Smug Pollution Alert

There are many uncertainties that have arisen as a result of the federal election on the 21st of August. On thing that is certain is that for the foreseeable future the people of south-eastern Australia will be dealing with the sever environmental and weather effects of high concentrations of smug. A smug alert has been issued. The pollution is emanating from various locations in Australia but is at dangerous levels of concentration in and around the federal seat of Melbourne. The most common ailment brought about by the smug pollution is choking as a result of incidents of I-vomited-a-little-bit-in-my-mouth syndrome, in some cases this has been so sever as to result in death.

A portion of a documentary on Smug Pollution:

The smug clears the further one gets away from its major centres of emanation – the inner north of Melbourne and the Tasmanian forests. As can be seen from the map the highest concentrations dissipate to more milder levels as one moves away from the inner north of Melbourne until they are find little strength in the areas of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. People are being warned against venturing into the areas of highest concentration, Fitzroy and Brunswick, unless it is to rescue persons from the pollution or for some other life and death matter. Whilst not highlighted on the map the people of Denison have experienced a clearing of the smug but residents are warned that the clearing may not be permanent.

“People outside those areas of high concentration must also take pre-cautions” warned a health official. “On Monday three people died from smug related causes in the lightly afflicted areas of Western Sydney.” The three died after reading that Greens senator-elect for Victoria Richard Di Natali stated that the southeast of Australia was the progressive heartland of Australia and that the seat of Melbourne was the jewel in the crown. It is believed that the three progressives suffered massive vomited-a-little-bit-in-my-mouth syndrome leading to death by asphyxiation.

In order to combat this health authorities have released two facts that they believe will help mitigate the worst of the effects.

1. The Greens are a party grounded in a cultural belief in the inherent value of the natural world – that is, everything minus people. This extended universally is formally equivalent to political parties such as Family First. That is, to everybody that does not hold that ultimately irrational prejudice an encounter with the law is either nightmarish or non-existent.

2. In this election the Greens set out to promote themselves as something more than the sectional interest party described in point one. They attempted to cast themselves as potentially capable of creating laws that all people could potentially agree were good. The basis for such a move was found and expressed most eloquently in their climate change policy. That policy argued that action should occur on the basis that it would be cheaper to act now than act in the future. Not even the liberal party under John Howard held such radical economic rationalism. The principle of wealth accumulation as the key to good government was always tempered by the desire to preserve and extend certain social practices in Howard’s case.

If we understand progressive politics to be a politics that seeks to maximise cultural difference without resolving conflicts through economic reductionism (the resolution of conflicts by reference to the productivity commission) then the progressive areas of Australia are certainly not those dominated by Green politics but those areas that sought to combine Tony Abbott’s commitment to ‘lifestyle choices’ over and above capital accumulation with the Labor party’s plans for the multiplication of the ability for people to communicate with each other over and above economic reason (the NBN was set up by government because when it was put out to tender all companies judged the opportunity of holding the monopoly uneconomic).

From available evidence the Greens are either a party representing a sectional prejudice or brutal economic rationalists.

Health officials believe that these two facts should mitigate the worst of the effects of the smug. They have, however, also provided a number of ‘nit-picking’ treatment options that may relieve smug related discomfort.

Firstly, a large part of the Greens attempt to gain support has resided in the repetition of the words compassion and refugees. It is unclear what exactly this means. Their policy suggests that they will do away with mandatory detention whilst maintaining laws regarding immigration and reducing discrimination to the difference between economic and humanitarian immigrants, with a favoring of the latter over the former.

They state that they want:

“an immigration program that is predominantly based on family reunions and other special humanitarian criteria as defined by international human rights Conventions.”


“the elimination of the policies of mandatory detention, and other forms of harsh, punitive or discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.”


“asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to have their claims for asylum assessed while living in the community.”

What will the difference between mandatory detention and the Greens policy look like? People will still need to be surveyed and controlled in order to test their authenticity (as refugees) and they will also need to be supplied with government support for both food and housing given that both landlords and employers might be circumspect about providing jobs and homes to people that could be shipped off elsewhere at a moments notice if they are judged to fall foul of the Greens migration criteria.

Compassion for Refugees has never been a problem in Australia; the problem has been compassion for those that are yet to be determined to be refugees. The commitment to the rigors of testing for authenticity is something that is held by all Australian political parties. If there is a progressive position with respect to immigration and refugees the immediate conclusion that can be reached at the moment is that it has not been articulated yet. If one is to be found it probably relates to the question of the existence of borders of migration, or at the very least it involves interrogating the criteria set out by the UN.

Another nit-picking treatment relates to the claim that the Greens are the ‘principled’ party in the sense that they don’t lie and can be trusted. When faced with this sort of smugness the fact of the Green’s line on their preferences can be pointed out. The only logic behind the preferencing was trying to get positions on the how to vote cards. When it came to advising which parties best reflected the principles of the Greens the issue didn’t matter. People can preference in whatever way they like as long as they vote 1 Greens was Bob Brown’s line.

Browns apparent reason for the peculiar disregard for the outcome of government if the Greens didn’t win was that he didn’t understand such party machine things. Here he was either lying or he was saying that he didn’t care what happened to the parliament as long as the Greens got lots of votes.

Meanwhile, when the newly elected member for the seat of Melbourne, Green Adam Bandt asserted that he would under no circumstances be a part of allowing Abbott to form government he was quickly cut off by Bob Brown, this time in the guise of the party machine, asserting that the Greens would be open to all parties. Either that is a lie or the Greens are ambivalent on the question of whether or not they are conservative or progressive.

Finally, what was the Greens action with regard to climate change if not a blatant compromise of stated conviction in favour of the electoral benefits to be obtained via gloating? Despite being far more emphatic than Rudd’s claims of ‘moral challenge of our time’ the Greens decided that no action was better than any action that is not in line with their policy. The suggestion that the Labor ETS plan would have ‘locked in’ a bad deal is absurd, laws change all the time, the very reason for elections and discussing laws is based upon this idea. The Greens decided that they would let the ETS fail in order to capitalise on being able to claim that the Labor government did not act on climate change. In consideration of this bargain one cannot help thinking that maybe the Greens are just as sceptical on climate change as Tony Abbott.


About barkingcoins
This author is just another fucking dickhead.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: