racist country (I'd have thought it was more to do to with anti-immigration hysteria, cronulla, camdem etc, but apparently not). It's due to a skit on Hey Hey it's Saturday, featuring five people dressed in blackface (and one in whiteface) portraying the Jackson5. Blackface, for the uninformed, is historically a highly racist form of humour using black stereotypes to grab some cheap laughs from the audience. In this case, of course, the outrage is laughable. Of course they're going to paint their faces black! They're pretending to be black singers! What are they supposed to do-go onstage in afros and pasty white skin? How crap would that look? Sometimes, it feels like Oz is adopting all the worst traits from all the other Western countries-the hard-right racism of the US, yet also the uptight-PCness of Britain. Gawd, now that's embarrasing.

And you know what? For all the outrage and horror, everybody seems to have missed this:



What's wrong? Not outragable enough?

T to the A to the P: the second heterosexual edition

Because hiatus is no reason for a good sex post.

Ladies seem to get a poor run on this blog. It’s rather ironic, given that I’m straight(ish), that there are (as of this post) two dolls to six dudes. But there is a surprisingly simple explanation for the lack of chicks; namely, that photos of the honeys tend to be rather dull. It’s just bikini shot after bikini shot after bikini shot. Not that I’m necessarily complaining, but I wouldn’t mind a touch of variety when viewing various sexy dames. Thus, when broads do get a mention on Dogfighter, I prefer to focus on more stereotypically ‘artistic’ shots of lassies (much to Colonel Jester’s chagrin, I’m sure). If you want photos of skirts in very little other than a skirt, Goggle Images will gladly satisfy your perverted desires. But anyway; this time, I’ll be showing on Jessica ‘Joy’ Alba. She is most well known for roles in Dark Angel, Sin City and the Fantastic Four. But who cares, ‘cause I just wikied her and she’s a freakin’ liberal!

Anti-nuclearism

Recently, the ANSATO has issued a press release stating that Australia needs to develop nuclear plants if it want to cut its greenhouse emissions. Being the filthy hippy I am, I'm opposed to nuclear plants. However, I do try to base what I am for and against on as non-ideological grounds as possible-think realpolitik. Hence,

1. Building the bloody things. Plants are extremely expensive-ranging from $6 to $10 billion to produce. Not only that, but they're only getting dearer. Think of how much energy could be supplied if $6 billion was spent in renewable energy (and it would be much cheaper in the long term; see no. 3)?

2. The water use. You know those chimneys gushing with what looks like smoke? That's actually steam. Nuclear plants require millions of litres of water every day to use, far more than other sources of power. That would be fine if we had millions of litres of water to spare, but we don't. Australia is the second driest continent on the earth (next to Antarctica) and only getting drier. And I haven't heard from the pro-nuclear side just where this water will be coming from.

3. It's finite. Uranium, as with oil and coal, is a finite source. That means that it will eventually run out. I don't know when-it could be 20 years, 50 years, even 100. But it will, and when it does, we will look pretty bloody stupid with all these worthless nuclear plants around. Renewable energies are called 'renewable' for a good reason; they don't run out. (OK, the sun will eventually burn out, but that'll be about 5 billions years in the future, a touch more than the uranium)

4. The waste. There's a good reason why no country wants to handle this stuff: it's the equivalent of injecting tar directly into your lungs. The waste takes forever to break down and if it leaks, it will wreck havoc with everything it comes into contact with. As far as I know, the only way to completely get rid of the waste is to launch it into the sun-and that creates a slew of new problems (the expense of launching so many space shuttles, the danger of a leak, finding a pilot who'd willingly sit in a cockpit 10 feet from enough isotopes to mutate them into the hulk...).

Long story short, there are sufficiant problems with nuclear waste-from beginning to end-to render the whole building plants unfeasible. Next up-arguments for more solar!

Ongoing hiatus

Yes, I know. Very, very few posts as of late. Hey, I'm a busy guy-I've just finished test-piloting some Sopwith Pups and Triplanes, and today have handed in an essay on psychological in-flight tactics. Now, I need to write a paper on survival skills in the event of crashlanding, and then simulate said survival skills in the wild. So (with the exception of the next post, which is a couple of weeks in the making) expect more Lazyboy moments and a TAP post or two for the time being.

Life's hard for a world war one flying ace.

Especially at the moment. Myself, with a few others, are performing a thorough series of maintenance checks and flying maneuvers, which is all rather fun, but leaves very little time for blogging (have you every gotten up in the morning at 5 am, repeatedly? You don't). Soon after, there are the theoretical exams on our knowledge. So still little time. The bright side, of course, is that it's a perfect time for another LazyBoy moment. Tonight's edition comes courtesy of Buzzfeed, featuring billboards that don't belong together.

First, some toilet humour...





Religion gets quite a beating...







There's good ol' fashion irony...




And my favourite...


Actually, that might be intentional.

Why are they so afraid?

Excellent Battle of Wellington last Saturday*. General Debbie commanded an air assault of rhyming chants and speeches discussing womens' reproductive rights. One speaker, (it may have been the General, or somebody else) raised a point that us lefties, liberals and progressives rarely consider-why do the anti-choicers fear womens' rights so much? These same 'pro-lifers' (with, I concede, a few rare exceptions) support the war in Iraq which has killed untold thousands of children, and the bombing of Gaza by Israel, killing hundred of Palestinian children. These same pro-lifers view supporting women as a lesser priority to saving those sacks of stem stems-it's pretty clear 'pro-lifers' are only pro-life in the sense of restricting womens' reproductive health, and pro-death in every other case (or maybe they just want more white, potentially-convertible-to-Jesus babies. Those Muslims in Iraq and Palestine are a lost cause). So back to General Debbie's question: why do various fundies and ultraconservatives hate control over the uterus?

Personally, I see it as fear; fear of women gaining control over their bodies, which represents men losing the power that has been slipping from them since the Suffragette movement. Conservatives of each era have lost the fight against each successive wave of feminism. This began when conservatives lost the fight against suffrage. Ever since then, sex equality has been increasing since and some people see this as a threat to their establishment.

However, this fails to explain anti-feminist women. This is where the powerful role of religion comes into play. However, despite my resonable knowledge of psychology and sociology, I am at a loss as to why anybody would volunterily deprive themselves of rights. In this manner, feminism is unique; no other group has opposed civil rights for themselves.

I'll try doing a 'going down the rabbit hole' of antifeminism in the future-although probably not for at least a month, as I have flight training** for the next month

*Apologies for a lack of posts regarding BOWs and a lack of general posts of late. My Sopwith Camel (prepare to hear a lot about Camels in the future) has been playing up lately, forcing me into some unenthusiastic study of the schematics.

**Nursing placement.