This is just a quick update for you all on what I've been doing in the last week, so you can really sink your teeth into a whole bunch of me at once.
For example, if you want to read me in The Age on the subject of television, you can.
And if you want to read me in The Guardian on the subject of the Labor Party, you can.
Or perhaps you'd like to check out my exclusive interview with Australia's Federal Racism Commissioner in the King's Tribune? (and while you're there, subscribe FFS)
But maybe you'd rather read me on rugby union?
Or rugby league?
Probably you'll get the most satisfaction out of my piece on asbestos and how the government is using it to kill us, on New Matilda. (subscribe there too. Jesus)
Or you could just kick back and relax with my recap of the first episode of the new series of Masterchef.
Not that you need to, because my friend Dan Hall and I have covered all bases re: Masterchef's return in episode one of a brand new web series by GAMers Cam Smith and myself, MASTERCHAT. Check it out below, and stay tuned for next week's ep.
OK that's all for this week. There'll be some more stuff next week. Don't say that I never do anything for you people.
Showing posts with label The Drum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Drum. Show all posts
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Yo Pro-Lifers! Suck It!
Oh, look! An article by Joel Hodge of the Australian Catholic University that is all about defending people's right to assembly and is not at all about defending people's right to harass other people on their way to undergo legal medical procedures and demonising the pro-choice movement. It's all about justice and freedom and stuff.
Because after all, all these people are trying to do is prevent the murder of babies, right? I mean, not literally, but in their own heads, because they're insane. That's all they THINK they're trying to do, right? And if you knew there was a an establishment near you where babies were being taken to be slaughtered, wouldn't YOU picket and harass and wave signs and throw pamphlets at people?
Wouldn't you?
I mean, of course, you'd do more. You'd actually break down the doors and rush in and take those baby-murdering bastards OUT, in a heroic, John McClane-esque manner, because hey, they're KILLING KIDS.
But if you were a real wuss, you'd stand outside picketing and stuff. If you were opposed to baby-murder, but lacked any sort of intestinal fortitude or moral fibre, you'd totally protest outside the clinic where the babies were being murder. If you had guts, you'd take some effective action, but if you were a total coward you'd definitely stick to maximising psychological trauma for young women.
Coincidentally, that's also what you'd do if you actually DIDN'T think abortionists were murdering babies, but were just a self-righteous uptight prig who wants women to be punished for having sex and is enraged by the thought that there might be women who have sex without having to have babies, because you believe women having sex for purposes other than procreation is slutty and disgusting.
As I say that's just a coincidence, because that is not what THESE protesters are doing. These protesters are not hypocritical, judgmental, sexually repressed arseholes. They're just religious maniacs who are also really, really gutless. So let's cut them some slack.
I mean, don't listen to them, or pay attention to them, or alter your behaviour in any way because of them. You can't do that. Ignore them - they're insane. But have a bit of sympathy at least, huh?
Because after all, all these people are trying to do is prevent the murder of babies, right? I mean, not literally, but in their own heads, because they're insane. That's all they THINK they're trying to do, right? And if you knew there was a an establishment near you where babies were being taken to be slaughtered, wouldn't YOU picket and harass and wave signs and throw pamphlets at people?
Wouldn't you?
I mean, of course, you'd do more. You'd actually break down the doors and rush in and take those baby-murdering bastards OUT, in a heroic, John McClane-esque manner, because hey, they're KILLING KIDS.
But if you were a real wuss, you'd stand outside picketing and stuff. If you were opposed to baby-murder, but lacked any sort of intestinal fortitude or moral fibre, you'd totally protest outside the clinic where the babies were being murder. If you had guts, you'd take some effective action, but if you were a total coward you'd definitely stick to maximising psychological trauma for young women.
Coincidentally, that's also what you'd do if you actually DIDN'T think abortionists were murdering babies, but were just a self-righteous uptight prig who wants women to be punished for having sex and is enraged by the thought that there might be women who have sex without having to have babies, because you believe women having sex for purposes other than procreation is slutty and disgusting.
As I say that's just a coincidence, because that is not what THESE protesters are doing. These protesters are not hypocritical, judgmental, sexually repressed arseholes. They're just religious maniacs who are also really, really gutless. So let's cut them some slack.
I mean, don't listen to them, or pay attention to them, or alter your behaviour in any way because of them. You can't do that. Ignore them - they're insane. But have a bit of sympathy at least, huh?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Who Likes Beauty?
Perhaps you have become aware in recent times of a bit of a "to-do" about the issue of child beauty pageants, sparked by such cultural phenomena as hit TV show Toddlers and Tiaras, as well as a recent such pageant held in Australia, and of course moralising do-gooders who for some reason want all our children to be ugly. I mean who would not LOVE a child like US pageant star Eden Wood?
Mmmm...cute.
Anyway I wrote on the subject for New Matilda:
It's Time To Let Kids Be Adults
As did visiting British journalist, libertarian and two-legged mouth Brendan O'Neill, in even more strident and convincing mien:
Well done pageant-haters
That O'Neill piece is filled with gorgeous lines and gentle wisdom, but probably my favourite bit is this:
Yes indeed. How the HELL does this child psychotherapist claim to have any IDEA what's good for children? What on EARTH would a child psychotherapist know about children's welfare? Why in GOD'S NAME would you ever go to a child psychotherapist for advice about children? I mean, what sort of QUALIFICATIONS does a child psychotherapist have in this area? Shouldn't a child psychotherapist stick to her area of EXPERTISE, rather than shooting her MOUTH off about things she is NOT TRAINED to express an opinion on, such as children?
Child psychotherapists - the true enemy.
Mmmm...cute.
Anyway I wrote on the subject for New Matilda:
It's Time To Let Kids Be Adults
As did visiting British journalist, libertarian and two-legged mouth Brendan O'Neill, in even more strident and convincing mien:
Well done pageant-haters
That O'Neill piece is filled with gorgeous lines and gentle wisdom, but probably my favourite bit is this:
"These children are absolutely being put in harm's way", declared child psychotherapist Collet Smart, who somehow, by osmosis maybe, seems to know better than parents themselves what is good for their children.
Yes indeed. How the HELL does this child psychotherapist claim to have any IDEA what's good for children? What on EARTH would a child psychotherapist know about children's welfare? Why in GOD'S NAME would you ever go to a child psychotherapist for advice about children? I mean, what sort of QUALIFICATIONS does a child psychotherapist have in this area? Shouldn't a child psychotherapist stick to her area of EXPERTISE, rather than shooting her MOUTH off about things she is NOT TRAINED to express an opinion on, such as children?
Child psychotherapists - the true enemy.
Friday, July 15, 2011
How Carbon Tax Made Me An Idiot
(NB: this piece is dedicated to Erin Riley)
For a while now, I’ve been increasingly convinced of the need to have an opinion about various subjects such as politics, in order to be a normal thinking human being. But I was torn: my belief in thoughtful, sober reflection and reasoned argument as a path to enlightenment made me lean towards having intelligent opinions, while my love of reading tabloid newspapers and listening to talkback inclined me more towards the gibbering imbecile end of the spectrum.
It was a difficult decision, made more so by the enormity of the consequences. I knew that whether I decided to be smart or stupid could determine my future career prospects, the course of my intimate relationships, and how loudly I could talk on trains.
But with the announcement of the carbon tax, the decision was made easy – the only possible response was to become unbelievably stupid.
To be honest, to call it a “decision” is almost a misnomer: the announcement of the carbon tax really leaves those of us who desire to avoid the unexamined life with no option: it is a compulsion, a calling, and yes, a duty, that we transform ourselves into morons, for the good of our country.
It happened almost without my noticing it: I was just toddling along the day after the carbon tax announcement, and suddenly I realised that for the last three hours I’d been telling people that the tax wouldn’t decrease temperatures by a single degree. Not just like that, of course: what I’d actually been saying was, “Did you know the so-called carbon tax won’t lower temperatures AT ALL? Do you? Do you know? So much for ENVIRONMENTALISM!” Sometimes I’d poke them in the chest.
And it felt liberating. I knew I’d followed the correct path. If I’d decided to be intelligent about the carbon tax, how could I ever have derived the deep emotional fulfilment that can only come from inserting “(dioxide)” into sentences? You have no idea how satisfying it is to do this – you should try it. If you thought it was fun complaining about the carbon tax, you will be practically orgasmic once you start complaining about the carbon (dioxide) tax. That’s why Terry McCrann always seems so happy.
Quickly I began to expand the scope of my idiocy, exploring the creative possibilities of using the word “socialism” in as many disconnected contexts as I could possibly think of. I found that once you get into the swing of things, “socialism” can mean anything, really. Pricing carbon, taxing the rich, giving money to the poor, taxing the poor, giving money to the rich, preferring market mechanisms to a command economy, being a woman – all these and more are socialism, once you make a true commitment to stupidity. I’m hoping that in time, I’ll be able to call every policy of every political party socialist without even breaking a sweat.
Of course it’s not that simple, being an idiot. You can’t just scream “socialist” and expect to be taken seriously in the stupid community. You also need to say things like, “the carbon tax will completely destroy our way of life” and “we need an election NOW to get rid of the worst government since Federation” and “I am the shadow Treasurer”. If the carbon tax really riles you up, you can go the extra mile and start delving into advanced mental degradation, for example: “Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant it is a necessary element for life on earth”. Not that you want to over-reach. It’s wise to warm yourself up, stretch your stupid-muscles with some thank-god-for-Tony-Abbotts and we-shouldn’t-move-before-the-world-doeses before you go the full Thank-God-we-have-Andrew-Bolt-to-stand-up-to-the-Green-groupthink.
Not that you have to stick to an anti-Green line. That’s the beauty of the carbon tax – it gives us scope to be idiots in any direction we choose. You can call up 2GB claiming that Bob Brown wants to put 90 percent of Australians out of work, or you can call up 3AW claiming that the carbon tax will create six million new jobs in geothermal energy and Great Barrier Reef curating. It’s up to you! As a matter of fact you can do both of those things – it’s the advantage of choosing stupidity over intelligence, you don’t need to be consistent at all (refer to discussion of socialism, above).
And so I’ve found that the carbon tax has really allowed me to be me, to free the spirit within, to release the latent intellectual atrophy that had been inside me all along. Much like a baby bird who, taking its first tentative steps out of the nest, suddenly finds itself able to swoop and soar and slam headfirst into windows, I am finally able to express myself as nature intended. To leap like the salmon, to run like the gazelle, to ride a tractor like Bob Katter. I am free to stand on the rooftop and cry to the world, “Yes! I am stupid, and I am proud! Furthermore the earth has not warmed for 12 years!” I am free to write letters to newspapers. I am free to refer to wealth distribution without even the slightest sense of irony or shame or basic understanding of reality. God, life is sweet when you’re a dullard.
It’s only been a few days, of course – barely time to form an opinion on the carbon tax at all if I weren’t so stupid – and I foresee a lot of strong, enriching dumbness permeating my life moving forward. I see myself poring over graphs and declaring “see? It’s a myth!” I foresee writing pompous and lengthy political analysis pieces about the government’s inability to sell its policy. I foresee tuning into Channel Ten on Sunday mornings a lot. I foresee quoting Ian Plimer. I foresee feeling powerful pangs of sympathy for people earning over $100,000 a year. I foresee saying “Ju-LIAR” and spending the next 20 minutes touching myself with pride at how witty I am.
It is indeed a golden age for the idiot, and I’m grateful to Julia – oops, I mean Juliar, ha ha! – for allowing me this opportunity to realise who I really am. Stop this great big new tax, remove this illegitimate government, STOP LYING, and up with morons. Join me, stupid brethren, and together we will make this country a true paradise for all of those of below-average intelligence and below. It’s time to stand up against this unjust tax and the people of normal intelligence who want to discuss it. Jump on board, idiots!
We can start in the comments of this post.
For a while now, I’ve been increasingly convinced of the need to have an opinion about various subjects such as politics, in order to be a normal thinking human being. But I was torn: my belief in thoughtful, sober reflection and reasoned argument as a path to enlightenment made me lean towards having intelligent opinions, while my love of reading tabloid newspapers and listening to talkback inclined me more towards the gibbering imbecile end of the spectrum.
It was a difficult decision, made more so by the enormity of the consequences. I knew that whether I decided to be smart or stupid could determine my future career prospects, the course of my intimate relationships, and how loudly I could talk on trains.
But with the announcement of the carbon tax, the decision was made easy – the only possible response was to become unbelievably stupid.
To be honest, to call it a “decision” is almost a misnomer: the announcement of the carbon tax really leaves those of us who desire to avoid the unexamined life with no option: it is a compulsion, a calling, and yes, a duty, that we transform ourselves into morons, for the good of our country.
It happened almost without my noticing it: I was just toddling along the day after the carbon tax announcement, and suddenly I realised that for the last three hours I’d been telling people that the tax wouldn’t decrease temperatures by a single degree. Not just like that, of course: what I’d actually been saying was, “Did you know the so-called carbon tax won’t lower temperatures AT ALL? Do you? Do you know? So much for ENVIRONMENTALISM!” Sometimes I’d poke them in the chest.
And it felt liberating. I knew I’d followed the correct path. If I’d decided to be intelligent about the carbon tax, how could I ever have derived the deep emotional fulfilment that can only come from inserting “(dioxide)” into sentences? You have no idea how satisfying it is to do this – you should try it. If you thought it was fun complaining about the carbon tax, you will be practically orgasmic once you start complaining about the carbon (dioxide) tax. That’s why Terry McCrann always seems so happy.
Quickly I began to expand the scope of my idiocy, exploring the creative possibilities of using the word “socialism” in as many disconnected contexts as I could possibly think of. I found that once you get into the swing of things, “socialism” can mean anything, really. Pricing carbon, taxing the rich, giving money to the poor, taxing the poor, giving money to the rich, preferring market mechanisms to a command economy, being a woman – all these and more are socialism, once you make a true commitment to stupidity. I’m hoping that in time, I’ll be able to call every policy of every political party socialist without even breaking a sweat.
Of course it’s not that simple, being an idiot. You can’t just scream “socialist” and expect to be taken seriously in the stupid community. You also need to say things like, “the carbon tax will completely destroy our way of life” and “we need an election NOW to get rid of the worst government since Federation” and “I am the shadow Treasurer”. If the carbon tax really riles you up, you can go the extra mile and start delving into advanced mental degradation, for example: “Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant it is a necessary element for life on earth”. Not that you want to over-reach. It’s wise to warm yourself up, stretch your stupid-muscles with some thank-god-for-Tony-Abbotts and we-shouldn’t-move-before-the-world-doeses before you go the full Thank-God-we-have-Andrew-Bolt-to-stand-up-to-the-Green-groupthink.
Not that you have to stick to an anti-Green line. That’s the beauty of the carbon tax – it gives us scope to be idiots in any direction we choose. You can call up 2GB claiming that Bob Brown wants to put 90 percent of Australians out of work, or you can call up 3AW claiming that the carbon tax will create six million new jobs in geothermal energy and Great Barrier Reef curating. It’s up to you! As a matter of fact you can do both of those things – it’s the advantage of choosing stupidity over intelligence, you don’t need to be consistent at all (refer to discussion of socialism, above).
And so I’ve found that the carbon tax has really allowed me to be me, to free the spirit within, to release the latent intellectual atrophy that had been inside me all along. Much like a baby bird who, taking its first tentative steps out of the nest, suddenly finds itself able to swoop and soar and slam headfirst into windows, I am finally able to express myself as nature intended. To leap like the salmon, to run like the gazelle, to ride a tractor like Bob Katter. I am free to stand on the rooftop and cry to the world, “Yes! I am stupid, and I am proud! Furthermore the earth has not warmed for 12 years!” I am free to write letters to newspapers. I am free to refer to wealth distribution without even the slightest sense of irony or shame or basic understanding of reality. God, life is sweet when you’re a dullard.
It’s only been a few days, of course – barely time to form an opinion on the carbon tax at all if I weren’t so stupid – and I foresee a lot of strong, enriching dumbness permeating my life moving forward. I see myself poring over graphs and declaring “see? It’s a myth!” I foresee writing pompous and lengthy political analysis pieces about the government’s inability to sell its policy. I foresee tuning into Channel Ten on Sunday mornings a lot. I foresee quoting Ian Plimer. I foresee feeling powerful pangs of sympathy for people earning over $100,000 a year. I foresee saying “Ju-LIAR” and spending the next 20 minutes touching myself with pride at how witty I am.
It is indeed a golden age for the idiot, and I’m grateful to Julia – oops, I mean Juliar, ha ha! – for allowing me this opportunity to realise who I really am. Stop this great big new tax, remove this illegitimate government, STOP LYING, and up with morons. Join me, stupid brethren, and together we will make this country a true paradise for all of those of below-average intelligence and below. It’s time to stand up against this unjust tax and the people of normal intelligence who want to discuss it. Jump on board, idiots!
We can start in the comments of this post.
Monday, July 4, 2011
HAS FEMINISM GONE TOO FAR????
"Has feminism gone too far?" asks noted intellectual and pantsman Bob Ellis in his latest think-piece. Perhaps you would care to offer your answer on this. But be warned, before you do, your answer is stupid, because you are not as clever as people like Bob and me and possibly Kim Beazley.
It is important to ask whether feminism has gone too far, because if it HAS, we need to take action to prevent good men being ruined by accusations of things they didn't do, and also things they did do, because isn't being accused of something you did the cruellest injustice of all?
As Ellis points out, feminism is out of control when even a good man like Lord Byron is forced to die in Greece just because he was an incestuous pederast - how much longer must we endure these time-travelling feminists destroying the history of Romantic poetry? What's next? Feminists arresting Alexander Pope for raping quokkas? It is only a matter of time and I hope you are happy Naomi Wolf.
The point is, all the famous people who have ever raped anyone are GOOD MEN. Why do feminists hate GOOD MEN? Why do feminists prefer bad men, just because they bad men are not pederasts or rapists or Bill Clinton? It's like, "Oh yeah, John is a good man, but he raped me, so I'm going to get all thingy about it and destroy his excellent political career. Because I hate good men!"
Is that really feminism? Wouldn't a TRUE feminist, a decent, honest, dedicated feminist, LIKE good men? Wouldn't they want to build a better world and realise the occasional sexual assault is a small price to pay for economic stability? Wouldn't a TRUE feminist spend her time working to make women less nasty and evil, rather than constantly destroying Greece's economy in sympathy with stupid prostitutes making outrageous claims in inverted commas?
Yes that's right, Germaine: you ruined Greece. Thanks a LOT.
Let us not forget the original meaning of "feminism", from the Greek "femi" meaning "women" and "nism" meaning "should shut up and be grateful".
Hasn't feminism gone too far when not only Oscar Wilde, but also Winston Churchill, are accused of being big gay people? Why are feminists so anti-gay? And so anti-left-wing? Winston Churchill, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger - the list of progressive left-wing warriors who have been ruined by feminists' insistence on being total dicks is literally endless. And by literally I mean not literally. It's a literary device, idiot, look it up!
I remember when feminists knew their place. I remember when you could have a decent conversation with a feminist without being accused of raping her ears and being smuggled into the Hague with not even enough time to pop your ears. I remember when feminists knew the value of a good scone. I remember when feminists were happy to stay in the kitchen, incubating their eggs. I remember when feminists took a threat to ruin their careers if they wouldn't get on their knees in the jocular spirit in which it was intended.
What happened, feminists? Did you get bitter because you couldn't find a man? I understand. It's hard being ugly, isn't it? But just because you're ugly doesn't mean you should persecute GOOD MEN just because they are GOOD MEN! It is getting to the point where a man can't even squeeze his secretary's breasts at a Christmas party without being dubbed a "predator". It is getting to the point where a man can't even indulge in a good-natured bit of spiking a girl's drink and then having sex with her while unconscious and filming it and broadcasting it on a public website and then writing "HA HA HA" in black artliner on her boobs and then stealing her handbag and then masturbating into her fridge without being labelled a "pervert". Even if he is a GOOD MAN, he must wear this tag forever. Even if he is a poet. Even if he is Shakespeare. Even if he is a promising junior minister in a Labor government. Why do feminists hate promising junior ministers?
Is it because feminists don't have penises? Do they hate penises?? I think they're jealous. I was in a bunch of feminists the other day, and I showed them all my penis, and I could tell by their looks of disgust that they had an innate hatred of penises. Penises are a natural thing, feminists! Love them! After all I don't hate vaginas - I like them even though they're gross and they scare me.
Feminists, I don't want to fight. I don't want hostility. I think we can reach a mutual understanding between the women of this world, and the actual human beings. All we need is for feminists to imagine a world without poetry. A world without literature. A world without progressive politics. A world without media-friendly Labor politicians. A world without right-wing conservatives who are actually left-wing if you know them like we do. A world without good men.
This is the world we are in for if we continue down this path of accusing every single famous left-wing man ever of raping women and liking little boys. Right now, 90% of good men are in jail for rape, while Bill O'Reilly and Hitler run around free.
Here is the deal, feminists: If you can stop accusing us of sexual misdeeds, stop trying to ruin our careers just because we have strong passions and enormous physical magnetism, stop attempting to have us thrown into jail for no better reason than the fact we have committed a crime, stop suing us for every petty little grope and trivial assault we might commit in the course of good old-fashioned horseplay - if you can do all these things...
Then we will continue advancing society, ensuring economic and political stability, producing wonderful art, and being nice to women most of the time unless we're drunk or feeling a bit frisky.
Is it a deal feminists? Can't we go back to how things used to be, when men were men, and women were women, and it was only you who had to be ashamed of that fact?
Hasn't feminism gone too far? Can't we roll it back a bit? Isn't it time to admit that basically, men are pretty good, no matter what they do?
Look into your hearts, feminists - assuming you have any - and try to find it within yourselves to stop bitching.
Because seriously, it is REALLY killing the mood.
It is important to ask whether feminism has gone too far, because if it HAS, we need to take action to prevent good men being ruined by accusations of things they didn't do, and also things they did do, because isn't being accused of something you did the cruellest injustice of all?
As Ellis points out, feminism is out of control when even a good man like Lord Byron is forced to die in Greece just because he was an incestuous pederast - how much longer must we endure these time-travelling feminists destroying the history of Romantic poetry? What's next? Feminists arresting Alexander Pope for raping quokkas? It is only a matter of time and I hope you are happy Naomi Wolf.
The point is, all the famous people who have ever raped anyone are GOOD MEN. Why do feminists hate GOOD MEN? Why do feminists prefer bad men, just because they bad men are not pederasts or rapists or Bill Clinton? It's like, "Oh yeah, John is a good man, but he raped me, so I'm going to get all thingy about it and destroy his excellent political career. Because I hate good men!"
Is that really feminism? Wouldn't a TRUE feminist, a decent, honest, dedicated feminist, LIKE good men? Wouldn't they want to build a better world and realise the occasional sexual assault is a small price to pay for economic stability? Wouldn't a TRUE feminist spend her time working to make women less nasty and evil, rather than constantly destroying Greece's economy in sympathy with stupid prostitutes making outrageous claims in inverted commas?
Yes that's right, Germaine: you ruined Greece. Thanks a LOT.
Let us not forget the original meaning of "feminism", from the Greek "femi" meaning "women" and "nism" meaning "should shut up and be grateful".
Hasn't feminism gone too far when not only Oscar Wilde, but also Winston Churchill, are accused of being big gay people? Why are feminists so anti-gay? And so anti-left-wing? Winston Churchill, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger - the list of progressive left-wing warriors who have been ruined by feminists' insistence on being total dicks is literally endless. And by literally I mean not literally. It's a literary device, idiot, look it up!
I remember when feminists knew their place. I remember when you could have a decent conversation with a feminist without being accused of raping her ears and being smuggled into the Hague with not even enough time to pop your ears. I remember when feminists knew the value of a good scone. I remember when feminists were happy to stay in the kitchen, incubating their eggs. I remember when feminists took a threat to ruin their careers if they wouldn't get on their knees in the jocular spirit in which it was intended.
What happened, feminists? Did you get bitter because you couldn't find a man? I understand. It's hard being ugly, isn't it? But just because you're ugly doesn't mean you should persecute GOOD MEN just because they are GOOD MEN! It is getting to the point where a man can't even squeeze his secretary's breasts at a Christmas party without being dubbed a "predator". It is getting to the point where a man can't even indulge in a good-natured bit of spiking a girl's drink and then having sex with her while unconscious and filming it and broadcasting it on a public website and then writing "HA HA HA" in black artliner on her boobs and then stealing her handbag and then masturbating into her fridge without being labelled a "pervert". Even if he is a GOOD MAN, he must wear this tag forever. Even if he is a poet. Even if he is Shakespeare. Even if he is a promising junior minister in a Labor government. Why do feminists hate promising junior ministers?
Is it because feminists don't have penises? Do they hate penises?? I think they're jealous. I was in a bunch of feminists the other day, and I showed them all my penis, and I could tell by their looks of disgust that they had an innate hatred of penises. Penises are a natural thing, feminists! Love them! After all I don't hate vaginas - I like them even though they're gross and they scare me.
Feminists, I don't want to fight. I don't want hostility. I think we can reach a mutual understanding between the women of this world, and the actual human beings. All we need is for feminists to imagine a world without poetry. A world without literature. A world without progressive politics. A world without media-friendly Labor politicians. A world without right-wing conservatives who are actually left-wing if you know them like we do. A world without good men.
This is the world we are in for if we continue down this path of accusing every single famous left-wing man ever of raping women and liking little boys. Right now, 90% of good men are in jail for rape, while Bill O'Reilly and Hitler run around free.
Here is the deal, feminists: If you can stop accusing us of sexual misdeeds, stop trying to ruin our careers just because we have strong passions and enormous physical magnetism, stop attempting to have us thrown into jail for no better reason than the fact we have committed a crime, stop suing us for every petty little grope and trivial assault we might commit in the course of good old-fashioned horseplay - if you can do all these things...
Then we will continue advancing society, ensuring economic and political stability, producing wonderful art, and being nice to women most of the time unless we're drunk or feeling a bit frisky.
Is it a deal feminists? Can't we go back to how things used to be, when men were men, and women were women, and it was only you who had to be ashamed of that fact?
Hasn't feminism gone too far? Can't we roll it back a bit? Isn't it time to admit that basically, men are pretty good, no matter what they do?
Look into your hearts, feminists - assuming you have any - and try to find it within yourselves to stop bitching.
Because seriously, it is REALLY killing the mood.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Gracious
Goodness me, I can be a bit lax with blogging at times. It is, sadly, a function of the necessity to write great whacking reams of stuff all over everywhere else, that blogging can be neglected. Hopefully you're still following my adventures at The Drum, where my thrice-weekly election analyses will come to an end on Friday, but my weekly wraps on all things current will continue post-election.
And hopefully, you will at least mull over the idea, if in Melbourne for the Writers' Festival, of heading in to the salubrious surrounds of the Toff in Town for Liner Notes on September 4, featuring the songs of Fleetwood Mac, Charlie Pickering, Clare Bowditch, Hannie Rayson, Emilie Zoey Baker, Sean M. Whelan, Alicia Sometimes, Michael Nolan und mich - gunna go off guys, for serious. If I recall rightly, details are in the events listings to the right.
But ah, the election. Just three more sleeps till the AEC comes down our chimneys and leaves a new prime minister in our stocking! Aren't you EXCITED? It really is thrilling, the whole country is consumed by punditry, commentary, anticipation and generalised disgust.
At the aforementioned Drum you can see how I handle the issues, and how a whole bunch of other people do too - like Crabb (be still my beating heart), Uhlmann, Berg, Eltham, Hardy (be still again), Milne, Ellis (wacky!), et al.
But you can see more all over the shop. The journos, the bloggers, the analysts and the nutbags are out in force and the commentariat is full to bursting. I recommend Crikey (specially the blogs of Possum and Pure Poison), Larvatus Prodeo, A Nonymous Lefty, and of course Antony Green, the thinking woman's irrepressibly unnerving sexual fantasy.
(the unthinking woman's irrepressibly unnerving sexual fantasy is me)
ALSO! Check out http://gatheraround.me for podcasts re: the election. Better yet, join the Gather Around Me Facebook group, and subscribe on iTunes so you never miss an instalment! It's so easy, with the power of interconnected tubes!
I guess what exercises ME about the election is the terrible uncertainty of it all. In 2007, everyone knew Rudd was going to win, and by 7.30 the night of the election it was all over. In 2004, Latham threatened a few months before the poll, but by the big day we realised Howard was going to romp it in. Same in 2001 - 9/11 made it a clear cakewalk. Maybe 1998 was different, but that's ancient history. This year feels, if boring and appallingly predictable in every other detail, at least fresh and original in its closeness and difficulty to tip. It looks like counting will go all night, and we might not even know who won by Sunday morning.
And if we do, if somehow one side somehow crushes the other beneath its boot, that will only be all the more surprising for defying the predictions of squeaking tightness.
So I cannot wait till election night, when I shall rug up nice and warm, channel-surf like a madman, and twitter like the obsessive-compulsive attention-junkie that I am. Hope I'll see you passing by.
And we shall finally find the answer to the question that has bugged us so long: Will people REALLY vote for Tony Abbott? Like, really? Seriously, dude? Tony ABBOTT? Really?
Hooray for democracy!
And hopefully, you will at least mull over the idea, if in Melbourne for the Writers' Festival, of heading in to the salubrious surrounds of the Toff in Town for Liner Notes on September 4, featuring the songs of Fleetwood Mac, Charlie Pickering, Clare Bowditch, Hannie Rayson, Emilie Zoey Baker, Sean M. Whelan, Alicia Sometimes, Michael Nolan und mich - gunna go off guys, for serious. If I recall rightly, details are in the events listings to the right.
But ah, the election. Just three more sleeps till the AEC comes down our chimneys and leaves a new prime minister in our stocking! Aren't you EXCITED? It really is thrilling, the whole country is consumed by punditry, commentary, anticipation and generalised disgust.
At the aforementioned Drum you can see how I handle the issues, and how a whole bunch of other people do too - like Crabb (be still my beating heart), Uhlmann, Berg, Eltham, Hardy (be still again), Milne, Ellis (wacky!), et al.
But you can see more all over the shop. The journos, the bloggers, the analysts and the nutbags are out in force and the commentariat is full to bursting. I recommend Crikey (specially the blogs of Possum and Pure Poison), Larvatus Prodeo, A Nonymous Lefty, and of course Antony Green, the thinking woman's irrepressibly unnerving sexual fantasy.
(the unthinking woman's irrepressibly unnerving sexual fantasy is me)
ALSO! Check out http://gatheraround.me for podcasts re: the election. Better yet, join the Gather Around Me Facebook group, and subscribe on iTunes so you never miss an instalment! It's so easy, with the power of interconnected tubes!
I guess what exercises ME about the election is the terrible uncertainty of it all. In 2007, everyone knew Rudd was going to win, and by 7.30 the night of the election it was all over. In 2004, Latham threatened a few months before the poll, but by the big day we realised Howard was going to romp it in. Same in 2001 - 9/11 made it a clear cakewalk. Maybe 1998 was different, but that's ancient history. This year feels, if boring and appallingly predictable in every other detail, at least fresh and original in its closeness and difficulty to tip. It looks like counting will go all night, and we might not even know who won by Sunday morning.
And if we do, if somehow one side somehow crushes the other beneath its boot, that will only be all the more surprising for defying the predictions of squeaking tightness.
So I cannot wait till election night, when I shall rug up nice and warm, channel-surf like a madman, and twitter like the obsessive-compulsive attention-junkie that I am. Hope I'll see you passing by.
And we shall finally find the answer to the question that has bugged us so long: Will people REALLY vote for Tony Abbott? Like, really? Seriously, dude? Tony ABBOTT? Really?
Hooray for democracy!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
News Of All Colours
Well well, things just keep happening, don't they? Can you believe it's July already? It only feels like late May! Just think, by September it'll feel like early August, and by next Easter we'll think it's still Christmas. That'll be nice.
Anyway, unless you've been sensibly drinking yourself to death, you might have noticed that an election was called on the weekend, and on August 21 we shall once again drag ourselves through the farcical charade called democracy.
What will make this election more bearable, I hear you ask?
I WILL.
Here is Election 101, by me, myself. And throughout the election campaign, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, you can see me tackling the issues that matter and informing the ignorant public about their civic duties in a similar manner.
THREE TIMES A WEEK. More Pobjie than you ever thought you'd be blessed enough to receive! At ABC's The Drum. Stay informed, join the cool kids.
That's not all I'm up to, though. If you'd like to see me in person, and you're in Melbourne on August 5, you should drop in to Dog's Bar in St Kilda for Storytelling with me and Chrissy Keighery. I will tell you some stories. And it's FREE!
Even further ahead, you can catch me at the Melbourne Writer's Festival, doing Liner Notes: Fleetwood Mac's Rumours at the Toff in Town. This is huge - last year's Liner Notes, taking on Michael Jackson's Thriller, blew the lid off the place. It also sold out fast, so get your tickets NOW if you want to see not only me, but also Alicia Sometimes, Clare Bowditch, Charlie Pickering, Hannie Rayson, Emilie Zoey Baker, Omar Musa, Josh Earl, Sean M. Whelan and MC Michael Nolan.
That is one freaking sweet line-up - you don't want to miss it.
And incidentally, my song will be You Make Loving Fun. It'll rock.
So, read The Drum, come to Dog's Bar, bowl up to the Toff in Town, and you'll be replete with me. See you round!
Anyway, unless you've been sensibly drinking yourself to death, you might have noticed that an election was called on the weekend, and on August 21 we shall once again drag ourselves through the farcical charade called democracy.
What will make this election more bearable, I hear you ask?
I WILL.
Here is Election 101, by me, myself. And throughout the election campaign, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, you can see me tackling the issues that matter and informing the ignorant public about their civic duties in a similar manner.
THREE TIMES A WEEK. More Pobjie than you ever thought you'd be blessed enough to receive! At ABC's The Drum. Stay informed, join the cool kids.
That's not all I'm up to, though. If you'd like to see me in person, and you're in Melbourne on August 5, you should drop in to Dog's Bar in St Kilda for Storytelling with me and Chrissy Keighery. I will tell you some stories. And it's FREE!
Even further ahead, you can catch me at the Melbourne Writer's Festival, doing Liner Notes: Fleetwood Mac's Rumours at the Toff in Town. This is huge - last year's Liner Notes, taking on Michael Jackson's Thriller, blew the lid off the place. It also sold out fast, so get your tickets NOW if you want to see not only me, but also Alicia Sometimes, Clare Bowditch, Charlie Pickering, Hannie Rayson, Emilie Zoey Baker, Omar Musa, Josh Earl, Sean M. Whelan and MC Michael Nolan.
That is one freaking sweet line-up - you don't want to miss it.
And incidentally, my song will be You Make Loving Fun. It'll rock.
So, read The Drum, come to Dog's Bar, bowl up to the Toff in Town, and you'll be replete with me. See you round!
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Gays; Football; Etc.
I do not like disagreeing with the smart and stylish Ms Helen Razer. I intensely dislike it; it gives me a migraine and makes me irritable. So it's fortunate that I am rarely forced to do so. But unfortunately one of those rare occasions has now cropped up.
Even more unfortunately, it's on a matter of homosexual issues, on which I am in no way an expert, and not being gay, not particularly well equipped to comment form a position of empathy. But even so.
I disagree with Helen's article which comments on Jason Akermanis's article in the Herald Sun.
The reason I disagree with it is because I really think Helen has misread it. If, as she says, all Akermanis was saying was "it wasn't a good idea for players to "come out" due to the storm of publicity such an act would brew", there'd be no problem.
If Akermanis had simply written that homophobia is a major problem in the AFL, there'd be no problem.
If Akermanis had said that any player who came out as gay would be subject to enormous pressure and vilification, there'd be no problem.
If Akermanis had said that he would advise a gay footballer to keep it secret purely because of the potential damage it would do that player, there'd be no problem.
But he didn't. He said players should stay in the closet, not just for their own sake, but so they didn't damage the "fabric of a club". So they didn't make their teammates uncomfortable in the locker room. Because once he played with a gay guy and nobody wanted to shower with him. Because, in fact, there is too much homoeroticism in football for homosexuality to be acceptable!
And there's the problem. Because if the fabric of a football club is such that it cannot handle homosexuality, the fabric of that club is not worth keeping intact. And if other players are made uncomfortable by the presence of a gay teammate, that's their problem, and they should go away and work on it as much as they need to to take their place in the 21st century as normal, fully-functioning human beings without idiotic hang-ups about gay people.
Now, I get where Helen's coming from. All those voices who pressure closeted gays to come out are misguided; nobody should "have to" come out if they don't want to. Nobody should have to define their sexuality if they don't want to. And if Gary Burns is launching a human rights complaint against Akermanis, then, well, Gary Burns is kind of a tool. And when she says:
I get it, and that sucks. It's terrible.
BUT...it's really pretty easy for those of us who are perfectly able to live whatever lifestyle we want to, to form relationships with who we want to, to take whoever we want to out for dinner, to kiss whoever we want to in public, without worrying about getting vilified, abused, and ostracised by our friends and colleagues, without worrying about our career being crippled, without worrying about witnesses who might run to the paper to splash our name across the front page - in short, for those of us who have no need for a secret life - to tell others they shouldn't make such a big deal about their sexuality.
Straight people get to do all that. In most spheres of life, gay people do too. Those of us making a living commenting on these issues, like me, or Helen, or Gerard Whateley, or Michael Shmith, certainly do: should we be in a relationship with a partner of our choosing, nobody will tell us we have no right to tell anyone about it because it's all too much for our fragile industry to bear.
In football, they don't (apparently this also applies to politics - see David Campbell).
And that's they key. It's not about making a big hullabaloo about sexuality. It's not about being a "career homosexual". It's not about anyone having any kind of "duty" to come out. It's about saying, if people don't want to hide their sexuality, they shouldn't have to. If you don't want to say "I'm gay", or "I'm bisexual" at work, don't. It's idiotic to suppose you should "have to". But if someone asks you about your partner at work, you shouldn't feel that you have to lie about it either.
A footballer should be able to hold his boyfriend's hand on the Brownlow red carpet. A footballer should be able to kiss his boyfriend in public. A footballer should be able to mention his boyfriend in an interview. Or not, if he doesn't want to. But nobody has the moral right to tell him he shouldn't.
The first one who does is going to cop it, pretty harshly. It will take massive courage to do it, and I don't blame anyone who chooses not to go down that path. Nobody should ever be pressured to come out, in any walk of life. But nobody should be pressured not to, either, and THAT is where Akermanis breaks down, and where his supporters make their mistake too, in my opinion.
Because Akermanis may hope for a day when "coming out isn't a big deal", but the fact is, that day will never come unless people actually do it. Nobody will ever let you sit at the front of the bus as long as you stay in the back with your mouth shut.
I hope no gay footballer feels he "has" to come out. Or that he "has" to stay in the closet. But I hope someday soon some DO come out, because that inestimably brave act will be the first step towards ensuring future footballers don't have to be that brave, just to stop hiding.
Even more unfortunately, it's on a matter of homosexual issues, on which I am in no way an expert, and not being gay, not particularly well equipped to comment form a position of empathy. But even so.
I disagree with Helen's article which comments on Jason Akermanis's article in the Herald Sun.
The reason I disagree with it is because I really think Helen has misread it. If, as she says, all Akermanis was saying was "it wasn't a good idea for players to "come out" due to the storm of publicity such an act would brew", there'd be no problem.
If Akermanis had simply written that homophobia is a major problem in the AFL, there'd be no problem.
If Akermanis had said that any player who came out as gay would be subject to enormous pressure and vilification, there'd be no problem.
If Akermanis had said that he would advise a gay footballer to keep it secret purely because of the potential damage it would do that player, there'd be no problem.
But he didn't. He said players should stay in the closet, not just for their own sake, but so they didn't damage the "fabric of a club". So they didn't make their teammates uncomfortable in the locker room. Because once he played with a gay guy and nobody wanted to shower with him. Because, in fact, there is too much homoeroticism in football for homosexuality to be acceptable!
And there's the problem. Because if the fabric of a football club is such that it cannot handle homosexuality, the fabric of that club is not worth keeping intact. And if other players are made uncomfortable by the presence of a gay teammate, that's their problem, and they should go away and work on it as much as they need to to take their place in the 21st century as normal, fully-functioning human beings without idiotic hang-ups about gay people.
Now, I get where Helen's coming from. All those voices who pressure closeted gays to come out are misguided; nobody should "have to" come out if they don't want to. Nobody should have to define their sexuality if they don't want to. And if Gary Burns is launching a human rights complaint against Akermanis, then, well, Gary Burns is kind of a tool. And when she says:
Speaking from a personal experience, as many weighing in on this matter have, it's exhausting being defined in the terms of one's sexuality. And this is how one is explicitly defined after the disclosure, "I'm gay" or, worse, "I'm bisexual". Try it as an experiment in your workplace this afternoon. You will be treated as a hyper-sexual peril who cannot be trusted with anything including the stationery supplies. It's exhausting.
I get it, and that sucks. It's terrible.
BUT...it's really pretty easy for those of us who are perfectly able to live whatever lifestyle we want to, to form relationships with who we want to, to take whoever we want to out for dinner, to kiss whoever we want to in public, without worrying about getting vilified, abused, and ostracised by our friends and colleagues, without worrying about our career being crippled, without worrying about witnesses who might run to the paper to splash our name across the front page - in short, for those of us who have no need for a secret life - to tell others they shouldn't make such a big deal about their sexuality.
Straight people get to do all that. In most spheres of life, gay people do too. Those of us making a living commenting on these issues, like me, or Helen, or Gerard Whateley, or Michael Shmith, certainly do: should we be in a relationship with a partner of our choosing, nobody will tell us we have no right to tell anyone about it because it's all too much for our fragile industry to bear.
In football, they don't (apparently this also applies to politics - see David Campbell).
And that's they key. It's not about making a big hullabaloo about sexuality. It's not about being a "career homosexual". It's not about anyone having any kind of "duty" to come out. It's about saying, if people don't want to hide their sexuality, they shouldn't have to. If you don't want to say "I'm gay", or "I'm bisexual" at work, don't. It's idiotic to suppose you should "have to". But if someone asks you about your partner at work, you shouldn't feel that you have to lie about it either.
A footballer should be able to hold his boyfriend's hand on the Brownlow red carpet. A footballer should be able to kiss his boyfriend in public. A footballer should be able to mention his boyfriend in an interview. Or not, if he doesn't want to. But nobody has the moral right to tell him he shouldn't.
The first one who does is going to cop it, pretty harshly. It will take massive courage to do it, and I don't blame anyone who chooses not to go down that path. Nobody should ever be pressured to come out, in any walk of life. But nobody should be pressured not to, either, and THAT is where Akermanis breaks down, and where his supporters make their mistake too, in my opinion.
Because Akermanis may hope for a day when "coming out isn't a big deal", but the fact is, that day will never come unless people actually do it. Nobody will ever let you sit at the front of the bus as long as you stay in the back with your mouth shut.
I hope no gay footballer feels he "has" to come out. Or that he "has" to stay in the closet. But I hope someday soon some DO come out, because that inestimably brave act will be the first step towards ensuring future footballers don't have to be that brave, just to stop hiding.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
An Historical ConunDrum
My latest weekly wrap at The ABC's The Drum is to be found here.
This is what "Darius the Mede" says about it:
Well that's all very well Darius, but if I were an historical figure whose existence has been called into question by numerous reputable historians, I'd be more worried about getting my own house in order before throwing stones as the houses of others.
Also, how did a 6th-centruy BC king get access to the internet? Fibre to the node?
Also, why doesn't anyone know the difference between slander and libel? J. Jonah Jameson knows, why don't you, Darius the Mede?
This is what "Darius the Mede" says about it:
for the first time in my life i agree with Miranda Devine; peurile is an apt description of Mr Pobjie's work.
Accusing Mr Garrett of being a murderer is not satire, it is slander but no doubt Mr Pobjie thinks the families of the insulation workers who have lost their lives find it hilarious.
Each day the ABC seems to find new lows in the quality of its on-line news and commentary
Well that's all very well Darius, but if I were an historical figure whose existence has been called into question by numerous reputable historians, I'd be more worried about getting my own house in order before throwing stones as the houses of others.
Also, how did a 6th-centruy BC king get access to the internet? Fibre to the node?
Also, why doesn't anyone know the difference between slander and libel? J. Jonah Jameson knows, why don't you, Darius the Mede?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Children: ruining it for the rest of us
As a father of three who is very concerned about the welfare of my young, vulnerable, children, I would like to tell Senator Stephen Conroy to jam his internet filter right up his mangina.
I'll protect my kids myself, thank you very much, Senator Khomeini.
Fuck internet censorship in the ear. And to put it more eloquently, a completely awesome article by Helen Razer.
And just to piss off anyone who disagrees:
I'll protect my kids myself, thank you very much, Senator Khomeini.
Fuck internet censorship in the ear. And to put it more eloquently, a completely awesome article by Helen Razer.
And just to piss off anyone who disagrees:
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Commenting on comments
You may have noticed on my latest ABC article that there are quite a few comments. Do take the time to trawl through them - diamonds they are. Anyway, having (belatedly) become smart enough to avoid arguing with stupid people who hate me, I'm going to muse on some of the comments here.
For example, "shane" writes:
"Anybody who follows Jesus as Lord & savoir according to the bible are saints"
Kind of a low standard, isn't it?
"If you pray to dead people this is called necromancy"
You mean like...Jesus?
"fed up" writes:
"Well i dont find this funny at all"
Damn...I've failed with a key demographic here.
"how sarcastic.
mr. Rudd has been going to Marys Chapel for some time
WHY O WHY ARE THE ABC PICKING ON OUR P.M.
SO MUCH ARE YOU ALL SERIOUS
CAN YOU DO BETTER AT COPENHAGEN I SUGGEST YOU CATCH THE NEXT PLANE
mary has anwered many a prayer for me you may laugh but i hope you dont need to prayer her soon for something that comes in your life.
i am fed up of the abc taking the mickey out of every one that does good in this country in couding out p.m TALL POPPY SYNDROM ITS ABOUT TIME THIS COUNTRY GREW UP
of course you all write this rubbish but then do you move on to the next thing without reading what we saY.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO OTHERS AND MYSELF NOT TO BOTHER BECAUSE I DOUBT YOU READ WHAT WE SAY.
AND IF WE DID NOT MAKE COMMENTS THEN THERE WOULD BE NO DRUM SO FROM NOW ON I AM NOT COMMENTING"
Now that my career has been destroyed by the mass grassroots "no commenting" movement, I guess I have some free time. So yeah, I WILL get on the next plane. And I will give those pollies a talking to, "in couding out p.m."
Hopefully the plane doesn't run into trouble, or I might have to prayer Mary MacKillop for something that comes in my life.
And then there's "Dazza":
"First of all God does not make mistakes, it is our fallen world that has caused all of this."
I wonder, when I hear someone express this sentiment, if you put the person in a nice quiet room and just left them there, without interruptions, for an indefinite length of time...would they eventually figure out what's wrong with their picture?
"ElijahThomas" chips in:
"like all anti-religion arguments yours demonstrates a woefully inadequate (even theoretical) understanding of God.
look at your own language...
"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it."
what of an author who has planned the end of his book? are they powerless to change it?"
Powerful, powerful analogy, Elijah. Now if you'd just step into this nice quiet room...
"DocMercury" changes the subject:
"One of the cures for cancer is known to be preventive rather than responsive, such as making it a habit to ingest or inhale zero dosage in toxins, avoiding aldehyde in the liver and benzene in the air.
So we're told, now that gambling excise more than makes up for lost nicotine excise, and the ethanol consumption remains constant."
Good point, Doc. You've really, er, cut to the heart of the article...um, there...
Last word goes to "John":
"Abbott will make a fine prime minister and I will be first in the queue to vote for him. Thumbs up!"
And you can NOT argue with that!
For example, "shane" writes:
"Anybody who follows Jesus as Lord & savoir according to the bible are saints"
Kind of a low standard, isn't it?
"If you pray to dead people this is called necromancy"
You mean like...Jesus?
"fed up" writes:
"Well i dont find this funny at all"
Damn...I've failed with a key demographic here.
"how sarcastic.
mr. Rudd has been going to Marys Chapel for some time
WHY O WHY ARE THE ABC PICKING ON OUR P.M.
SO MUCH ARE YOU ALL SERIOUS
CAN YOU DO BETTER AT COPENHAGEN I SUGGEST YOU CATCH THE NEXT PLANE
mary has anwered many a prayer for me you may laugh but i hope you dont need to prayer her soon for something that comes in your life.
i am fed up of the abc taking the mickey out of every one that does good in this country in couding out p.m TALL POPPY SYNDROM ITS ABOUT TIME THIS COUNTRY GREW UP
of course you all write this rubbish but then do you move on to the next thing without reading what we saY.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO OTHERS AND MYSELF NOT TO BOTHER BECAUSE I DOUBT YOU READ WHAT WE SAY.
AND IF WE DID NOT MAKE COMMENTS THEN THERE WOULD BE NO DRUM SO FROM NOW ON I AM NOT COMMENTING"
Now that my career has been destroyed by the mass grassroots "no commenting" movement, I guess I have some free time. So yeah, I WILL get on the next plane. And I will give those pollies a talking to, "in couding out p.m."
Hopefully the plane doesn't run into trouble, or I might have to prayer Mary MacKillop for something that comes in my life.
And then there's "Dazza":
"First of all God does not make mistakes, it is our fallen world that has caused all of this."
I wonder, when I hear someone express this sentiment, if you put the person in a nice quiet room and just left them there, without interruptions, for an indefinite length of time...would they eventually figure out what's wrong with their picture?
"ElijahThomas" chips in:
"like all anti-religion arguments yours demonstrates a woefully inadequate (even theoretical) understanding of God.
look at your own language...
"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it."
what of an author who has planned the end of his book? are they powerless to change it?"
Powerful, powerful analogy, Elijah. Now if you'd just step into this nice quiet room...
"DocMercury" changes the subject:
"One of the cures for cancer is known to be preventive rather than responsive, such as making it a habit to ingest or inhale zero dosage in toxins, avoiding aldehyde in the liver and benzene in the air.
So we're told, now that gambling excise more than makes up for lost nicotine excise, and the ethanol consumption remains constant."
Good point, Doc. You've really, er, cut to the heart of the article...um, there...
Last word goes to "John":
"Abbott will make a fine prime minister and I will be first in the queue to vote for him. Thumbs up!"
And you can NOT argue with that!
A Brave New World?
For those of you who haven't seen it yet, this is the first of what will, it would seem, be a series of weekly articles for the ABC's new site, The Drum (or The Drum Unleashed, or...something). Go check it out! I deal with Copenhagen, Rudd, Obama, Abbott, Joyce, and of course Mother Mary MacKillop
This does NOT mean I am leaving newmatilda - I remain the resident satirist at NM, long may their hit-count multiply. In that spirit, also go check out my end-of-year column for newmatilda, in which I look back at 2009 and make some bold predictions for 2010.
Also, keep looking out on newmatilda for another piece by me, part of the site's summer series. Maybe you should subscribe (for free!) so you NEVER miss a piece I write? Just a thought.
This does NOT mean I am leaving newmatilda - I remain the resident satirist at NM, long may their hit-count multiply. In that spirit, also go check out my end-of-year column for newmatilda, in which I look back at 2009 and make some bold predictions for 2010.
Also, keep looking out on newmatilda for another piece by me, part of the site's summer series. Maybe you should subscribe (for free!) so you NEVER miss a piece I write? Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)