Just a note to say that I'm trying out a new address for a while at least. I do want my blog to be a little more interactive, and this new site enables comments. (But then, if the feedback is a tad too pugnacious, I might just wuss out and return here. So I'm leaving my options open.)

The new site is here, by the way.

Just saw a poll on the Ninemsn website. It asked, is Australia too hard on refugees? Proportion of "no" to "yes" answers? Two to one.

Interesting.

Slatts was wondering where to find these feedback for money companies. Maybe he's as skint as I am?

Anyway, best bet would be to go to this site and search the directory for places in your city or town. Don't use a keyword. Just tick the services marked "group recruitment", "group moderation", etc. You should get quite a few out of that.

For those interested in making a few bucks for buggerall effort: There are a lot of companies that specialise in "group discussions". I registered with one recently, and just scored my first gig two nights ago. Seventy smackeroonies for sitting around quacking on about soft drink. Not bad, eh? (And actually quite interesting, believe it or not.)

I'm registered with a few of these places, but I might go crazy and register with heaps. Could supplement my meagre income quite nicely, I reckon. Say one every 2 to 3 weeks, that's about 1500 hundred bucks a year.

This is just another nice aspect of capitalism. What would the comparable commie gab-fest be like? Well, you'd probably be there under the pretence of giving "free and frank" feedback about The Party's direction. Of course you'd feel anything but free or frank, probably more fearful and furtive. And the reward would be shit, too. Might just score a desiccated spud and a bent durrie, or somethin'.

Some bloke called Simon Chapman rails against celebs like Nicole Kidman, Sarah O'hare and others for puffing on durries one minute, promoting cancer awareness the next.

I think the effort is wasted, but. You're never gonna get consistent, rational behaviour from a star. Why? Because aside from being airheads, all their actions are driven by ego, and buggerall else.

Still, at least the babes he mentions aren't stupid enough to quack on about politics (well, as far as I know), like some other bimbos from Hollywood do.

Re that crap Brown-Nettle agit-prop performance of a view days back (by the way, d'ya reckon they scored a grant for it from the Australia Council?) and the ensuing kerfuffle:

I think some people have gone a little too far with the criticism. But there was no doubt that it was a truly disgraceful display. Simon Crean - bewildered 'tard that he is - managed to acquit himself reasonably well and act with a modicum of dignity in a ceremonial gathering designed mainly to re-affirm ties with our number one ally. But Bob and Kerry? Gawd. When even serial heckler Nick Bolkus is rolling his eyes in disgust at your behaviour, then you know you really have crossed the line.

He's all passion, no thought, is Bob; not just a force for nature, but a force of nature. Imagine if he ever became PM! Yikes. How scary is that? I can see him on the phone to Tony Blair: "Don't call me again ya speciesist, racist, sexist cunt... But while I've got you on the blower, tell that elitist slut Liz Windsor - or whatever her name is - that she can go an' fuck herself!"

Crikey! He'd probably try and puncture the wheels of the Pope-mobile, he would.

What's amazing is that his silly yammering has probably scored him more votes - or at least more sympathy - amongst the defectorate. The pink pixies of Kookybullshitland are now all asquitter about how locking Bob and his, er, left hand person out of Parliament House was an appalling act of censorship. Yet they were the ones being censorious, because they were trying to shout Dubya down.

The Greens' tactic is very clear: Create a highly emotive situation in which the forceful (yet civilised) exchange of arguments is eschewed for yelling your bloody lungs out! Then, when everyone's sqawking up a storm, the biggest, meanest, loudest mob wins. Finally in power, the Greens can implement their wacky anti-human, pro-plant agenda. (I'd call it hedge politics, myself.)

It's definitely a tribal, primitive way of doing things. But does that make them fascist, in the most sinister sense of the word? No. Not yet. But give them time...

Another plug: I had my home page designed for me by a talented (and patient) designer from Red Riding Web and Print Services. The website is here, if you want to have a look.

Still more cyber-anxiety. Just downloaded a free - it's always free with me, notice that? - personal firewall. No probs there, except that now I keep getting these alerts whenver I log into one of my e-mail accounts. There's a bubble that appears listing an IP address and something about "pings". I suspect some scum-sucking spammer has managed to lob some spyware into my 'puter, and it gets activated whenever I check mail or something. Or maybe it's something to do with all those e-mails for cheap Viagra and Vicodin that sit in everyone's Hotmail account. Whatever it is, it creeps me out big time.

Bob Brown is arcing up about being slandered as some kind of Nazi. Considering that he and his quackolytes are so ready to condemn Howard and Dubya as fascist (and Saddam as the victim), isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black... or brown, or, er, green... or something?

It must seem ironic that one of my last posts was about how I was hooked on blogging, then I wrote nothing for ages. Kathy Kinsley thought I might have been trying to give it up.

No, not in rehab. And re that: I wonder what that would be like for blog addicts ("blunkies"?). I mean, what would be the methadone equivalent? Handwritten diary entries?

Anyway, not trying to give it up. Just bloody knackered. Busy trying to earn a living and also chip away at other writing projects.

I just thought of a new word to describe the craven use of intimate associations with the famous for massive financial gain: "burrellous".

I'm feeling very inadequate today. Not only is my namesake Matt Hayden more famous and wealthy than I am, and has a more beautiful wife than I do (er, 'cause I don't have one); he is now elbowing in on my turf: writing.

Next thing I know he will have started his own blog! And if he does he's sure to rack up more hits than me. Would probably score 380 in the first hour, the bastard.

It's so weird. This browser is fine for Blogger, Yahoo, Speedymail and general browsing. But for Hotmail it's stuffed. Keeps seizing up on me!

They're weird these things. Moody, capricious - like people.

Iam glad this thing is still working. Didn't sleep all that well worrying about whether it would or not. I think I really am becoming way too dependant on my blogging - and PC for that matter.

And recently I've developed another cyber-related habit. It's what I would call "software addiction". (Hell, it's even got its own ready-made acronym: SADD. And how sad is that?) I buy those computer mags with CD freebies on them, then I rush home and, sweating and twitching with frenzied anticipation, download the programs.

Why the obsession? Maybe it's 'cause I'm such a cheap bastard, and I feel like I'm getting something for nothing. Or perhaps it's just an acute form of that fascination that blokes have with technology (you know, "boys and their toys"). Whatever it is, the habit is spinning out of control. I might need counselling soon.

And speaking of sad. That's the emotion I feel whenever I look at the old Opera icon on the desktop. It's still there, and it opens up when I click it. It says it's "finding site" and "sending request", but that's where it ends. It just can't quite connect.

Makes me think of an ageing Gidget standing on Malibu beach. The barrels are pumping, and Moondoggie and the crew are out there gettin' radical, just as they have been for the last forty odd years. Gidget really wants to join them. But she's forgotten how to, er, surf.

Have been having some 'puter trouble. Tried downloading ICQ from some CD onto my PC. But it couldn't manage it. Then my main browser (Opera) bit the dust. (Well, technically perhaps not. Maybe there's some glitch out there in cyberspace.) I think some of the ICQ files elbowed out the browser files or something. Anyway, I downloaded a Mozilla one. This seems to work fine. Thank God for that!

Touch wood everything will be okay from now on. It really freaks me out when I have tehcnical glitches. I start hyperventilating and everything.

I'm like a junkie, ferchrissakes. My whole world just starts to fall apart if I think I won't be able to blog.

Blog-addiction must already be a serious problem. Before long it will be in the DSM, I reckon.

Just signed up to this pay per-click search engine program. It's here if you wanna have a look. There's a permalink down below, too, just under the dating site banners. (By the way, I've already earned a whopping 3 bucks US from that Friendfinder one. Impressive, eh? Already well on the way to cyber-moguldom...)

A fine example of the leftist malevolence driving many of those shaping the minds of this nation's youth.

Fluffs are no-doubt creaming their beanies over this "sheriff" line. More disturbing evidence of Bush's cowboy delusion etc.

But what exactly was Dubya's intention? I suspect that as well as communicating a strong sense of allegiance he was being mildly humorous - as he is wont to do occasionally.

Take the line: "There's nothing deputy about this relationship." It's kind of colloquial, slightly self-parodic. Has a bit of nuance, light and shade - which is why retarded, credulous fluffs can't process it and immediately go spacko.

Saw a very slick, fascinating doco last night on political cartoonists. Crikey, I thought I was highly strung. But these blokes? Gawd. They were just full-on wired, like pubescent whippets on crack!

I just felt the need to do a shameless plug:

A few months back I bought this refurbished computer for about 200 bucks (I kid you not). The service was great (they put up with all my ill-informed, nit-picking questions without becoming remotely flustered) and I've never had any problems with it.

If you're looking for a cheap, reliable PC, this is the company. I recommend them without reservation.

Fitzy the Boofhead is arcing up again. He's so emotional this guy. He just goes for it hell for leather - and damn the bloody consequences! - like he used to on the rugger field in his youth. Quite lively and amusng, but is it, er, appropriate for the opinion pages of a major newspaper?

In this piece he cracks the shits with John Howard, wheeling out the ol' "arselicker" angle. Yet, predictably, he expresses teenybopper-like adoration for Clinton, as all fluffs do.

Hey, but didn't Bill order a coupla bombing runs of Baghdad back in the late 90's? Oh, well, it had UN approval or something, so it was okay. Or, we know he was doing it for the right reasons, so we'll trust his good judgement, etc.

The Boofster concludes with these paragraphs, which predict the Government's grovelling behaviour in the hypothetical case of Howard Dean being elected prez, and yanking the troops out of Iraq: "Do John Howard, Alexander Downer, et al, then do a screaming U-turn and declare that is exactly what they were thinking, precisely the policy they were going to propose and, come to think of it, just about everything Dean says makes them want to leap to their feet with acclamation?

"Do we have no gravitas of our own?"

Well this ain't gonna happen - that Howard Dean bloke's got a butterfly's chance in hell, I reckon - but still, you could easily flip this scenario the other way around to illustrate fluffy wuffy hypocrisy.

That is, if a Howard Dean (or a Hillary Clinton?) were to become president and, surprisingly, keep the troops in Iraq, and seriously continue to wage the war on terror, "Do Peter FitzSimons, Anne Summers, et al, then do a screaming U-turn and declare that is exactly what they were thinking, precisely the policy they were going to propose and, come to think of it, just about everything Dean says makes them want to leap to their feet with acclamation?

"Do they have no gravitas of their own?"

Answer to the first question: Yes, they will, of course. And they'll also probably burst into tears of joy, then happily offer to kiss the guy's butt and clean out his limo with their tongues!

Answer to the second: Nope. They don't. Not even a friggin' scintilla.

Damn fluffs. They shit me big time.

I clicked on a Blogger ad about how to make a few bucks blogging. I think it's more for business blogs etc, but there are some good points in the intro page.

It includes some thoughts from Jeff Jarvis, who is an online publishing guru or something: "One of the rules of marketing that I learned early in my career: segment the market until you get it small enough so that you can be the leader of it. The same applies to blogging. If being popular is what you care about, specialize in something, says Jarvis. Become the online expert at something. This makes a lot of sense to me."

I like this. "Specialize in something... Become the online expert at something."

Hmmm. What, though? I suppose I'm an expert at shat-off-ness, since this whole blog is basically one long bitch session - mostly about lefties, moral relativists and New Age nutbars. (You know: fluffs, the lumpen squitterati, the alternative establishment.)

But there are heaps of bloggers who specialise in that. And they work much harder than me. See, basically I'm pretty lazy.

There! That narrows it down. I'm lazy as well as shat off about fluffs.

But there are probably hundreds - if not thousands - of other bloggers like that out there. My niche needs still more defining.

So, er, what exactly is it that shits me off about fluffs? Well - apart from the fact that they are surreal idiots with their heads stuck up their arses - they invariably earn heaps more money than me. That really shits me. Take this peckerhead, for instance. The guy's rolling in it!

How ironic is that? I'm the would-be capo, and I'm damn near skint. Yet this self-described "mendicant" is up to his heart chakra in friggin' moolah! (So's his cat, by the way.) I tell you, I'm ready to punch the friggin' monitor...

Still, this does narrow my area of expertise even more. I'm now an authority on lazy shat-off-ness about New Age fluffs with cats who earn heaps more money than me.

There! How's that for a niche? That's about as nichey as you can get, isn't it? Surely there is no one else on the planet who can challenge my knowledge in this area?

So, er, where's all this dosh that's supposed to flood in?

Damn shonky internet money-making schemes! They shit me.

Ha! Another niche!

Watched Lateline last night. It ran a story on the killing of that bomb-maker al-Ghozi who escaped from prison when Howard was in the Philippines.

Understandably the Oz Government was pleased to learn of this small victory in the war aginst terrorism. Yet reporter Greg Jennett described its reaction thus: "The Australian Government's enthusiasm for al-Ghozi's death bordered on the ghoulish."

Downer's calmly spoken response followed: "It is with great delight that the Australian Government has learnt that al-Ghozi has now been, um, has now been, um ... well, he's actually been shot.

"Perhaps one shouldn't say we're delighted that someone's been shot, but nevertheless, we are delighted that he is no longer on the loose."

Does that sound near "ghoulish" to you? Crikey, what's wrong with expressing a bit of satisfaction that such a murderous scum-sucker had bought the farm? I'd describe his reaction as "bordering on the subdued" myself. I'd also describe Jennett's intro as "unequivocally emotive and biased".

Even though I can't swing a cricket bat for shit - nor do I have any desire to - I'm glad that the other Matt Hayden scored a gazillion runs today. See, the more famous he becomes, the more I can cravenly milk the fact that we share the same name.

I assume you've heard of viral marketing. Well, I'm trying to employ a kind of "parasitic googling".

A question re Arnie's win: If the human shields who lobbed in Baghdad were (as at least one cyber-wit described them) "speed humps", then does that make the women who complained of Arnie's groping "goose bumps"?

Pithy summary of the major differences between Clinton and Ah-nuld re groping, etc.

Spot on. Once more, the feminist bimbos desperately trying to exploit this issue show their mean-spirited hypocrisy. (Remember their ambivalence about the Taliban?)

I can see why twisted sisters really like Gray Davis. Like so many of them he's a plausible puppy-white sap just oozing do-goody-goodness; very affable on the surface, but mean as shit underneath. I mean, insinuating that his foe is some kind of crim because he goosed a few spunks - who have waited until now to complain (or whose complaints have not been publicised until now - and ain't that interesting?) - is pure, distilled scum-suckery.

Saw a clip of one of his campaign ads. It ran a montage of chickybabes and included an unctuous voice-over (a male one by the way - how sexist!) saying that " if your mother's a woman; if your daughter's a woman... etc" you "just can't vote for this man".

Like Schwarzenegger is some kind of scourge upon babedom; that he's gonna attempt full-on gendercide or something! Apart from being utterly and obviously false the ad reveals an underlying disdain for women, since it accuses those chicks who do support him (and their are heaps) of misogyny by association, or idiocy at best.

Just proves for the umpteenth time that PC feminists are not remotely interested in liberating women. What they are interested in is using women as a stepping stone to gain power for themselves. It also proves that unlike your average sheila, a feminist is nothing without a man... to blame.

More bloody whining from the squitizens of Artsville...

Yesterday morning (on Nine, I think) saw John Howard (the evil one, not the good one) honking about how Seppolian shows erode our cultural identity or something. What identity is that, I wonder? Oh, that'd be the dull, unimaginative, bullshit-rich PC one that he and his mediocre mates think is good for us and have been ramming down our necks for the last coupla decades. You know, that one. (And, coincidentally, the one that ensures they make a very comfortable living for perpetuating at public expense.) Then he was on the box again that night, spilling the same noxious bilge to a bunch of his fellow fartistes.

In the morning interview he said something about keeping "our culture... our films and TV shows... the ones we love so much". Well if we love them so much, why the hell does nobody want to watch them? And why, when offered the choice, do Australians invariably prefer Seppolian shows? Sure, they are cheaper for the networks to buy and run, but they're also of a much higher quality and far more enjoyable to watch.

Look at any Oz show. The writing is rank; the acting anodyne; the production... er... perfunctory. They're crap, let's face it. (Re that: Saw a bit of Crashburn - which I hope becomes the fate of the shit-wits who created it - last night. It was so dreary I wanted to barf all over the screen after only a minute. About the only character in it with any complexity and naturalness was a friggin' gorilla loping about its cage.)

And anyway, why the hell is Howard whining about the negative influence of Seppolian pop culture? He himself seems to to have modelled his entire appearance on one of the more iconic characters from the Star Wars series. See what I mean?

Ironic, to say the least. (Wonder why he did so. Maybe heard on the grapevine that Lucas was gonna ditch the puppet and hire a real live thesp for the next installment?)

In any case these whining whactors and honking hacks are on their way out. And they know it.

Roll on the Free Trade Agreement. And eat shit and die, fluffs!

This sheep ship controversy is really shitting me - particularly the attendant posturings of all these bloody fluffs. Here they are, squawking up a storm about the live sheep trade, which they define as a cruel and inhumane. But you can be sure that most of these squits would be equally shat off about our border protection policy (especially the detention centres) which they also define as cruel and inhumane. Which shows just how utterly lost these plonkers really are!

I'll elaborate: If live sheep exporting is cruel and inhumane, then surely live human exporting (especially in unhygeinic, ultra-packed, leaky ol' boats - which, not unlike this sheep ship also occasionally burst into flames... er, and sink, too) would be even more cruel and inhumane, wouldn't it? Well, not the fluff, obviously. But to the Government? Yes.

As I understand it, Howard's hard-arsed post-Tampa policy isn't just about border protection; it's also about putting people smugglers out of business. It doesn't take a friggin' rocket scientist to figure out that the more people smugglers profit, the more leaky boats full of people will come to our shores. The more that come to our shores, the more their human cargo will suffer and sometimes die on the way.

So, how do you stop this? Well, we in Oz can't take the fight to the people smugglers, because they are all in other countries. That would require invasion. But what we can do is create a major deterrent on our turf in the form of detention centres. Which is exactly what we've done.

Humans intending to come here (unlike friggin' sheep being exported over there - who, like lefties, will never do anything more with their lives than shuffle around bleating occasionally and following each other to their collective doom) realise that jumping the queue is not the way to go because even if they do survive the trip there will be a very long wait at the end of it. If you have no people willing to be smuggled in leaky boats you also, happily, have no starvation, disease and mass drownings.

Now, that makes some sense, as well as being at least half-way humane.

But what can you conclude about the attitude of the fluffs? It seems they are more concerned about the plight of sheep on ships than humans on leakier ones. And how fucken dumb (not to mention cruel and inhumane) is that!

Here's a bizarre story about some self-aggrandizing mayor in Spain who has passed a law that the blokes have to stay home on Thursday evenings to play house-hubby in the interests of "equality".

Not that unusual. These nutty "quirkies" appear from time to time. What's really interesting is the story's title (presumably written by a Sun-Herald staffer). It defines the totalitarian, ultra-sexist law as "no sexism".

It comes from the same ol' drearily predictable fluffy wuffy mind-set (and I use the term "mind" loosely) that you see all the time in the mainstream media. That is: sexism is only ever what men do to women, not ever what women do to men (or, in this case, what a man does to other men to curry favour with women - probably so that he can get into their pants).

Will these fluffs ever be capable of original, principled thoughts, instead of PC ones?

I doubt it.

No blogging today (er, except this one). Coupla work-blokes in ripping out my old wafer-thin windows and replacing them with some double decker big bastards. This is welcome, as I'm right under the flight path into Sydney airport, and the noise of descending jets is shockin'.

(Although, after having lived here over a year, I'm pretty accustomed to it now. Maybe the noise reduction will be disturbing, not calming?)

Jeez, you've gotta hand it to them Frogs for sheer pettiness. They've got their Stalinist skulls shoved further up their freckles than that pyromaniac pinko Robert Corr.

Look at this sad story. Because some smart babe used the rather tragic - but nonetheless piss-funny - death of some airhead-bint-celebrity called Marie Trintignant (or something) at the clammy hands of her drug-fucked, heavy metal-headed beau, the surreal celebrophilic squits are all in-a-lather (which is rare for the soap-phobic Frogs, let's face it!).

Burying children alive (like their major trading partner and anti-Seppolian ally Uncle Saddamy did) is way cool for PC Parisians, but abstractifying a high-profile carking into a mathematical equation most definitely is not. But aren't these left-wing left-bankers supposed to be really into irony and detachment and ennui, and all that eurocentric jaded shit?

Obviously fucken not.

Hey Frogs! You think you know it all. But really, you know Foucault!

(Er, I know that last line really hasn't got much to do with this particular subject. Just always really wanted to use it, that's all...)

So anything that sports - or once sported - a penis is not welcome at "Lesfest". In that case here's one very famous Les who probably won't be attending.

Unfortunate for him, 'cause he's a bit of a fan of sapphic activities, apparently. And ironic, too, 'cause he's a damn sight more feminine than most of the chicks who will be there!

Why do we prefer Seppolian entertainment over our own? The fluffs squeal that it's because we don't have a comparable amount of money to throw at our "talent".

Crap, I say.

Even when the Seppos make shit, they do make that shit shine. Why? Because they just take heaps more care in what they do. And the writing is way superior, even in the comedies. Shows like Friends make me want to hurl with their unremitting cuteness. But they are still very well written.

I mean, look at our sit-coms (if you can remember the names of any). They're a disgrace! (And if money is the main factor then sit-coms should the ones to even the field, 'cause they are cheap as chips to produce.)

This difference is not just about money. It's a cultural thing. America has a more vital, diverse and sophisticated society than ours. Its fillums and TV shows reflect this. Which is exactly why the viewers down here in Oz prefer them to our piss-poor home-made offerings.

Just downloaded this entire blog onto a floppy, hoping to one day re-jig the less vitriolic, more whimsical bits for a book, and/or comedy show. Did a word count, and it came to over 30 000.

Crikey, I have been a busy boy!

Yikes. I'm being cyber-stalked! New Age uber-fluff Derek Sapphire has racked up a whole series of posts about me. (Crikey, he might sick his animal companion Jocelyn on me again! I'm still recovering from the last attack.)

I'm getting sick of all this controversy about sheep ships bound for the Middle East. Those bloody livestock should consider themsleves lucky, I reckon. Hell, if I were given a free, all-expenses paid cruise of the Indian Ocean I wouldn't be complaining.

Come to think of it, the fact that I'd have to save for months - if not years - to pay for such a trip makes me damn angry. It's discrimination, that's what it is. Discrimination!

Just another thought on flag burning: If, as pettifogging plonkers like Robert Corr love to say, the flag is "just a piece of cloth", then why do they go out of their way to burn it? If they are simply overcome with the need to publicly immolate pieces of cloth, then why not use tea-towels? Or, even a tea-cosies? Heaps of them at a "peace" rally, found sitting atop the hollow bonces of the herd so gleefully cheering the burning of the flag.

(On second thoughts, why not burn them while they are still being worn? The squits are so perpetually hot-headed anyway, I'll bet they wouldn't notice the difference! And how can you cause further damage to minds already so stunted by dope and dogma?)

There's an interesting post by the Yobbo (found via Slatts). It refers to Robert Corr's bizarre justification for flag-burning:

"At least the flag burners recognise the potency of the flag as a symbol of Australia's democracy and freedoms. The burning flag represents the incineration of Australia's democratic values, be it by our treatment of asylum seekers, our participation in the Iraqi war, or whatever the cause of the day might be."

Typical leftist hypocrisy. These fluffs do something they are certain will rile their enemies. Then when they get exactly the reaction they want they weasel out of taking responsibility for their act of provocation by quacking on about democracy and freedom. "Eek! We're being monstered!" they squawk. "Can't burn the flag with complete impunity. And they call this a democracy? Ha! Fascist state, more like!"

You see this tactic being used everywhere in the Fluffiverse:

Feminist bimbos say the most vicious, sexist things about men, then interpet the resulting male (and female) denials and anger as "oppression by the patriarchy" and "violence against women". The Stalinist hacks at the ABC wage a concerted campaign against the Government, then have the gall to say they're fair and balanced and that Liberal condemnation is somehow undemocratic. In the uni humanities departments fluffs dominate completely, spinning sanctimonious bullshit about our history - bullshit that is clearly meant to maintain and exacerbate racial tension - then when finally called to account by just one guy with some spine and acumen they form a pack and descend upon him, claiming he's the fucking establishment crushing their dissent!

In all their strongholds (Artsville, Halls of Quackademe, etc) they keep fighting dirty - relentlessly kicking battered shins and pressing raw nerves - while forever demanding that their enemies fight fair, and interpreting any resistance as the brutal machinations of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Provoke, wheedle, rile, claim victimhood. Provoke, wheedle, rile, claim victimhood... Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

When you investigate their "philosophy", you realize that's all there is to it. They don't have anything else.

What a pack of retarded, mean-spirited squits they are. No wonder so many of them have such shitty little lives.

You may have heard of all those poor sheep stranded at sea, and the ruckus over what to do with them. I can't help but see parallels with another pack of dumb, conformist and hopelessly lost creatures. The suggested humane solution to the "death ship" crisis could be used in their case too, I reckon.

Finished watching Mulholland Drive on video today.

David Lynch is not a genius. He's a complete tosser.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

On checking my previous entries for errors I noticed I did get a tad florid and alliterative in the one about the history wars and Stalinism (see last line). Hell, if I were a leftie and the academic I was referring to was one of those dreadful "neo-conservatives", I might have scored a grant from the Australia Council for it! Still, I'll leave it up there anyway for blogger posterity.

Always knew I had my finger right on the ol' zeitgeist. Am I a cyber-savvy hepcat or what!

Stuart Wackintyre asks: Who plays Stalin in our history wars?

Er, you do pal. You're the one with leftist ideology. You're the one with the numbers (ratio of fluffs to RWDBs: about 20 to 1). You're the one using taxpayers' bucks to tell the story you want to impressionable whippersnappers (Windschuttle funds himself). You're the one with the theory that "everything's political", and that the truth is not universal and immutable but "constructed". And so you're trying to construct the truth that those trying to discover it, are, er, constructing it. (Stalinist is as Stalinist does, comrade.)

Which all sounds pretty damn Stalinist to me. (Harrumph!)

(But I would say that wouldn't I, because I'm not a Stalinist. Er, which means I am, in wackster-Wackintyre's wacky ol' world.)

Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez are separating, apparently.

Typical celeb behaviour: They get together to get heaps more exposure. Then they break up because they got, er, too much exposure.

Dunderheads.

Shirly MacLaine has suffered a slipped disk. Wonder what caused it? Maybe it was an over-zealous butt-probe from one of her little alien pals...

If you want some unequivocal thoughts on the significance of 9/11 and the case for for whupping Osama's ass then have a look at that day's posts and links on Bellicose Women.

Just read on Evil Pundit's blog that the Dalai Lama was subtly pro (or at least not anti) the invasion of Afghanistan. Such an inversion of the Buddhist stereotype reminded me of an experience I had quite a while back...

It was during my SNAG phase. If I wasn't bursting into tears of life-affirming joy I was hugging anything with a pulse. One day I saw a bloke with a shaven head sitting at a bus-stop. Certain that he was a follower of the Dalai Lama, I walked up to him and said, "Peace be with you, sweet child of the Universe!" and embraced him warmly.

But did he reciprocate? Nup. Whopped me right in the kisser!

I did the human version of the famous Hanna-Barbera "Yabbada-yabbada-yabbada!" It was then that I realised he wasn't a Buddhist after all. Was actually a neo-Nazi skinhead.

That old saying about books and covers and not judging finally made sense to me. It was the beginning of the end of my New Age, er, age. (And my first step towards acting my age.)

But back to the Tibetan leader's subtle endorsement of violence: With these comments on the public record, will he continue to be promoted as the embodiment of goodness and wisdom in the fluffy wuffy media? Or will we see a less reverential attitude towards him? Will be interesting to see...

Was going to post something last night about September 11 (it's now the 12th here in Oz), but couldn't get around to it until now. Part of the reason was that I was so damn pissed off - pissed off about how so many people still haven't twigged that what happened then was a truly terrible crime against humanity, and that the reflection on and remembrance of it is not egotistical and self-indulgent, but dignified and justifiable; pissed off that the puerile, incoherent, anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-thought, anti-civilization movement can still be so influential in this country.

And being pissed off, I tried to calm down. I sought to forgive the boneheads who think that America is the bad guy in this stoush. And I succeeded, I reckon. I have pretty much stopped attempting to convince people who can't understand that the War on Terror is justified. I know I'll never reach them, so I turn my attention to their good points. You can always find something - well, almost always.

I think this is what separates the non-fluff from the fluff. Non-fluffs are forever trying to calm down, while fluffs look for any reason to arc up. This is why there are still so many sad ol' Stalinists in our media who remain angrier about the sacking of Gough the Great Helmsman thirty years ago than the mass murder of thousands of innocent people just two years back.

Let's face it, if you actually enjoy being pissed off you're going to stop making sense pretty soon and probably stay that way forever. And being pissed off is what fluffy wuffism (and all fundamentalism, for that matter) is all about .

So, fellow non-fluffs, don't maintain the rage. Retain the (inner) sage. Just as the Seppos are winning the global war on terror, we are winning the cultural war on leftist stupidity.

(And when we finally achieve victory, then we can really shit on them from a great height! Er, in a sage-like way of course.)

As the second anniversary of the September 11 attack approaches, the media keep running stories on its historical significance, changes to the American psyche etc. One of the things I've noticed is that whenever it's mentioned, it's described more often than not as a "tragedy" or a "disaster" rather than a "terrorist attack" or "act of mass murder" - which are far more accurate descriptions. It's like calling suicide bombers "activists" - a habit which Tim Blair has pointed out repeatedly in his blog.

It seems that many reporters are careful not to offend the memory of those "magnificent nineteen freedom fighters" who gave their lives for such a noble cause.

Still on the subject of good blog directories and resources, here's another one.

Great to see the Aussie blogs tracker up and running again after what appeared to be a slight glitch. It's a fantastic resource.

It's here if anyone has come in from an overseas link and is interested in finding other Australian blogs.

Watched Lateline last night. There was a fascinating debate between fluffy wuffy quackademic Stuart MacIntyre and RWDB Keith Windschuttle. Near the end of it the fluff did what they always do, which is to invoke emotionalism and try to turn the whole thing into a sensitivity competition, accusing Windschuttle of lacking empathy.

The Death Beast made mincemeat of that argument by pointing out that the job of the historian is to be dispassionate, not compassionate.

This is so obvious to anyone with an IQ over fifty and one eye half-open that you'd think it doesn't need stating at all. The fact that you have to do so repeatedly nowadays shows just how degraded academic standards have become under the reign of these sanctimonious Stalinist squits.

But just on that point: Apart from it being a ridiculous thing to do in the context of scholarship, what's so bloody compassionate about telling Aborigines that their recent history was overwhelmingly one of brutal dispossession and mass murder and that the vast majority of whites in the past (and present, for that matter) think of them as inferior and want to see them die out? Even if true, isn't that a particularly cruel thing to say to them? The fact that it's bullshit makes it even worse.

I found this great piece about the long term, "big picture" reasons for invading Iraq via the excellent Bellicose Women.

I keep reading articles about this new TV show called Crashburn with Catherine McClements in it. The phrase "he said; she said" features in most cases. My first reaction: "Er, Catherine McClements is a she?"

Still, it has to be better than that other sack of televisual tripe The Secreted Glob of Pus. I should be thankful for small mercies, I suppose.

Today's Mourning Feral has a great letter from Helen Darville re Paul Sheehan's dissection of Manne and Co's craven gang-attack on Keith Windschuttle:

"Having experienced 'reputational rape' at the hands of Robert Manne and friends, I would like to commend Paul Sheehan for coining such an accurate description of the tactic.

"Manne's favoured adjective for yours truly was 'strange'; it seems he's upped the ante for others, with words like 'bizarre', 'breathtaking' and 'mad'.

"Like you, Dr Windschuttle, I copped a whole book by Professor Manne. At least he got some other people to help write the one about you. This means it may actually be well written, at least in parts. If it's any consolation, your ability to upset this bunch of self-serving, pompous gits is a good thing. If they don't manage to nobble your literary career, long may you continue to upset them.

"Accused of Holocaust denial? Don't worry, he does this to everyone. He's slowly draining an important term of its real meaning. Literary fraud? This is Robert Manne and the lit-gits' code for anyone who manages to make them look like the tossers they actually are. You're 'polemical and pitiless' as well? Well ... pot, kettle, black.

"If you can stand arguing with these people, be my guest."

Stick it up 'em Helen!

I love the list of his favoured terms: "strange", "bizarre", "breathtaking", "mad". They're all vague, emotive and arbitrary, just like the other two most treasured words of the jackbooted fluffy wuffy, "extraordinary" and "appalling".

Watch any episode of Squitical Mass on Their ABC and I'll bet you a fiver that not a minute goes by without at least one of them being uttered.

This is Glenn Reynolds' site meter. Jeez, do I feel inadequate.

I swear I'm gonna catch up! (Er, but by the time I do, I think the solar system may well have disintegrated into a vast amorphous fog of nano-particles...)

Just got a hit from this Google search: "tim freedman wanker".

Hardly surprising. The two terms are almost interchangeable.

Ben Lee really is an annoying little shit. In this story about his new fillum (which is about a youngster who rebels against his hippy parents by being a real square - wasn't that the central hook of Family Ties?) he's quoted as saying:

"I was sitting on the plane from Nashville the other day and I had my journal in front of me because I was going to write my dreams in it... I had some lyrics I wanted to write and I had a Taoist text I wanted to read and an Apple iPod. I looked at the people next to me and they were zoned out.

"I forget there are people who are out there who aren't into growing and developing."

Gawd. What a plonker! And he's only about twelve. Imagine what the little turd will be like a decade from now. Crikey, he might even out-do Sting on the toss-ometer!

Just saw Peter Garrett quacking on about saving the Murray on the Insiders. The thing that struck me about him was his unremitting intensity. It was like his words were all being shot out of a high pressure hose!

Some people may think that this is a great quality, but I see it as dangerous. People who are too passionate just can't think straight, let's face it. If you're talking about the environment, you're invoking science, which is dispassionate by definition. (Or at least it should be.)

Whenever he's in a debate his attitude always seems to be, "Why the hell are we arguing? Everybody knows we are in this massive environmental crisis, and if we don't do something right now the bloody sky's gonna fall in!"

Er, is it?

I can see Garrett's appeal to whippersnappers who want a direction in life. Loving nature and hating civilization gives them something to channel all that youthful energy into. But is it right?

That's the question you should ask yourself often, I reckon. It's not enough just to care. You've got to care and think.

Just a note to say I have another blog running. I post there occasionally. (Last one was two minutes ago.)

When a woman murders four of her bubs over a decade, she's not "evil" or even "bad". No, it's all because she has a "disorder".

Here's another poor person with a similar "disorder".

Most lefties I know just act like they're fifteen. But this lefty outdoes them all. He is only fifteen!

Just noticed on the Yahoo site that the sequel to the top horror flick Jeepers Creepers is out. I'll definitely have a squizz when it hits the local screens.

Again, I do apologise for being so brazenly commercial, but I thought I'd mention this because I did see the original just recently on video. It is truly unique (although it does get a bit silly at the end). Also, it stars one of the most hauntingly beautiful sheilas I've ever seen - a sad-eyed young temptress called Gina Phillips.

I wonder why she's not in this fillum?

I've just whopped up a couple of affiliate banners (left, and down below). I know the blognascenti will look down on this, but hell, I need the bucks. Seeing as I made a whole two of them from a banner I had on my Geocities home page, I figure that I might as well try it on this one, since I'm getting more and more hits. You never know, I might make another four dollars. Then I'll really be a capitalist!

Good article on "quagmirism" from Miranda Devine.

Another thought on the use of that word:

There are heaps of brutal, long-running conflicts going on all over the world (particularly in Africa), in which many thousands of people have been killed. Aren't these also "quagmires"? Yet the fluffs never seem to use this term to describe them. It's usually "civil war" or "ongoing ethnic conflict", or something. Yet when several dozen western (that is, usually white soldiers) are killed, it qualifies as a "quagmire".

It's as if one white death is worth a thousand black ones. Sounds like racism to me.

I thought I was a crank, forever acing up about the thought police and all. But there's a blogger called "Birdman" who puts me to shame in the shat-off-ness stakes. He has it in for bathmats:

"I abhor bathmats and toilet mats. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with these harmless inanimate objects. Indeed, they serve a great purpose in catching drops of water and pee.

"What I do object to - and strongly - is the way that they creep about the bathroom.

"No sooner have you put one straight; no sooner have you turned your back, when they are crooked again...all ruckled up against the bath or bog like so much corrugated iron. I am sick of straightening them.

"The other day, I spotted an anti-slip rubber thingy that you put underneath them in a bid to cure the annoyance. I bought some, cut it to shape and put it under the mats.

"Guess what?

"It doesn't make a scrap of sodding difference. The evil bastards are at it again. Crumpled and creeping like some drunken sot leaning against the bath and bog. I swear it's the devil's work. Sent to send us crackers in their petty everyday inanity.

Well that's it. I'm gonna burn them and to hell with the piss and water."

He's either a barking nutbar or a brilliant humorist - or maybe both. Anyway, you can see more at "Raised by Chaffinches".

Now this is interesting. Due to the constant, strident efforts of self-described refugee "advocates", children will now be "released" from detention. But why do they use this particular term? Isn't it just as accurate to say they are being separated from their parents.

What are the kids' thoughts on the matter? Do they think of it as liberation? Well, the article contains what might be a clue:

"Refugee advocate Helvi Aarnio was waiting outside the centre and says she had the chance to speak to one of the boys before the release.

"'I asked him what he would like us to do, where he would like me to take him when he gets outside and he didn't even know, he couldn't even think of anything,' he said."

Sounds more like bewilderment to me. And is he any happier outside? Well, if he hates his parents he is. But if he loves them, I doubt it.

If this continues over the next couple of years the number of children separated from their parents may well grow into the hundreds. In twenty years, will these children be seen as another "stolen generation"?

Just a thought.

James Morrow, who has recently returned to blogging after a long absence, wonders why the following comment about the planned "Syringe Festival" has been left up on the Sydney Indymedia site:

"Having lost much of my life to addiction I cannot agree with the concept of celebrating such an insidious disease.

"While the NT drug laws are certainly draconian and an invasion of civil rights, the fact remains that IV drug abuse is not a positive experience.

"I simply cannot understand how anyone can regard a compulsion to inject toxic chemicals to get through the day as freedom."

Beats me, too. I seriously doubt it has anything to their commitment to freedom of speech. Maybe they just haven't noticed it's up there 'cause they're all so stoned off their tits?

Poor Slatts has been having worm trouble of late and intends to inject his 'puter with some cyber pest control.

Reminded me of my early days of being online: See, I had a similar infestation of my e-mail account. Being a newbie, I tried Tequila as a cure. That always kills 'em stone dead, I thought - although this cheerful little bastard does seem to be the exception to the rule.

Anyway, poured it all over a disk, then inserted it. Ended up short-circuiting the hard drive and frying the whole unit! (Just as well it was a library PC, eh? Which is why I am in favour of publically funded institutions in certain cases, at least.)

Being fascinated with the paranormal (maybe because I'm abnormal?) I found this site (located via Lucid Psyche) particularly interesting.

So that catastrophic virus that recently ran amuck through the 'net was actually a sexually transmitted disease!

Just found a great site via Bitchin' Monaro. It's called Quizilla. I just answered the questionnaire titled, "Which World Leader Were You in a Previous Life?".

Turned out I was Elizabeth 1. Somehow, I just knew. I'm just so in touch with my feminine side...

I have just downloaded an Opera browser (a freebie on a CD from a mag I bought). I know this sounds like an ad or something. But I've got to say, it's pretty damn good. Works really well on this clunky ol' Windows '95 'puter I've got. Really fast; really smooth.

(Crikey. I'm becoming a browser afficianado! Before I know it I'll be gas-bagging about HTML.)

Still on the subject of rights and responsibilities: Theodore Dalrymple has written a brilliant opinion piece revealing the stupidity and moral cowardice behind awarding several hundred grand to an incurable dipso and bong-suckler who murdered someone and then blamed the state.

For people who want to discover a whole new bunch of cyber-cranks here's a really good list.

Rachel Lucas is a great humorist. She can make me laugh out loud. Her vivid description of her discovery of some mummified grasshoppers is a cack. (There are photos, too.)

Great article by Janet Albrechtsen in today's Oz. In it she proposes that we should be the first nation to have a bill of obligations as well as rights.

I like that. And I'd like to add another suggestion: that if and when we make it law this new charter should be expressed in straightforward colloquial language instead of that 'orrible opaque lawyer-speak.

So, the introduction might read something like: "Okay, we're the High Court, which means we're really bloody important. So listen up, shit-wits, and listen closely - or just piss right off!

"Right, so the first thing you gotta do is realise that you are an individual first, not a member of a group. Got that? Not a bloke, not a chick; not a whitey or an ethnic; not a breeder or a poof. You're you. If the more delicate amongst you want us to describe it in tight-arsed ol' PC terms, then put it this way: You're all a minority of one.

"So, being an individual, you have to take responsibility for your own life and actions, okay? So, go out and have a top time, try a few 'experiments in living' by all means. But remember that if things blow up in your face, just don't come whingeing to us, alright! We've got better things to do than listen to your petty griping - things like ponce around in our gowns, compare wigs and have our bums spanked by dominatrixes (which we take full resonsibility for, of course. Hell, if a birching gets out of hand and we end up looking pretty worse for wear, then do we ask for the state to pay? No way! We just hit the bench, whop a bit of salve on the ol' bum-cheeks and take some time out so we're all fighting fit for the gig the following week!).

"Er, sorry for getting sidetracked like that. But bascially what we're trying to say is: if we can do that, so can youse, alright? (And remember that the whole concept works all over the joint, not just in the dungeon. We just use them sexual analogies all the time 'cause we're all such kinky buggers!)

"So in summation good blokes and chicks of Australia: We've had enough of this victim shit. You fuck up your own life, then it's your fault - no-one else's - so they shouldn't have to pick up the tab. Easy-fucken-peasy. (But if you get mugged, or beaten by your spouse, or something else like that then that's a different matter, of course. Fucken der!)

Okay, we think you get the point. You play; you pay. Your life; your strife! And if you don't like it, well, all we can say is: Whop it up yer clackers, whackers!"

Since every other damn blogger in Australia has gone to Movable Type and has comment boxes (and something called "trackback" - what the hell does that mean?) I'm feeling very inadequate indeed.

I thought of going there myself, so I had a look at the site. There's all this stuff about scripting and "perl" or something and it's very intimidating. Plus I have Windows 95 on my home PC. (Does that make a cyber-dinosaur as well as a cultural one?)

Anyway, I've had a bit of a perve at various blogging hosts and the free Lycos blog builder looks good. It's simple, and has comment boxes. I might move there eventually.

I do find this all a bit tiring. I've changed my blog address here three times already. And now I might be moving again! I'm starting to feel a bit like the peripatetic protagonist of that moody Paul Young ballad of yore.

(Humming soulfully: "Wherever I lay my links, that's my home...")

If you look in the links section below, you'll see a little "b". That's for the Blogsnob site, which uses an innovative method for advertising blogs. Will be interesting to see how many hits I get from it.

Addendum to last post: The thing that really annoys me about today's feminists is their pettiness and passivity. I've always believed that the point of feminism should be to encourage independence and individualism, not create a whole generation of blushing violets, cowards and victims so delicate that their whole world could be torn asunder by the use of an "inappropriate" term, joke or suffix.

Compare the mealy-mouthed rhetoric of the twisted sisterhood to the truly independent, fearless commentary of this self-described "gun-totin' capitalist".

Isn't that what feminism is supposed to be all about?

Not here it ain't. (And sadly not so much over there, either.)

Gawd, these fluffs are just beyond parody...

So this dopey, hairy-backed sheila has been charged with extortion (a major crime) and these pinheads are still squittering about the ramifications for chickdom resulting from an offhand comment by some bloke who had nothing to do with the bloody event in the first place!

I mean, have a look at this pettifogging piece about those two words.

The obsequious plonker who wrote this purports to show a balanced article on the significance of the "hairy-backed" controversy, then spends the whole piece wheeling out the same tired, tight-arsed PC line that we've been enduring for the last thirty years.

Look at this sentence: "In fact, it is an insult used by English-speaking South Africans against Afrikaners, so in this context it is not only sexist but racist."

Since this guy (along with his fellow travellers) is so fond of it, let's look at his comments in context:

Remember that in the context of the history of Sarth Effrica the Afrikaners are the bad guys -whiteys who oppressed all the black people there. So, in that context couldn't the term then be seen not as bigotry but as a kind of cultural karma?

And how, in the context of the article (a general observation about words and their meaning - not a specific analysis of the conflict between Warney and his accuser) can it be seen as racist anyway? Poms were white, so were Afrikaners. In the stunted, schematic mind of the fluff only whites are racist, and only ever against black people and "ethnics" (their term). So how can a whitey be racist against a whitey? By his own criteria, the argument makes no sense. (Er, contextually speaking of course.)

My analysis: The guy is so desperate to advertise his SNAGification (and get laid, perhaps?) that he's even disobeyed one of his own immutable laws!

And what about the dopey, hairy-backed sheila in question? Does she think the term is racist and sexist? Maybe she does; maybe she doesn't. Either way he deems her opinion irrelevant, and decides to take offence on her behalf.

I'll bet he's a whitey. All, or most of the people interviewed are whiteys. So, in the context of the furore, isn't his non-inclusion of her relevant thoughts on the matter an act of racism and/or sexism itself? And if he's not a whitey, then isn't he still reinforcing the dominant racist, sexist paradigm by not including her?

And doesn't rottie-for-the-spottie Pru Goward reveal a similar disdain when she tells a radio audience that (such language) "gives bloke culture a bad name . . . words tell what somebody values. And what this says is that this bloke doesn't think much of women."?

Her words clearly show that she doesn't think much of women because she feels they are so stupid that they must be told when, how and why to be offended. Matronising bloody msogynist! (Oh, and a whitey, too, remember.)

My point: the terms "racism" and "sexism" have been so carelessly, constantly invoked for so long by the squitterati for their own political (and personal) gain that they've lost all meaning. And we're all just friggin' sick of it.

Basically, who seriously gives a tinker's about the significance of these words except these anile handwringing fluffs? I remember a great line from the schoolyard that should be remembered here: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!"

Grow up you fucking 'tards!

Gawd. Derek Sapphire is posting again.

I'm gobsmacked by all this hysterical reporting about the growing list of so-called "victims" of Warney's lechery.

Crikey, even I have received lewd SMS messages from him. Why make it look like his tacky behaviour is some sort of disturbing revelation?

It's the chicks who are the real worry. They're all out to make money off the poor dope. Why isn't that the story?

The cable channel Sci Fi has cancelled all Schwarzenegger movies in the lead-up to the California elections. "We're pulling our Arnold marathon in deference to the electoral process. We wanted to level the playing field in California," said Kat Stein, a spokeswoman for Sci Fi.

Weird logic, eh? Wouldn't many of these ultra-violent movies be a liability, not an asset in his run for office?

Remember, this is kooky California, home of mindless hedonism, pacifism and New Age-ism. With every second citizen already in touch with his or her "inner child", maybe Kindergarten Cop could be an unfair advantage. But Conan the Destroyer?

In another - as-yet unconformed report - X-rated video chains and cable channels have pulled movies by the porn star and gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey. These include Asses in the Air 4, Decadent Divas 17 and 18, Desperately Seeking Jezebelle, When The Boyz Are Away The Girlz Will Play 7, and Thumpin' Melons.

Knowing what Californians are like, this seems a more logical decision.

One of my duties in my "real" day job is to distribute flyers all over Sydney. (You know : junk mail - the stuff that really pisses off ferndamentalists. That's part of what actually makes it enjoyable... he, he!)

Since I was already doing this I thought I could promote my site and blogs, as well as those of other cyber-cranks, with flyers listing URLs. I've been doing it for several weeks now with a consistent response.

Bernard Slattery is already on the list. And if any one else wants to have his or her blog listed on thousands of flyers for only a few bucks, then e-mail me (address below left). I'll send you more details, including the flyer design.

Note: This does take time. But it definitely does work. And Ozbloggers can be sure that the readers it refers are local.

Apparently some cosmonaut in space has married his sweetheart down on earth. As the story states, they plan to honeymoon here in Oz. Yeah, she'll be staying in a hotel in Melbourne and he'll be in some tent way up in Arnhemland.

That hen-hugging squawker is at it again. As reported in today's Feral: '"When you're fighting barbarism and terrorism I think you need to be careful not to descend to barbaric acts yourself," Senator Bartlett told ABC radio.

"In my view the death penalty is a barbaric act that we need to oppose in all circumstances."'

Assorted leftie ear-ring tuggers will be reading Fartlett's words, nodding sagely with this "sophisticated" analysis of the Amrozi verdict. But really it's anything but.

Basically, he's saying that slaughtering hundreds of innocent people merely because they don't share your primitive religious views and had the temerity to have a good time in your presence is no worse than capturing the man who did this, proving guilt, and then finally, after months of deliberation and argument, deciding to top the bastard - and that bastard alone.

What a self-evidently moronic position. Of course there's a friggin' difference!

Put it this way: In the end you may decide that executing mass-murderers is not morally right. But you've gotta concede that it sure as shit ain't barbaric. (Or, if you're gonna say that it is barbaric, then you have to agree that detonating bombs in nightclubs is mega-barbaric.)

Far from being humane and discerning, Fartlett is basically a nihilistic dullard. And his amoral attitude infects all his thinking. Not only can he see no distinction between terrorism and capital punishment, but he also thinks that chooks should have the same rights as people!

Intellectual bantamweight.

Watched Media Watch tonight. Marr had a go at the commercial stations' exploitation of the obesity epidemic.

The old anti-capitalist angle - that those evil drug companies and weight loss gurus use commercial TV to promote their products - was wheeled out yet again. Well, knock me down with a feather! Drug companies trying to make a profit through the teev! Who would have suspected it?

Absent from the analysis was the crucial fact that obesity is undeniably bad for your health and dropping the flab is, in most cases, a very good thing. Which is to say that making money does not necessarily require evil motives and it is actually possible that some of these diet-meisters are sincerely out to improve the quality of fatties' lives - as well as their own credit ratings.

Still, to be fair, the show was entertaining. There were a few observations about the conventions of the typical diet story/advertorial that were quite amusing. One, for instance, was that the former flabster is always interviewed near water. True - and funny. I actually laughed out loud - which was a lot more than I've done while watching any ABC comedy show (except Micallef) over the last few years.

Crikey, you know the ABC's in trouble when their most po-faced, humourless journalistic crusader is actually more amusing than their finest in-house comics. I mean, have you seen that tragic Elle McFeast chick? She's about as funny as SIDS. She should be beaten to death with a rubber chicken for crimes against comedy, I reckon. Whenever her Godawful pouting mug pops up on the screen I immediately want to hurl - and I'm not even bulimic.

There ya go: new diet! Force porky people to watch dreary, witless, politically correct ABC comedy shows until they're moved to lose their lunch. How's that for a sure-fire, drug free weight-loss program? That's something David Marr might actually approve of...

Had a brush with the law (of nature) yesterday. It was pretty scary. Reminded me of just how fragile this civilization caper actually is.

I was at Burwood station, and nipped into the loo for a tinkle. As I was washing my hands there was an almighty thwock-doing! on the door, followed by some Neanderthal grunts and groans. A couple more thwock-doings followed.

I assumed the gorilla outside was just desperate for a pee. But what if he wanted to release some rage with his fists as well? If he cornered me inside the cubicle, I would have been dead meat for sure.

But I knew I had to open the door no matter what. Staying inside would just make him even more pissed off.

I yelled, "Calm down. I'm coming out!"

I gave it a second, then unlocked the door and began opening it. Just then his boot hit the door again, propelling it back againgst the wall, and grazing my thumb in the process. The no-neck almost tumbled inside, and I made my escape.

He was a mean-lookin' thing that's for sure. He wasn't a skinhead, but had a malevolent, thick-browed Romper Stomper ambience about him that was seriously intimdating.

He was obviously a bit of a thug. But I wasn't going to let him get away with this. If you say nothing they never learn, right?

Voice trembling, I said, "I'm gonna report you!"

I walked over to the turnstiles and told these two guards about what had happened. They seemed reluctant to have to deal with this.

We found him in one of the walk-ups to a platform. They gave him a half-hearted dressing down. And I followed up by telling him he should learn some manners and be more patient.

He apologised, but there was no real contrition in his voice (or any emotion for that matter). He just knew he had to say this to get us off his back so he could hop on the next train and go and commit his next petty crime.

I thanked the guards and left. I felt that at least I'd made an effort to show him that this behaviour was not on. Still he'd gotten away with it pretty easily.

I knew that this guy, like so many others, was beyond hope. And that if he hadn't already caused some serious damage to someone he certainly would do so sooner or later. If he was willing to use physical force in his quest to empty his bladder, then surely he would have little hesitation in doing the same to empty other, er, nearby parts of his anatomy.

But how did he get like this? Obviously from bad, or absent parenting when he was a tacker, and then bad, or absent guidance from the state as he became an adult. He knew that he could more or less do whatever he wanted and not suffer any real consequences.

Bloody sad, really. There are heaps of people like him nowadays. This is why the "society is to blame" crowd really shits me. They think it's an excess of authority that creates criminals, when clearly it's the other way around. There's nothing noble about a savage, after all.

Things are bad enough in this country now. But imagine if these pinko plonkers really got hold of the reins where it counts?

Gawd. I don't even want to think about it.

More thoughts on "sponsorship" of arty wankers: If you go here, you'll see a site for a Freo street performer festival. You'll notice the Smoke Free WA logo in the top right hand corner. Obvious question: "Does this guy look like a non-smoker?"

On another page you see some of the other performers. There's a reminder: "Buskers do this for a living. Please remember to show your support."

Two points: Firstly, no they don't do this for a "living". They submit their dole forms, or sell drugs, or live remora-like off their girlfriends (while schtupping anything with a pulse behind their their backs)... for a "living".

Secondly, even though it's inaccurate this little exhortation is revealing. It shows that the performers are receiving no money from the sponsors for their efforts. So, in that case, why call them sponsors?

This begs the question: who is getting paid? Bureaucrats, that's who.
Smug, lazy, often incompetent bureaucrats, whose purported function is to "empower artists" and make sure that there is "equality".

How ironic is that?

Lefties quack on endlessly about low wages for immigrants in factories etc. But I'd say the exploitation in Artsville is as bad, or worse. Workers in sweatshops get paid very little. But artists in festivals get absolutely buggerall! Why aren't the fluffs complaining about that? Because they're too busy doing the exploiting, that's why.

Hey, Smoke Free WA. I hope you burn in hell! And street performers, you deserve what you get, 'cause you're just a pack of bloody clowns!

Couple more thought on those photos from the Hussein family album: Tim Blair makes the good point that Saddamite appeaseniks have it both ways when carping about "undignified" images from the war.

Also, why are the fluffs only complaining now, in the case of a pair of sadistic thugs? You see shots of brutally murdered, poverty-stricken people all the time in the media, and they invariably remain silent.

This can only mean one thing: That fluffs believe oppressed people have no human dignity.

Fucking barbarians.

Interesting report on the decision to release them gory snaps of Saddam's vile sprogs.

Apparently some tight-arsed Teutons have got their lederhosen all in a loop over it. The Feral reports that "an editorial to appear in tomorrow's Frankfurter Rundschau, a liberal German daily, criticises the photos.

'We're talking about human dignity,' the paper wrote."

Human dignity? But they weren't human.

The report continues: "'Independent of the crimes that Uday and Qusay were accused of, the display represents a violation of the basic principles of the civilised world.'"

Yeah, sure, like the Krauts can talk...

Great post on the use of the word "tolerance" from Steve Edwards (via Gareth Parker).

You've probably heard already that tossing off can lead to a longer, healthier life due to a decreased risk of prostate cancer. But not many people know that it's not just literal lizard-gallopers who benefit. Metaphorical pud-pullers reap the rewards as well! Take former PM and current "National Treasure" Whitlam, for instance. He's one of the most stupendous intellectual wankers in our history. And he's still hale and hearty thirty years after his fantasies were realised (briefly, thank fuck). Then there's his former nemesis and present fellow traveller Malcolm Fraser, who regularly joins him and many others in sate-funded circle-jerks.

And while we're on that Gough subject: It's recently been revealed that pop idol and celeb Tim Freedman avidly follows in his ageing idol's figurative hand-slaps (scroll down to Tuesday's post). If history is any guide, in twenty years this wanker will also be deemed a "National Treasure". Crikey, even his most famous hit has a masturbation theme.

The Sydney Mourning Feral reports that Ken Park is being screened at secret locations around the city. Kind of funny, really. You've got to ask, what was the point of banning it, then busting up the screening (and also protesting the ban) in the first place if this was sure to happen (er, which it was... because it did)?

But then, the Government censors had to stand by their decision and send the coppers around to show (albeit just once) that they were serious. Otherwise they all would've looked like a bunch of total wusses.

It's the ones who risked arrest by defying the ban who looked particularly silly. They knew it would be freely available. They even said so at their attempted screening. So, in that case, why protest? Pretty dumb when you think about it.

I mean, there are heaps of laws that people disobey all the time (the one against jay-walking for example). But nobody arcs up about them because it's not worth the effort to do so. We just go on breaking 'em and the cops just go on turning a blind eye. So, same with censorship. Was the fiasco in Balmain a week or two back really justified?

I know this may seem an odd thing for an anti-censorship zealot to say. But my attitude is: So a bunch of tight-arses in Canberra managed to ban a film. They'll do it again a few months down the track. By the time Howard goes (perhaps a decade from now if the present is any guide) another twenty films will have been banned. So what? It's not the end of the world.

The censorship we really need to address is the far more pervasive, destructive force of political correctness, which has already retarded the emotional and intellectual development of a significant proportion of an entire generation, and could do far more damage if left unchecked.

But back to the secretive screenings: One wonders what the appeal is for all these new viewers. I personally think it's that assorted plonkers and squits can now kid themselves that they're doing something weally, weally couwageous under the jackbooted reign of Herr Howard - kind of like being in the French Resistence. Bet some of them even wore berets to the screenings! (Why not? You see them doing so on the streets of Newtown all the time.)

Heard about these Moreton Bay figs getting removed to make way for some on or off-ramp near the city, and the subsequent furore. But why are the ferndies arcing up about it? I would have thought that being a tree smack bang in the middle of all that smog and noise and concrete and metal would have been a truly shockin' existence, hardly conducive to botanical, er, self-actualisiation. Surely, any true greenie progressive would have seen the mass chop as a kind of leafenasia, wouldn't he?

Tim Blair's latest Bulletin column has this pithy paragraph: "A lot more addicts would probably visit Sydney's heroin injecting rooms if they were allowed to smoke there. Just a thought."

Although this bizarre state of affairs may be due mainly to bureaucratic pettifogging, it still illustrates a wider truth: The same people who push for smack legalisation are out to ban tobacco. What a cack!

I had an experience related to a similar double standard while doing a comedy show over in the west. Because the theatre I was using was sponsored by Smoke Free WA I had to sign a form saying that smoking would not be endorsed in any way in the work (I kid you not!). So, not only did real, living breathing people have to cease puffing in the theatre (fair enough I suppose) but the fictional characters on stage had to as well. (Or, if they didn't, the actors had to use fake durries, and pretend to get cancer and die or something.) This was pretty funny, because luvvies and theatre-goers are more heavily into fag-puffing (and bong-suckling and booze-guzzling) than any other demographic there is.

Not only that, but the bar at the theatre had these beer coasters with a Smoke Free WA logo on them (I've still got one somewhere). So the anti-nicotine lobby was not only not condemning aclohol, it was actively endorsing its consumption!

They might as well have broadcast radio ads saying, "Don't smoke, but have a beer on us... Keep your lungs pure at all cost. But your livers? Ah, fuck 'em!"

But back to the injecting rooms: For the fluff, smoking tobacco is not on, because of the immense corporate power of Big Tobacco. But smack, being a cool, anti-establishment drug, is worthy of tolerance.

My guess is that if the fluffs ever do get their way and the heroin industry does become fully legalised - and subequently corporatised - then they'll will want it banned for that very reason. Then legalising tobacco (forbidden due to their efforts) will be the next big cause for them.

Leftism. It's not just different strokes for different folks. It's different standards for different folks, depending upon what "mainstream" folks are doing. That is, fluffs see what most people endorse in a free and democratic society and selectively advocate the opposite no matter what.

Malcolm Knox surpasses himself in another bizarre anti-American rant in today's SMH. It's loaded with vitriol and bitchery, but no evidence, reason or logic whatsoever.

Perhaps the funniest part is the one implying that the US is less democratic than Iraq. He writes that Saddam "certainly wasn't a leader with 100 per cent electoral approval, as he claimed, but then in a free election he'd still likely have won more votes than the 24 per cent of Americans who voted for George Bush".

Gawd.

I once saw a very amusing photo of some bong-suckling ol' hippy in a San Francisco demo with a placard which read, "At least Saddam was elected". That was funny enough. But then, you'd expect to see such idiocy at a gathering of the loony left. Now, that sentiment is being expressed in the opinion pages of a major newspaper.

What next? The WTC attack was a CIA frame-up?

There's another good article in the SMH on taboos and censorship, this time from Miranda Devine.

In it, she describes the Germainiac's latest book, which espouses a kind of PC-pedophilia (that between nasty ol' leftie harridans and teenage boys).

Devine's article is spot on. Under the supposedly sophisticated taboo-breaking of many "artists" and "thinkers" is a truly malicious, primitive desire to tear down what better, more principled people have created.

Of course the same intellectually and emotionally retarded lefties who were baying for Hollingworth's blood will now be defending the likes of Greer. Their definition of freedom of speech is the right to shout other people down.

They intentionally create a state of chaos and degradation (or worsen that which already exists) and then complain about it, blaming the "establishment" or "the patriarchy" - whoever the hell they are! - for the problem. Then they appoint themselves as moral exemplars who can salvage the situation. And we end up paying them for it!

Ugh! It makes your skin walk.

There's a good article by Paddy McGuinness in today's SMH about the hypocrisy of so-called anti-censorship advocates. I agree with his sentiment. The squitterati are the most censorious people I've ever met.

Artsville is a hotbed of often subtle but nonetheless pervasive censorship. There are certain things you JUST DO NOT SAY in the interests of keeping your nice cozy place in the state-subsidised gravy train.

Here are a few:

"I voted for John Howard."

"That Phillip Ruddock seems like a nice fellow."

"The invasion of Iraq was justified."

"Feminism isn't an admirable movement that's gone too far. It's just plain nasty, puerile and wrong."

"Terrorists are not brave freedom-fighters but cowardly mass murderers. Coalition soldiers are not monsters but courageous and principled people."

"Australia is not the most racist country in the world. It's clearly one of the least."

"Bob Brown is a bonehead. Carmen Lawrence is a nasty, duplicitous totalitarian. Natasha Stott Despoja is a blonde joke."

"ATSIC is rotten through. Give it the heave-ho."

"Robyn Archer is a talentless dyke. Barrie Kosky is an infantile tosser."

"There is a difference between right and wrong."

There are many others, but I think you get the drift. In dealing with such dissent, fartists will usually employ one or more of these three techniques: assemble in a pack and hector you into silence or conformity; sneer, roll their eyes and look at you funny whenever they see you from then on; or quietly scuttle off to pull strings and make damn sure that you don't get gigs any more - or at least progress no further than you have already. As a result of this deadening pall of PC Artsville is the dullest, most unimaginative joint there is. You'd find more creativity in the catatonia ward at the local old people's home.

So, to Ken Park: Although I ultimately disagree with the decision to ban the film, at least the censorship was clear and overt. The people who came across well in this case were the coppers, who performed their jobs efficiently and reasonably.

The "freedom (of expression) fighters"? They appeared comical and childish.

I'm sure they thought they looked incredibly brave, standing up to these appallingly oppressive forces. But the whole event had the air of an amateur pantomime. Marr et al seemed like a bunch of tipsy Rotarians at an end-of-convention play night, (badly) re-enacting the fall of the Bastille.

And Marr was the guy with the numbers. He also used his media connections to make damn sure his actions would be broadcast. In his inimitably smug and pompous way he got up and declaimed, "So it comes to this..."

No. It didn't come to this. The squitterati brought it to this. They wanted this to happen! (Aagh! Why can't they just be bloody honest about it? It's like when the ABC denies political bias. Why don't they just friggin'-well admit what everybody knows anyway? If they did that then heaps more people would have a lot more respect for them.)

The Ken Park crowd could have obeyed the law, while raising objections - a far more civilized way of doing things. But the squitterati, malevolent and cowardly by nature, always push things to the limit and beyond. In this they were like the (mostly younger) quarter-wits of the anti-globo and ferndamentalist movements, who go out of their way to provoke their quackolytes into violent action so that the coppers have to give 'em a good ol' thwocking. Then they turn to the waiting cameras and whine, "See, they're fascists. We've been monstered. Ooooh, pity us!"

This was why they got a female celeb (Pomeranz) to flick the switch. They knew that having that well-known, well-loved media bimbo commit the trangression, it would make the cops' actions seem particularly unreasonable. (Also, they knew the chances of her actually being thrown in the slammer were next to nothing. Imagine the outcry if that had happened! So, not such a brave move after all.)

This ploy was typical of their hypocrisy. Squits bang on endlessly about the inherent unfairness of the media and the cult of celebrity yet take advantage of exactly these things whenever it suits them.

I could say more, but I have to go out and earn some bucks.

My final point: censorship should be, er, banned. (Not the contradiction it initially appears.) And it should be banned everywhere, not just where the fluffs think it should be.

Just a note to say that I'm doing a comedy/character gig this Tuesday night, 9.30-ish at the Friend in Hand Hotel, 58 Cowper Street Glebe.
There will be poets there as well. I've seen a couple of them perform before and they are pretty risque and politically incorrect. They perform poetry that rhymes.

Just found this list via Hot Buttered Death.

The fear I find most ironic is "phobophobia". That must have been what FDR was talking about when he said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Then of course there's the love of fear. I presume that's called "phobophilia" (or perhaps "philiphobia"?). Whatever, the compiler of the phobia list obviously suffers from this condition.

Ananova reports that, contrary to the stereotype of the hot-tempered, spontaneous Latin lover, most Spaniards make appointments for sex.

Crikey. Next we'll learn that the Brits are often late for theirs!

Before I start posting again I just want to check I can add a link. Since this is such an old browser, it doesn't have that little globe icon and stuff. So, here's one to my other blog.

Finally on the internet and able to post from home! Yay. All of my other posts were done in cafes and libraries. Still, I've got Windows 95, so it's pretty basic.

I know it's pathetic to be so far behind the pack. But it's kind of the story of my life. I only really discovered the internet about 5 years ago, and first got an e-mail address in about 1999 or 2000. Now, I'm blogging regularly, but just as I feel comfortable with Blogger and have some idea of how to promote my blog, everyone else moves to Movable Type!

By the time I get comment boxes and stuff, everyone else will have wireless connections and be downloading shots from their mobiles.

Right, I've finally gotten around to putting a hit counter here to see if there are any people out there except myself, my shrink, and a few other bloggers who have actually accessed this page. Here's hoping!

I thought that dancing with cats was weird enough. But now some barking mad Noo Yawkers are practising yoga with dogs. No kidding.

The article describes the actions of the well intentioned owners: "From time to time, they paused to pull the wandering dogs back to their mats and shush their barks."

Shush their barks? Doesn't sound like it's calming them down. The opposite, more like. Which just goes to show that, er, one human's serenity is most canine's anxiety. How ironic is that? If this trend catches on there'll be heaps of paw-biting pooches wandering the streets of the Big Apple.

Could be justification for a massive animal rights class action in a few years, don't you reckon?

Yep, it does. Phew. I find all this technology really daunting. I'm still learning how to send sms messages on my mobile.

Wow. This has all been redesigned and stuff. Looks completely new. Hope it all still works.

This Eric Hoffer was an interesting fellow.

Leftist-feminists who say that abortion is not a moral issue and should be completely legal say it's disgusting for pro-life zealots to hold up photos of aborted fetuses to make their point. So, why is it okay for leftist-greenies (who would also be overwhelmingly pro-abortion) to use an even more confronting tactic when denouncing whaling?

Not only are these ferndies extremely hypocritical; they're also more concerned about the lives of adult cetaceans than those of the youngest, most vulnerable humans.

What a pack of half-people!

Whenever a newspaper cites results of some survey about attitudes to sex and relationships, it's almost always crap. Take this one, on the dreams and aspirations of Brit-blokes. It paints a very rosy picture of young fellas being eternally faithful and comprehensively SNAG-ified. It uses a trendy new term to describe them: "metrosexuals".

Yet if you have a squizz here, a different picture emerges. (Okay, the two lumps of data aren't quantifying the same thing. Still, you can make some relevant comparisons between them, I reckon.)

Just on that first survey: The blokes questioned were big fans of cute-as-a-button Felicity Kendal, star of that ancient sit-com The Good Life. Doesn't that make them retro-sexuals? (Me? I'm pomo-phobic.)

Also, the article says that the research shows that "Modern British men have accepted the feminist revolution of the past 30 years... Nearly three-quarters agree that women should get equal pay for equal work." Since when was feminism about equal pay for equal work? All the bolshie bimbos I've ever met want to be rewarded hugely for doing sweet fuck-all.

This story is almost a week old now. But I reckon it's a real cack. The citizens of Singapore take public hygeine so seriously that they have a rating of public shithouses called "Happy Toilet".

That name cracks me up. Sounds like the title of a kinky German porn vid, don't you reckon?

(I know, I know. I'm a sick puppy.)

Have been surfing the Yahoo comment boards of late, and posting a bit - mainly in the hope that people will end up here via my Yahoo Geocities site.

Re the boards: they're fascinating. You really get a good sense of the sheer limitlessness of fluffy wuffy idiocy. For instance under a story about Bush visiting a Nazi death camp and being moved to tears, one fluffy wuffy wrote:

“When will a patriotic Lee Harvey Oswald come forward and release America from the evil Bush/Cheney regime that threatens to destroy the American way of life and substitute the fascism that Bush's hero Hitler so envisioned? This semi-retarded fascist that was 'appointed' president will be the person who kills all that America stands for!”

When I read it the post had 16 recommendations.

At first, I thought it had to be a joke. But considering how often you read similar sentiments nowadays, I don't think it was.

This was scary, and a bit sad. I mean, crikey, the poster was seriously suggesting that Bush - who now enjoys record popularity in the freest, most open society on Earth, and who just toppled two tyrannical regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq with amazing speed and incredibly low casualties on both sides - is a Nazi! Not only that, the quarterwit poster was seriously praying that someone would assassinate Dubya. And at least 16 readers agreed with this sentiment!

Obviously, there are heaps of people out there who've been watching way too many Oliver Stone movies. (And on that note, why did the poster invoke Oswald’s name, as if he actually killed JFK? Isn't the appeasenik-liberal's line on that event that he was “just the patsy” for the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans etc?) I use mixed metaphors occasionally. But these guys suffer from confused conspiracy syndrome!

They just get funnier every day.