Well goodness Australian politics is in quite a state isn't it? Yes it is, or is it? No. But possibly yes? Maybe. How can the ordinary citizen make sense of all these Machiavellian goings-on? They can't, it's impossible. Let me show you how.
Here are the facts: Kevin Rudd, the worst prime minister in Australia's history, was deposed in 2010 despite being the best prime minister we'd ever seen. After his epochal victory over John Howard, Rudd was the hero of the Labor Party, who then assassinated him because they hated him so much, although out of respect for him they did not say how much they hated him, because respect is paramount in politics as demonstrated by how disrespectful everyone is.
He was deposed of course by Julia Gillard, the worst prime minister in Australia's history, and now, in an exquisitely ironic twist of irony, is set to depose her himself, even though she is a great prime minister and has achieved an enormous amount in her time in office, hamstrung only by the fact she is a do-nothing prime minister. Also the polling numbers are extremely low, but politics is not all about polling, a lesson Gillard learnt well when she deposed Rudd for having low polling numbers.
But what does this all mean for the ordinary stupid Aussie working family aspirational battler? Just who will be our prime minister on Monday?
Well, Rudd doesn't have the numbers, so he certainly won't be, unless he doesn't have the numbers or possibly not. So Gillard will be prime minister except in the event that she is defeated by Rudd or someone else, which will not happen because they don't have the numbers, or do they? No. Or yes? One thing is for sure, the numbers are being had by someone, or are they? One thing is for sure: possibly.
After Gillard defeats Rudd or not, Rudd will go to the backbench and Gillard will be secure until he challenges again but he probably won't, but he DEFINITELY will. If Rudd beats Gillard which he won't but what if he does? One thing is for sure, if he does, which he won't but maybe, Gillard will go to the backbench and never be leader again except in the event she decides that she wants to. Which she won't because she said she won't, and she has no reason to lie apart from the usual ones.
But will a change of leader make any difference to our everyday lives? Certainly it will, except in the literal sense. Or does it? Perhaps not. But maybe? Yes. Or no. Only time will tell. Or will it? Only time will tell.
But one thing is for sure, after Rudd is prime minister which he will never be, we will see a much greater focus on policy over personalities, as opposed to Gillard, who focuses less on personalities and more on policy. Whoever is prime minister, we can be certain that personalities will be brought to the fore and policy made a priority in the background as the electability of the party increases even as their ability to get people to vote for them falls dramatically. So after Gillard wins the ballot, she will reintroduce good Labor values and if she loses she won't, which must call into question her trustworthiness. But can Rudd be trusted, given if he loses he refuses to even guarantee he will win? One thing is for sure, the answer is unknowable.
Only time will tell who is prime minister and whether Gillard's inevitable victory will come at the expense of Rudd's defeat, or whether Rudd's momentum will see him score a famous victory over his own loss. But one thing is for sure, whoever wins will be the victor, and that is certainty you can take to the bank.
Or is it?
Showing posts with label rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rudd. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
For Our Daughters' Sakes, She Must Be Stopped
The modern media has many purposes – entertainment, education, a substitute for the judicial system – but probably its most important function, for me at least, is as an emergency warning system for everyone who is worried about menaces to society. Whether it’s A Current Affair exposing the threat of single mothers lurking in our supermarket carparks, or the Herald Sun reporting that one in every three Australians is now a paedophile living next door to a primary school, the media is invaluable in letting us know just who’s coming to get us.
Which is why Bettina Arndt is, hands down, my favourite journalist in the whole wide world. If it weren’t for her, I never would have known just how badly my life was being destroyed by women’s low sex drive, and this week she’s done it again, warning us all that the new prime minister, Julia “Medusa” Gillard, is setting a bad example for Australian women everywhere.
It probably has not escaped anyone’s notice that the PM is living with a man, without having first consecrated the relationship via the sacred bonds of marriage. Or that, furthermore, she has chosen to live for 48 years without at any time making use of her reproductive system in pursuit of the survival of the human race and Western civilisation.
Of course, this is fine, in and of itself. If a woman decides that she wants to violate all standards of morality and decency in order to satisfy her own unnatural lusts even as she denies her inherent feminine purpose by selfishly putting the hedonistic enjoyment of a materialistic lifestyle ahead of the creation and nurturing of new life that gives all humanity a reason for being and without which a person is but a hollow soulless shell destined to die alone, unloved and without meaningful contribution to the world, who am I to judge?
But there’s a broader significance to the issue of Gillard’s sexual proclivities and rogue womb that goes well beyond the individual. As Bettina warns, it’s all about the example being set. Women are, as we know, easily led and slaves to trends – just look at Twilight – and there is a very real danger that if set a bad example by the most powerful woman in the land, other women, women without Gillard’s political career to fall back on, and without Gillard’s total absence of normal human emotion to comfort them, might find themselves making bad decisions..
And prime ministers are, of course, exceedingly influential in social matters, as we’ve seen time and again, with the likes of the Italian suit craze of the Keating years, or the enormous popularity in the late 1960s of disappearing mysteriously at sea. Why, Frank Forde was only in power for eight days, and yet that week sales of nipple rings rose 400 percent. And that was based on nothing more than an unfortunate misquote from a Press Club dinner. So we see how much sway prime ministers have over the common people.
And so what are the women of Australia – bless their little hearts – to think when they see Ms Gillard stand up before them and say, “Yes, I am proud to be a living outrage against social cohesion”? Why, quite naturally they will think, “Hey, if it’s good enough for Julia, it’s good enough for me!” And so we will see the country beset by an epidemic of women shacking up with men they aren’t married to, diving headfirst into the murky waters of shared en suites without the sturdy anchor of a marriage certificate to keep them from drifting onto the rocks of dissatisfaction. “I’m unmarried,” they will think to themselves, “I can leave anytime I want to.” And so, at the first sign of trouble or stress or long-term psychological abuse, off they’ll flit, away to the next “committed relationship”, footloose and fancy-free, totally unaware of the terrible price they will pay later in life, when they will live out their lives pushing shopping trolleys full of catfood around the streets, muttering to themselves and asking passing strangers if they’re looking for a de facto.
And what of any children that might come from these reckless relationships? How horribly scarred will these poor mites be, knowing they are the product of idle whims and experimental co-habitation? How horrible will it be for them to be forced to sit in the Bastard Corner at school, shunned by the legitimate students and mocked by the teachers?
Arndt has many examples to back her argument. Pat Rafter, for example. He had a child out of wedlock a few years back, and the results have been catastrophic. Thank God Bettina Arndt has finally taken the opportunity to expose the trail of shattered lives that Pat Rafter has left in his procreating wake. How many more, Pat? How many more people must you rob of dignity and crush beneath your heel before you’re sated?
Of course, there are worse things than children out of wedlock, such as not having children at all. Imagine at 20 telling yourself you would try to follow Gillard’s lead because she is an inspiration to all women, and all of a sudden, BANG! It’s 25 years later and you’re breaking into hospitals to steal babies to make up for all those who were never born because you thought you’d got a “role model” and that it was therefore OK to go to Bali or buy yourself an iPad instead of putting your ovaries to practical use.
So we can see how lucky we are that Arndt sounded the alarm. But still there is something nagging at me. The new prime minister is obviously an intelligent woman – some commentators have described her as “as smart as any man”, which is as high a compliment anyone could wish to be paid assuming she was a character in a Famous Five novel – and she obviously understands the consequences of her actions. So why? Why has she decided to nudge Australian womanhood in the direction of wanton sin and pleasure-seeking infertility?
It just didn’t make sense to me until…until I heard Gillard this week reveal on radio a rather disconcerting fact: she doesn’t believe in God.
Suddenly everything clicked into place. The non-marital sex. The wasted uterus. The pantsuit. She’s been operating without a moral compass. Flying blind.
I don’t see this from a Christian perspective; I don’t believe in God either. But I know I can handle non-belief. I know I have the ethical grounding and moral viscera to prevent me from running off half-cocked due to my lack of a higher power. I’m not sure this is the case for the PM.
Because sadly, even though you and I know we don’t need religion, most people do. Most people are far too stupid to be allowed to formulate their own moral frameworks and make their own decisions about good behaviour. Most people need to be protected from their own blithering idiocy, something the Labor Party knows all too well – that’s why they’re setting up an internet filter. And God is the internet filter of our everyday lives: keeping a watch on us and blocking us from all the naughty things that we really want to do. Like an internet filter, God also doesn’t necessarily work all the time, and slows us all down quite a bit, but at least he keeps us headed in the right direction.
And I’m afraid this is exactly where Julia Gillard’s problem lies. She answers to no higher power. She used to; and Rudd perhaps managed to keep her debauchery in check. But now he’s gone, she’s accountable to nobody but herself, and so will continue to engage in her perverse, unsanctioned, recreational monogamy, sending the message to all that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable in today’s society and thereby causing the nation to sink under the weight of the fractured relationships and blighted lives that await all who attempt relationships without the proper paperwork.
And so I beg you, Ms Gillard: find God. For your own sake, and for the sake of all the silly, impressionable, scatterbrained young lasses who fail to heed Bettina’s warning, and who look up to you so devotedly as a leader, a feminist icon, and a reasonable substitute for an independent mind.
Don’t let a generation of women slip away from their womanly destinies. Don’t let your own selfishness ruin everything for the rest of us. Pick up a bible. Pick up a nice white dress. Do the honourable thing. Because if our first female prime minister refuses to conform to tried-and-tested gender norms, what’s the point of having a woman there in the first place? We might as well have kept Kevin. At least he could cry like a girl.
Which is why Bettina Arndt is, hands down, my favourite journalist in the whole wide world. If it weren’t for her, I never would have known just how badly my life was being destroyed by women’s low sex drive, and this week she’s done it again, warning us all that the new prime minister, Julia “Medusa” Gillard, is setting a bad example for Australian women everywhere.
It probably has not escaped anyone’s notice that the PM is living with a man, without having first consecrated the relationship via the sacred bonds of marriage. Or that, furthermore, she has chosen to live for 48 years without at any time making use of her reproductive system in pursuit of the survival of the human race and Western civilisation.
Of course, this is fine, in and of itself. If a woman decides that she wants to violate all standards of morality and decency in order to satisfy her own unnatural lusts even as she denies her inherent feminine purpose by selfishly putting the hedonistic enjoyment of a materialistic lifestyle ahead of the creation and nurturing of new life that gives all humanity a reason for being and without which a person is but a hollow soulless shell destined to die alone, unloved and without meaningful contribution to the world, who am I to judge?
But there’s a broader significance to the issue of Gillard’s sexual proclivities and rogue womb that goes well beyond the individual. As Bettina warns, it’s all about the example being set. Women are, as we know, easily led and slaves to trends – just look at Twilight – and there is a very real danger that if set a bad example by the most powerful woman in the land, other women, women without Gillard’s political career to fall back on, and without Gillard’s total absence of normal human emotion to comfort them, might find themselves making bad decisions..
And prime ministers are, of course, exceedingly influential in social matters, as we’ve seen time and again, with the likes of the Italian suit craze of the Keating years, or the enormous popularity in the late 1960s of disappearing mysteriously at sea. Why, Frank Forde was only in power for eight days, and yet that week sales of nipple rings rose 400 percent. And that was based on nothing more than an unfortunate misquote from a Press Club dinner. So we see how much sway prime ministers have over the common people.
Prime Minister, or First Whore?
And so what are the women of Australia – bless their little hearts – to think when they see Ms Gillard stand up before them and say, “Yes, I am proud to be a living outrage against social cohesion”? Why, quite naturally they will think, “Hey, if it’s good enough for Julia, it’s good enough for me!” And so we will see the country beset by an epidemic of women shacking up with men they aren’t married to, diving headfirst into the murky waters of shared en suites without the sturdy anchor of a marriage certificate to keep them from drifting onto the rocks of dissatisfaction. “I’m unmarried,” they will think to themselves, “I can leave anytime I want to.” And so, at the first sign of trouble or stress or long-term psychological abuse, off they’ll flit, away to the next “committed relationship”, footloose and fancy-free, totally unaware of the terrible price they will pay later in life, when they will live out their lives pushing shopping trolleys full of catfood around the streets, muttering to themselves and asking passing strangers if they’re looking for a de facto.
And what of any children that might come from these reckless relationships? How horribly scarred will these poor mites be, knowing they are the product of idle whims and experimental co-habitation? How horrible will it be for them to be forced to sit in the Bastard Corner at school, shunned by the legitimate students and mocked by the teachers?
Arndt has many examples to back her argument. Pat Rafter, for example. He had a child out of wedlock a few years back, and the results have been catastrophic. Thank God Bettina Arndt has finally taken the opportunity to expose the trail of shattered lives that Pat Rafter has left in his procreating wake. How many more, Pat? How many more people must you rob of dignity and crush beneath your heel before you’re sated?
Of course, there are worse things than children out of wedlock, such as not having children at all. Imagine at 20 telling yourself you would try to follow Gillard’s lead because she is an inspiration to all women, and all of a sudden, BANG! It’s 25 years later and you’re breaking into hospitals to steal babies to make up for all those who were never born because you thought you’d got a “role model” and that it was therefore OK to go to Bali or buy yourself an iPad instead of putting your ovaries to practical use.
So we can see how lucky we are that Arndt sounded the alarm. But still there is something nagging at me. The new prime minister is obviously an intelligent woman – some commentators have described her as “as smart as any man”, which is as high a compliment anyone could wish to be paid assuming she was a character in a Famous Five novel – and she obviously understands the consequences of her actions. So why? Why has she decided to nudge Australian womanhood in the direction of wanton sin and pleasure-seeking infertility?
It just didn’t make sense to me until…until I heard Gillard this week reveal on radio a rather disconcerting fact: she doesn’t believe in God.
Suddenly everything clicked into place. The non-marital sex. The wasted uterus. The pantsuit. She’s been operating without a moral compass. Flying blind.
I don’t see this from a Christian perspective; I don’t believe in God either. But I know I can handle non-belief. I know I have the ethical grounding and moral viscera to prevent me from running off half-cocked due to my lack of a higher power. I’m not sure this is the case for the PM.
Because sadly, even though you and I know we don’t need religion, most people do. Most people are far too stupid to be allowed to formulate their own moral frameworks and make their own decisions about good behaviour. Most people need to be protected from their own blithering idiocy, something the Labor Party knows all too well – that’s why they’re setting up an internet filter. And God is the internet filter of our everyday lives: keeping a watch on us and blocking us from all the naughty things that we really want to do. Like an internet filter, God also doesn’t necessarily work all the time, and slows us all down quite a bit, but at least he keeps us headed in the right direction.
And I’m afraid this is exactly where Julia Gillard’s problem lies. She answers to no higher power. She used to; and Rudd perhaps managed to keep her debauchery in check. But now he’s gone, she’s accountable to nobody but herself, and so will continue to engage in her perverse, unsanctioned, recreational monogamy, sending the message to all that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable in today’s society and thereby causing the nation to sink under the weight of the fractured relationships and blighted lives that await all who attempt relationships without the proper paperwork.
And so I beg you, Ms Gillard: find God. For your own sake, and for the sake of all the silly, impressionable, scatterbrained young lasses who fail to heed Bettina’s warning, and who look up to you so devotedly as a leader, a feminist icon, and a reasonable substitute for an independent mind.
Don’t let a generation of women slip away from their womanly destinies. Don’t let your own selfishness ruin everything for the rest of us. Pick up a bible. Pick up a nice white dress. Do the honourable thing. Because if our first female prime minister refuses to conform to tried-and-tested gender norms, what’s the point of having a woman there in the first place? We might as well have kept Kevin. At least he could cry like a girl.
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.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fill in the blanks: Oh My Sainted _unt
So anyway, Mary MacKillop is set to become a saint, AUSTRALIA'S FIRST!
Now, far be it from me to distract from the orgy of patriotic pride that will undoubtedly spew forth like a great burst abscess at the canonisation of the dear lady,; I enjoy the assigning of nationalistic value to arbitrary decisions of the religiously insane as much as the next man.
HOWEVER
Given that the qualification for MacKillop's sainthood is the performance of two miracles...
And given that these two miracles were performed by Sister Mary many, many years AFTER her death...
And given PM Rudd's enthusiastic support for the canonisation and the fact he is sure to pontificate on the significance of the event when it comes...
Will ANY journalist have the guts to ask the obvious question, which is:
"Prime Minister, do you actually believe that the ghosts of dead nuns heal the sick, and if your answer is yes, do you think you are of sound mind to be in charge of a sharp kitchen utensil, let alone a country?"
Now, far be it from me to distract from the orgy of patriotic pride that will undoubtedly spew forth like a great burst abscess at the canonisation of the dear lady,; I enjoy the assigning of nationalistic value to arbitrary decisions of the religiously insane as much as the next man.
HOWEVER
Given that the qualification for MacKillop's sainthood is the performance of two miracles...
And given that these two miracles were performed by Sister Mary many, many years AFTER her death...
And given PM Rudd's enthusiastic support for the canonisation and the fact he is sure to pontificate on the significance of the event when it comes...
Will ANY journalist have the guts to ask the obvious question, which is:
"Prime Minister, do you actually believe that the ghosts of dead nuns heal the sick, and if your answer is yes, do you think you are of sound mind to be in charge of a sharp kitchen utensil, let alone a country?"
Monday, May 11, 2009
Are You Interested In Climate Change?
If so, why? It's boring as hell. In fact, until NOW, nobody had ever said anything interesting about climate change ever! So go read for a thrilling experience.
I do acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Kevin Rudd and his emissions trading scheme for allowing my dreams to take wing.
I do acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Kevin Rudd and his emissions trading scheme for allowing my dreams to take wing.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
And while we're on the subject...
OK, so Kevin Rudd is on a flight. He asks for a meal. They tell him he can't have it. He gets annoyed. And then the flight attendant breaks down in tears.
Sorry? This is a member of the RAAF! A member of our armed forces CRYING because someone was mean to her!
What the hell kind of hiring practices does the air force have?
Is this the kind of defence we're putting up against our enemies? In the event of an invasion, our men and women in uniform will put their shoulders to the wheel and strain every sinew in the defence of our way of life...unless the invaders get a little snappy, in which case our men and women in uniform will run to the toilet and have a bit of a cry.
Hey, unnamed RAAF attendant...HARDEN THE FUCK UP!
Sally Morrell of the Herald Sun, of course, provides an alternative view, but given this is a woman who willingly engages in sexual intercourse with Andrew Bolt, I think we can disregard her judgment in any matter. I think her opinion is borne mostly of the fact that whenever SHE says "Don't you know who I am?" she just gets furrowed brows and an uncertain, "Kathy Bates?"
Great point, Sally - Rudd probably wouldn't tell the Queen off if he got the wrong meal at Buckingham Palace - and if you're not willing to hurl obscenities at the Queen, what right has anyone to get pissed off at anyone ever for any reason?
Laurie Oakes's article here actually reveals that RAAF personnel have enormous difficulty doing the job they're paid to do - in fact, flying on an air force plane is apparently akin to a sort of crash diet.
Not that we can blame the defence force for letting catering slip its mind - its preoccupied with weightier matters, like spying on the Defence Minister and fighting for the right to employ butlers.
Sorry? This is a member of the RAAF! A member of our armed forces CRYING because someone was mean to her!
What the hell kind of hiring practices does the air force have?
Is this the kind of defence we're putting up against our enemies? In the event of an invasion, our men and women in uniform will put their shoulders to the wheel and strain every sinew in the defence of our way of life...unless the invaders get a little snappy, in which case our men and women in uniform will run to the toilet and have a bit of a cry.
Hey, unnamed RAAF attendant...HARDEN THE FUCK UP!
Sally Morrell of the Herald Sun, of course, provides an alternative view, but given this is a woman who willingly engages in sexual intercourse with Andrew Bolt, I think we can disregard her judgment in any matter. I think her opinion is borne mostly of the fact that whenever SHE says "Don't you know who I am?" she just gets furrowed brows and an uncertain, "Kathy Bates?"
Great point, Sally - Rudd probably wouldn't tell the Queen off if he got the wrong meal at Buckingham Palace - and if you're not willing to hurl obscenities at the Queen, what right has anyone to get pissed off at anyone ever for any reason?
Laurie Oakes's article here actually reveals that RAAF personnel have enormous difficulty doing the job they're paid to do - in fact, flying on an air force plane is apparently akin to a sort of crash diet.
Not that we can blame the defence force for letting catering slip its mind - its preoccupied with weightier matters, like spying on the Defence Minister and fighting for the right to employ butlers.
National Security In Jeopardy: Lodge Infiltrated By Authorised Tradesmen
Let us take a hard, unflinching look at the latest scandal to come out of Canberra, as reported by the Herald Sun.
The sequence of events:
1. A group of men came to the Lodge, claiming to be maintenance workers.
2. They showed documentation indicating they had been cleared by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
3. Police checked their documentation and found it to be in order.
4. They spent some time in the Lodge.
5. They went home.
But there is more to the story: the men looked like bikies. Is something afoot, newsies? You bet your bloodstained bollards it is!
Given that these men, who suspiciously showed up with correct documentation and spent mostly unsupervised time in the Prime Minister's residence, were dressed in leather and had tattoos, it can be seen that what has actually occurred is an ATTACK ON THE LODGE BY BIKIE GANGS!
What they were doing in there, who knows? But certainly their tattoos represent a serious threat to security? What if they took showers? What if they washed their underpants in the Lodge's sink? What if a visiting foreign dignitary should stay at the Lodge and discover a copy of Live To Ride under the bed?
Terrifying thoughts, indeed. It's a disturbing thought that bikies might be able to gain access to the Lodge in order to...walk around. And do stuff. Like, maybe they were laying bikie eggs, using the PM's house as an incubator for the coming bikie army. Maybe they were there to sell amphetamines to Kevin Rudd. Maybe the reason Rudd was so cranky on that flight was because he had insufficient amphetamines. That can really stress a man out, I hear.
In any case, it's unacceptable. We need to get to the bottom of this. A Royal Commission into people with tattoos entering the Lodge must be announced immediately, for the sake of all our freedom.
The sequence of events:
1. A group of men came to the Lodge, claiming to be maintenance workers.
2. They showed documentation indicating they had been cleared by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
3. Police checked their documentation and found it to be in order.
4. They spent some time in the Lodge.
5. They went home.
But there is more to the story: the men looked like bikies. Is something afoot, newsies? You bet your bloodstained bollards it is!
Given that these men, who suspiciously showed up with correct documentation and spent mostly unsupervised time in the Prime Minister's residence, were dressed in leather and had tattoos, it can be seen that what has actually occurred is an ATTACK ON THE LODGE BY BIKIE GANGS!
What they were doing in there, who knows? But certainly their tattoos represent a serious threat to security? What if they took showers? What if they washed their underpants in the Lodge's sink? What if a visiting foreign dignitary should stay at the Lodge and discover a copy of Live To Ride under the bed?
Terrifying thoughts, indeed. It's a disturbing thought that bikies might be able to gain access to the Lodge in order to...walk around. And do stuff. Like, maybe they were laying bikie eggs, using the PM's house as an incubator for the coming bikie army. Maybe they were there to sell amphetamines to Kevin Rudd. Maybe the reason Rudd was so cranky on that flight was because he had insufficient amphetamines. That can really stress a man out, I hear.
In any case, it's unacceptable. We need to get to the bottom of this. A Royal Commission into people with tattoos entering the Lodge must be announced immediately, for the sake of all our freedom.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Brokebarack Mountain
World leaders: how graphic should descriptions of their homosexual liaisons really be?
You decide, after reading my latest piece for newmatilda.
You decide, after reading my latest piece for newmatilda.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Why Do You Hate Freedom?
I trash all that's good and decent.
But it's not all doom and gloom: the Prime Minister predicts a "tough, ugly and hard" future , as he looks ahead to his next midnight rendezvous with Michelle Grattan.
Ooh, BURN!
Meanwhile, the Australiian film industry in crisis - which may or may not be the same crisis it's been in the last thirty years - with the revelation that the combined box-office take of this year's AFI Best Picture nominees is less than that of Will Ferrell's Step Brothers.
Some see this as a sign that we need to get Australians "engaged back in Australian stories", in the words of Dee McLachlan, director of The Jammed.
Nobody ever sees this kind of story as a sign that Australians should make entertaining movies, but I guess that'd be a bit crass.
Speaking of being more entertaining than four Australian movies put together, LOOK:
I KNOW that guy!
But it's not all doom and gloom: the Prime Minister predicts a "tough, ugly and hard" future , as he looks ahead to his next midnight rendezvous with Michelle Grattan.
Ooh, BURN!
Meanwhile, the Australiian film industry in crisis - which may or may not be the same crisis it's been in the last thirty years - with the revelation that the combined box-office take of this year's AFI Best Picture nominees is less than that of Will Ferrell's Step Brothers.
Some see this as a sign that we need to get Australians "engaged back in Australian stories", in the words of Dee McLachlan, director of The Jammed.
Nobody ever sees this kind of story as a sign that Australians should make entertaining movies, but I guess that'd be a bit crass.
Speaking of being more entertaining than four Australian movies put together, LOOK:
I KNOW that guy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)