Thursday, August 03, 2006

Thar she blows

The latest hare-brained scheme to keep the commies terrorists boat-people mothra bad people out:
An armed purpose-built prison ship will be used to hold up to 30 asylum seekers and illegal fishermen for a month at a time under Customs' new border security provisions.
Although we have slight inflationary pressure* I can rest easy at night knowing that we shall not be overun by the hordes of bad people (all 30 of them).

I would personally suggest a whaling ship. Explosive harpoons make an excellent deterrent and the sluices mean the decks can easily be cleaned.

Another idea! What about some Prison Hulks? Wikipedia says:
The harbour location of prison hulks was also convenient for the temporary holding of persons being transported to Australia.
Oh. That obviously wont work. We're trying to keep them out.

And people mocked the Yogic Flyers! We totally need a forcefield.


* By which I mean John's Battlers can't pay the mortgage
.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hang On! So we take these pirates/evil fishermen/drowning babies/invaders of our White Nation off their leaking sinky-boats and put them on a quite serviceable boat with guns. Has no one in Canberra seen Pirates Of The Carribean? Or Mutiny On The Bounty? At least it gives the blighters a sporting chance, what-ho!

Sherd said...

My favourite part was when they said on the news this morning "the prison ship will cost an estimated $10 million".

Actually, there's two favourite parts there:

1) prison ship
It made me think of Waterworld and Kevin Costner with gills. Which makes me laugh because Kevin Costner is inherently silly, not just for making Waterworld but in general (apologies if you are a fan and Message in a Bottle was a defining moment in your life) (although if that is the case I may have to stop reading your blog*).

2) $10 million.
Ten. Million. Dollars. And now I read that's just for the lease costs? That's $333,333 (.33 repeating) per person. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or move to Switzerland. So I guess that's not really so funny after all...


* this is patently not true

mskp said...

i think as per ruby's example we should henceforth refer to kevin costner as "that talentless, monotonous cock-womble".

COCK-WOMBLE!

who else is a cock-womble? i think it generates quite a specific picture in the mind. not everyone can be called a cock-womble. i reckon alexander downer might be one...