Friday, October 10, 2003

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"?

Wednesday, October 08, 2003

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.

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

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!

Monday, October 06, 2003

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!

Sunday, October 05, 2003

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.