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.

Still on the subject of nakedness and, er, "art": Here's a story about how some arty plonkers provoked violence by nuding up and gettin' frisky in front of a church during a papal visit.

Deserve what they got, I reckon. And how boring! It's the oldest ploy in the book: provoke the Christian church with nudity and sex, then squawk "oppression" when the Goddites arc up about it.

They should do something really ballsy and perform their passion play inside a Muslim mosque. Now, I'd pay to see what happens to them then. That would really be entertainment!

Looks like this Spencer Tunick fellow will be stuck forever in his blue period.

Just a note to say I've got another blog running on the subject of fame.

Gawd. More silly celebrity squittering! Now Babs Streisand is suing over ultra-distant aerial-mapping shots that just happen to include her estate.

The lawsuit's not only frivolous, but paranoid beyond belief. It's odd that she should complain about stalkers now having a map into her place. Aren't they indispensable to the major celebrity nowadays, kind of like eating disorders and childhood abuse? She should be thankful for the chance of some more publicity!

Just read a rather interesting article about a long running survey about the social effects of porn and clicked a link to the survey. When I declined to take part in it, I was taken to a Disney site.

Now, when you're automatically taken from one site to another, that usually means that money's changing hands, doesn't it? Which begs the question: What the hell's Disney doing funding a porn survey? Could this be a front for some kind of market research? Will we soon see an X-rated version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves? Crikey, the internet has loosened up people's mores hasn't it!

(Okay, maybe this says more about my sick and twisted psyche than anything else. Still, from porn to Disney. Weird, eh?)

Just a thought on that "moral turpitude" claim of Simple Simon Crean's: Reminds me of the time Pauline Hanson said "please explain" when confronted with the word "xenophobic". The fluffy wuffy media seized on it as a symbol of her stupidity. Yet surely to use a term and not know its meaning is even friggin' dumber.

Is "moral turpitude" going to become the next "please explain"? It should, but it won't, of course. Why? Because primitive, tribal squits will never attack one of their own. They always employ a double standard best described as moral turditude.

In Mexico women really are oppressed. Selectively murdered in their hundreds in fact. Yet smug feminist bimbos in Oz and other rich, industrialised nations continue to complain that blonde jokes and innapropriate suffixes constitute oppression.

Gawd.

Appeaseniks said the Seppolian war on Iraq wasn't a war of liberation, but one of occupation. Then when (newly freed) people went spacko, looting and rioting all over the joint, they blamed the Seppos again - this time for not occupying the joint forcefully enough.

Now, Iraqi citizens are killing former Baath Party members, frustrated that the occupying forces are too leniant on their old oppressors. This makes a mockery of both the pre-war appeasenik claim that while Saddam was "bad news" (Pilger's words) he wasn't that bad; and the mid-war claim that the Seppos were more brutal than his regime.

My guess is that now we'll see the lefties have it both ways again. That is, if the coalition steps in to stop the murders, the appeaseniks will whine about it, wheeling out the ol' occupation rant. And if they do nothing, it'll be, "They're turning a blind eye to revenge killing. How brutal!"

One interesting fact is that Iraqis have been killing formerly lauded, Saddam-friendly artists. As the story states, "The singer Daoud Qais, known for his odes to Hussein, was shot dead on Saturday. So was the president of the Iraqi Artists Union."

Sounds like fun. Why can't we do a bit of that here?

Just a note to say I've got a conventional website started. Have a squizz if you like. It's pretty basic now, but one day it will be bigger than Yahoo, I promise.

Senator Andrew Fartlett claims he doesn't know which planet the Howard Government is living on. Well, it's certainly not the Daily Planet. My guess is it's a little blue dot called Earth. Earth, upon which they have their feet firmly planted.

And Fartlett's celestial abode? A weird joint, that's for sure. One in which chooks rule the roost; where every night's a hen's night; where the birds have more rights than the men - and I'm not talking feminism. I don't know what it's called, but whoever lives there can go an' get plucked!

(For more gratuitous Fartlett-bashing chook-jokes, go here.)

Some columnists sarcastically refer to Islam as "the religion of peace". In the same vein perhaps we should now call Labor "the party of peace".

Excellent article on why universities are such good breeding grounds for leftist puerility.

I don't want to sound like a real wowser. But this next post may make me seem like one. (Actually, I like to think of myself as the opposite: a hepcat libertarian. Once, in an attempt to show my cred in this regard, I wrote an article espousing the rights of people to get really kinky and wee over each other if they so desired - and I wasn't taking the piss! Er, nor did I in researching the article, I hasten to add.)

So I'm all for people doing, and watching, what they wish. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be limits. Like, earlier today I was in a public library. I saw this strange-lookin' bloke with shockin' BO on the PC next to me. He was openly downloading porn!

Of course, technically, smut surfing was not allowed there. But then neither was chatting or e-mail. People circumvent those laws all the time. So he wasn't the only one infringing library policy. (And I suppose you can be too tight-arsed about it. Cops can't enforce even one tenth of all the laws that are written. So what hope have librarians? Anyway, I said nothing. So who am I to judge?) Still, what amazed me was the guy's brazenness, and the staff's complete acceptance of it.

So, where do we draw the line? It seems like this is a bit of a curly question for the anti-censorship zealot. It's like asking if it's censorship to say you can't shout "Fire!" in a public theatre if there's no fire. That was asked heaps in days of yore, when the Seppos were framing their Bill of Rights. So, now in the no-shame noughties the question is, "Is it censorship to demand that library-goers don't download porn?"

Crikey, I dunno. But I do know one thing for sure: If the perv in question whops it out there and then and starts going for it, you're definitely within your rights to complain!

Here's a perfect example of Sydney Morning Herald "journalism". Throw some muck and simultaneously report that muck was thrown!

Succombe's final paragraph offers a template that can be tinkered with a little to sum up the relentless media campaign (now incorporating the callous exploitation of a recently deceased woman's rape allegations) against the G-G:

"It's a long time since loathsome Labor MPs and media mediocrities have been so gleeful, no doubt because they can tar the PM with the same muck that they've slapped all over the hapless Hollingworth, since they're clearly more concerned about exploiting pedophilia to denigrate their enemies than protecting the young victims of it."

Here's a good story on comedian Dennis Miller, one of the few well-known Seppolian performers with the balls and intelligence to, er, standup for Dubya.

Here in Oz, however, there are no right-wing comedians at all. (Er, except me, of course. But I'm hardly famous. I realised that to be a success you have to be either a beaming airhead or a perpetually stoned Stalinist. So I gave up the stage for a while and took up blogging. It's a much better means of self-expression. You've got an audience who can think; you're not gonna be ripped off by the promoter; and you get to sit down while you work. Still, buggerall money in it.)

Boffins have discovered the world's smallest seahorse. I can't wait for them to find its jockey!

Another thought on the Hunt for Hollingworth: It's interesting that when Bill Heffernan abused parliamentary privelege to slime Michael Kirby not so long ago, there was a lot of fluffy-huffing about Heffernan's mollusc-like cowardice, and wuffy-puffing about Kirby's lion-like dignity in the face of such a scurrilous attack. (It was one of the few times I shared their basic sentiments, by the way.)

The hacks did go overboard, though. They really went for the Liberal senator with a vengeance. I distinctly recall one scene (on the ABC, I think) of the Heffster running down a staircase pursued by baying TV bloodhounds.

But now, in a situation which is very similar - except that the victim is one of their enemies - the fluffs continue to go the G-G with renewed vigour, while laying off that scum-sucking mud-fucker Lindsay Tanner.

But it's hardly surprising. Turds of a feather slime together, after all. (Okay, so it's a mixed metaphor, since turds ain't birds, and don't have feathers. Still, it conveys my disgust at their repulsive behaviour.)

Just a thought on this Hollingworth scandal: I haven't followed it much and I don't really know what's going on. So I'll refrain from signing up for either the "go" or "stay" camp for now. But I'll give the fluffs a kick for their inconsistency. I've heard some say he's a disgrace to the office of Governor General, yet I've also heard them say the office itself is completely irrelevant. How can you disgrace an irrelevance?

If, as good fluffy wuffy progressives they are against all them fusty institutions, shouldn't they be saying, "See, we told you so. The conservative crowd is full of dodgy old pedophile protectors! So let's get rid of him and his office." But no, they don't. They manage to be outraged both ways. "Get rid of Hollingworth and replace him with someone more progressive!"

Crikey, make up yer minds will ya!

Baath Party bio-terror babe Mrs Anthrax captured! Have a look at the photo. I think she looks creepily like the noted flashbulb addict and super-fluff Susan Sarandon. If they are the same person it would explain a lot, don't you reckon?

Here's evidence that violent lyrics increase aggression in the listeners. Maybe, but there's nothing that makes my blood boil more than some godawful hippy-dippy meditation CD of whale song, willow weep and bird chirp!

Gawd. The sex-mad Seppos of San-Fran are holding (or should that be gripping?) a "Masturbate-a-thon". But patriotic Aussie pud-pullers shouldn't feel left behind. We have our own regular version called Critical Mass, on the ABC.

Another parody of that ridiculous Dixie Chicks nude mag cover. (If it doesn't take you straight there, search for "Dixie Chicks".)

And re that: I've often wondered why celebs so often become liberal activists. Sure they're deluded, but are their actions genuine? That is, are some of them good, serious people who see the chance at making some meaningful impact? And is the nudity "statement" just an extreme form of that impulse?

Nup. I think even a "maybe" to that would be giving them way too much credit. They're just exhibitionists. They sing or dance or act to feed their giant egos. And they make political statements to feed their giant egos. They don't believe in anything except their own importance. And they don't think anything has any value unless it makes people look at them. Hence the activist nudity trend. It's the ultimate in exhibitionism.

Here's another reason to think twice before lighting a joint. I've watched heaps of bong-sucklers over the years and have always thought the "dope is benign" argument was a steaming crock of twang. In fact, I think that myth is one of the dangers. We all know that alcohol can be damaging so most people who drink do it responsibly. But the cone-heads indulge much more heavily because there is a whole army of dopey dope-apologists determined to deny its dangers.

I mean, most people would consider someone who knocked back a beer or a toddy first thing in the morning to have a major problem. But in the smoky world of the alternative lifestyler, a regular bong for brekkie is considered just fine and dandy.

Knowing how pompous and annoying so many Hollywood stars are wouldn't the more appropriate title for this story be something like, "Sod off flashbulb addicts!"?

I found this story via Bernard Slattery's blog. It's fascinating. The William Morris agency has closed down a website dedicated to slagging off the posturing pinheads on their books. Of course, that odious army of pampered flashbulb addicts will continue to squawk that they are the ones being muzzled, while turning a blind eye to all the censorship (both overt and covert) that their fellow travellers continue to practise in their name.

Gawd. Now dopey Kev Costner joins the Hollywood appeasenik crowd. This article states that Kev believes that "Robbins and Sarandon shouldn't be viewed as targets by those supporting the war in Iraq".

I agree. They should be viewed as targets by those who fought the war in Iraq, then shot at with live ammo!

During a speech to the Seppolian forces in Qatar, Rummy sticks it right up the squitterati.

Here's part of what he had to say: "You know, during World War II, Winston Churchill was talking about the Battle of Britain and he said, 'Never have so many owed so much to so few.' A humorist in Washington . . . sent me a note paraphrasing that [in which] he said, 'Never have so many been so wrong about so much.' "

That last line is a pearler. Funny thing is, they'll probably get even wronger as the weeks progress.

Tammy Bruce, ex-fluff, describes many in the "Elite Left" as malignant narcissists. A well-respected prof uses the same description for Saddam Hussein. That might go some way to explaining why they were so sympathetic to -- if not overtly supportive of -- his regime.

Fluffs have quacked on endlessly about there being no link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda. But recently discovered official files show otherwise.

Apparently a bin Laden envoy lobbed in Iraq for some tea, scones and a nice little chat a few years ago. Trying to keep the meeting secret, the Iraqis tried to erase evidence of the meeting. As the article states: "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."

Says heaps about Saddam's workplace culture. These guys were highly accomplished at making people vanish without a trace, but not so good with ink. Yet fluffs will still look at a corrupt corporate culture incapable of the former and adept at the latter as the infinitely more evil one. Good to know they've got their priorities straight.

So Monica's hosting a reality TV show. It's called Mr Personality. Ironic that, since the epithet would have been appropriate for the fella who bestowed fame upon her in the first place. Which begs the question: When will Clinton himself come out with his own tacky TV show?

Good article on the Left's unsurprisingly way-off predictions about the war. Included are some details of Saddam's training methods. These included a Young Pioneer-like institution called "Saddam's Lion Cubs". (Like commies and fascists he saw the benefits of getting 'em while they were young.) One of the tests of strength included making the wannabe torturers (who were true whippersnappers) to eviscerate dogs with their bare hands.

Charming.

Maybe if the lefties had heard about this earlier, they would have supported the war on the grounds of the regime's cruelty to animals?

Professor Bunyip and ABC Watch have been getting stuck into Guy Rundle over his clearly stated desire for more bloodshed in the Middle East. Bunyip uses the term "moral void" to describe the core of Rundle's psyche.

Void. Spot on. That's the term that so often comes to my mind when watching the fluffs. It's not that they're evil. They're just vacuous. Examine their ideology, peel back the layers and what have you got at the end of it all? A big fat lump of nothin'.

And nothin' placed next to somethin' creates a vacuum. Fluffs suck, big time.

They can only ever express themselves with negatives and condemnation. No war, no greenhouse gas emissions, no capitalism, no billboards of spunky nude chicks, no marriage, no inappropriate suffixes, etc. No to this; no to that.

I remember listening to a tape of the bong-suckling barbarian Abbie Hoffman yelling "Just say no!" to a crowd of sixties' fluffs. I thought the guy was a complete tosser. But the fluff I was with at the time found the speech incredibly inspiring. I subsequently discovered why: there was a void at the core of her heart. Just as there was a void at the core of Hoffman's, and pretty well all lefties' for that matter.

They live to negate, to deny, to accuse. But what do they ever say yes to? Another big fat lump of nothin'.

(Sure, they occasionally claim that they're for things -- "peace" for instance. But the "peace" they endorse usually means tyranny. And when they say they believe in freedom, that's freedom from responsibility, not freedom with responsibility. Big difference.)

Fluffs are like fillum critics. The screenwriter and director can create art without the critic. But the critic needs a fillum to eviscerate to have an identity. Similarly, fluffs are nothing without a successful, humane and principled civilization to bitch and moan about.

This is the essence of fluffy wuffism. It's the nasty, nihilistic desire to tear down what better, braver, kinder people have created.

The feisty feminist sheilas obviously like this fillum. But isn't the title a tad, er, sexist? I mean, if real women have curves, then doesn't it imply that skinny chicks are fake?

Does this mean that waif-like feminist icon Susan Faludi will no longer be revered by the sisterhood? Gawd, we could be in for a PC paradigm shift!

For what it's worth my opinion on the whole cellulite caper is: all chicks are real (or should I say, unreal). Fat ones, skinny ones, all them in-betwinny ones. Doesn't matter to me. I'm an equal opportunity voyeur.

Maybe the "Misinformation Minister" wasn't such a positive thinker after all.

Lily-livered New Age puritans are forever railing against the dangers of alcohol and coffee while espousing the health-giving properties of peppermint tea. But if you talk to the people who drink it you quickly realise it's a far more dangerous substance, capable of reducing sane adults to dribbling, infantile saps after only days of regular consumption. In fact, it would appear that peppermint tea damages the nervous system as severely as a stroke does.

Interestingly, what's the best way to prevent stroke damage? Well, coffee and plonk of course -- imbibed simultaneously!

Makes a spooky kind of sense doesn't it?

A good piece on possible reasons for the non-use of chemical weapons by Saddam.

Carlton Lite's latest gargle illustrates just how morally and intellectually adrift the fluffs are at the moment. The first part is the usual: Dubya is the morally absolutist cowboy out to rule the world, in league with the "Prince of Darkness" (a morally absolutist epithet if ever there was one); these evil right-wingers are lying when they regret civilian casualties; and Carlton is so so jaded, so world-weary, blah, blah fucken blah, pass the Bollinger, etc...

The last section is a vaguely amusing comedy sketch mocking Mohammed Sahaf. In the first line of Sahaf's Lite actually parodies the stance he himself sympathisies with in the first section (the idea of the "criminal Bush-Rumsfeld Zionist conspiracy"). Ironically, the sketch gets closer to the truth than the first part: that Saddam's lackeys were corrupt and deluded to a surreal degree; part of a cruel and cowardly system. It does what all jokes do (if they're not half bad): cut out the crap and get to the heart of the matter.

Strange that he can crank out both, and put them in the same column. Maybe he's trying to have a bob each way? Or maybe he really is so jaded that he just doesn't give a fuck about what's right or wrong, good or bad anymore. He's just throwing down the words on the page to justify his hefty salary, just as he yodels happily for his corporate masters at 2UE. He calls himself a "hack", but I think this title (and song) might be more appropriate.

I'm sure you've all seen these photos by now. But there's one pearler of a snap I have to say something about. I reckon it'll live in, er, anti-infamy. It's halfway down this archive and shows a couple of blokes holding a sign reading: "Go home human shields. You US wankers."

Now that's priceless. Just the kind of anti-Americanism I'm all for!

Found this story about a very unhappy polar bear via this quarter-wit's blog. He reckons it's the stifling institution of marriage that's to blame. But maybe she's just a bipolar bear? Or perhaps it's the heat, and she's got a thaw head?

Here's a funny satirical piece by Lowell Ponte about possible career opportunities for Mohammed Said Sahaf, eternal optimist. He says that the "liberal" media would love to hire him for his quirky sex appeal and PC views.

In the piece, Ponte describes him as the "Minister of Misinformation". The pun puts me in mind of another surreal tosser: this Minister of Msinformation. Maybe they could have a show of their own, not unlike this pompous pair, in which they quack on about the vile push for worldwide democracy coming out of Washington instead of crap fillums made by Hollywood?

I'm not a barking nutbar or anything, but I must admit to a growing interest in the UFO phenomenon. It is clearly a mass psychosis, and its sheer size shows just how many seriously sick puppies there are out there. Still, wouldn't it be great if it were all true?

For those of you who, like me, are hooked on this drug, here's an excellent site.

A fluffy wuffy who is close and dear to me -- no, I'm not being facetious -- described the war today: "It's a terrible business. It's just awful. I'm not going to find any joy in the outcome."

The subtext to this remark seemed to be that, well, yes it's good that Saddam Hussein is gone or going, but it's not appropriate to be happy about it.

Then I saw the elated crowds in Baghdad on the teev tonight. They held a slightly different view.

How ironic is that? Fluffs are appalled at the bombing, but the civilians of the city that was bombed are over the friggin' moon! Crikey, the fluffs are so solipsistic and sanctimonious, they won't even give (formerly) oppressed people credit for their own jubilation.

Speaking of sanctimonious solipsists: Heard Carlton Lite masturbating his larynx on the radio yesterday. He was quacking on disdainfully about the installation of an "American puppet" in the near future.

My first reaction was, well how do you know that this Iraqi will be a "puppet"? And even if he is, isn't that still an improvement on the puppet master who ran the joint before?

Weak-as-piss Carlton, like so many sad ol' lefty dreamers, clearly believes that Western capo-democracy is inferior to atavistic totalitarianism. Yet he's a deejay who makes squillions on a commerical radio station. It's hilarious! Hasn't he figured out that the very fact he can intersperse his unctuous oral advertorials with little pinko puffs of indignation and suffer no ill consequence whatsoever clearly illustrates how superior our system is to all the others on the planet -- let alone one that employs a human threshing machine to stay in power?

Obviously not.

What a tosser.

But back to the "terrible business" of war: Of course it's a terrible business. The battlefield is hardly a joyous and life-affirming work environment. And being a military commander, while not physically dangerous (er, unless you're an Iraqi one -- he, he!) is not exactly a pleasant gig. Apart from the knowledge of what you're going to do to the enemy, imagine how it feels to send your own citizens into danger? Does anyone actually believe that blokes like Rummy and Tommy Franks are actually enjoying their duties? Certainly, they are gaining satisfaction from knowing they are removing a tyrant. But I'm sure the feeling is very mixed. The worst that can be said of them is that they are looking at things in a cold and uncompromising manner, like a surgeon who looks at a gangrenous limb and realises all he can do is lop the bastard off.

Heartless? Perhaps. Cruel? No way.

John Lennon said "give peace a chance". The West does, all the time. Gave "peace" a chance for 12 years in Iraq.

I don't like the idea of violence. I'm a complete wuss. I've been known to wet myself when the pimply kid from the local video store phones to say I've got a fillum overdue. But how else do you deal with an immense group of mass-murderers and rapists who have complete control of an entire country. Send them an aromatherapy pack with affirmations? Some soap from the Body Shop? A little book of friggin' hugs?

Shit. Grow up fluffs. Evil is its own force. It's not evil to beat it down with greater force. The quicker and more thoroughly it's done, the better.

I was just scouring the Deckchair Theatre website for something to annoy me. Sure enough, I found it. (They never let me down.)

Here, on the "Late Suppers" page was this description: "THE LATE SUPPERS are an exclusive opportunity to discuss the craft of theatre with those whose work you've just enjoyed."

The obvious response to this is, why are they so damned sure you will have "just enjoyed" that night's play? Or is having a critical opinion of it a friggin' thought crime?

I just feel like having a bitch about young blokes and their dumb music. See, I'm in an internet cafe, as usual. (Still haven't gotten around to getting online from home.) This peckerhead next to me had earphones on and was playing music so loud my screen was shaking. (Well, I'm a exaggerating a little, but it was certainly clearly audible. And being the sensitive, artistic type that I am it really fucking annoyed me!)

I politely asked him to turn it down. "Eh?" he barked.

"Can you please turn it down a little?"

He lowered one of the earphones.

"Could you please turn it down? It's really loud."

He just stared back at me vacantly and said, "So?"

No change.

As I moved to another PC I made a couple of snippy comments about him having brain damage. Don't think he heard me, but.

Now, I'm proud of being very un-PC and all, and I'm more than a tad shat off with bimbo-feminist carping about men (that sentiment probably comprises half this blog, I reckon). But what is it about blokes, Walkmans, and stupid music? Whenever you hear that moronic backbeat in a train carriage or on a bus and you look around to locate its source, sure as shit it's never a woman.

Whenever I see these guys I want to say: Do you know what you're doing to your brain with that crap? (In fact, I have said that a couple of times. Either they don't hear me, or they just shrug disdainfully and turn the volume up.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a wowser. But imagine how loud that music would have to be that people several metres away can hear it and be annoyed by it? And it's always crap music. It's never Mozart, Pachelbel, or even Ray Charles now is it?

What are these guys trying to do? Is that malestrom of androgens causing them so much friggin' psychosexual angst that they just have to erase it with sound? Or is it some primal tribal thing? Or maybe it's because their neurons are so numbed already that only a thousand decibels at point blank range will do the gig?

Shit I dunno. Whatever the reason it really pisses me off. There oughta be a law, I say!

If you ever thought that fluffy wuffies were basically caring, sharing, huggy wuggy types whose only fault was their excessive zeal, then have a look at their reactions to the death of Michael Kelly.

They just glow with liberal love and goodwill.

Maybe not a smoking gun, but certainly a poisonously mouldy one.

(And re that whole WMD thing: Wasn't it nauseating to hear squits in the media carp petulantly about how long it was taking to find 'em during the war, when before it began they kept saying, "More time. More time!")

I found an amazing graph via Andrew Sullivan's blog. It shows which countries armed Iraq, and to what extent, over the last 30 years. As you'll see, Saddam acquired a large proportion of his weapons from France and Russia, two of the countries chanting, "Lay off him. He wouldn't hurt a fly!" (And contrary to the fluffy wuffy line, the Seppos have sold him close to buggerall.)

It's so revealing I'm almost suspicious of its veracity. Looks dinkum, but.

They called him "Chemical Ali". But now Ali is nothing but chemicals.

Poetic justice or what!

Hey Disney execs, you should check this story out. It says that at least one species of dinosaur habitually devoured its own kind. So they're not as cute and cuddly as that nauseating cartoon you recently inflicted upon us made them out to be.

My guess is that all dinos were so viciously cannibalistic they would have killed themselves off even if that comet hadn't hit the Yucatan Peninsula all them eons ago.

Dumb fucken lizards.

Gawd. Derek Sapphire is arcing up again -- this time about censorship. He reminds me of many bilious bolshie blowhards I've met in Artsville over the years. To them freedom of speech is the right to shout other people down.

Here's a bit of a cack. To get around anti-smoking laws, a restaurant in Noo Yawk is keeping the nicotine addicts happy by cooking meals with tobacco. It's not entirely original, since people have been eating hash cookies for yonks. A clever idea, but.

Will smack sandwiches be next?

Madonna balks at airing her explosive, Dubya-destroying fillum clip. Why?

"It was filmed before the war started, and I do not believe it is appropriate to air it at this time. Due to the volatile state of the world and out of sensitivity and respect to the armed forces, who I support and pray for, I do not want to risk offending anyone who might misinterpret the meaning of this video."

Bullshit, bimbo. You wussed out because you saw what happened to the Dixie Chicks, whose anti-war stance severely eroded their popularity and earning power.

Posturing pinko David Marr has been cranking out the corporate conspiracy line again. At some plonk-sodden toss-fest "Marr suggested that political and business 'elites' had inverted that term and directed it towards mostly poor and marginal artists. In response, literary novelists had retreated from the sharp edge of public debate."

What garbage. Arty wankers continue to squitter up a storm, dutifully squawking in crock-step with paranoid sushi-Stalinists like Marr. If some have grown silent it's probably because they've finally pulled their heads out of their arses and are actually contemplating things for a change.

The whole irony of being in Artsville is that you remain poor and marginal if you don't obey the lumpen squitterati, not if you do. (Even then you never become filthy rich, of course. Bureaucrats still nick most of the money. You do get slung a few bucks and a lump of stale gouda every now and then, but.)

This is way out of date for the blogosphere, but I just wanted to say a couple of things about the Oscars the other night: You've got to wonder about a bash that gives a fillum of pure fantasy (Bowling For Columbine) the best doco award and gives best actress honours to the insipid Nicole Kidman. Hell, the only convincing element of her performance was her friggin' nose, which was fake.

How prosthetic!

John J Ray deftly describes another good reason for invading Iraq:

"Simple: Once both Saddam and the Taliban are gone other Muslim leaders will get the message loud and clear that they must co-operate in the fight against terror or else. Simple and rational and highly desirable.

"If it was about oil why did the US intervene in Kosovo? No oil there. They intervened there for purely humanitarian reasons. If it was about oil they would have taken over Saudi Arabia. It produces more oil, has an army of only about 7,000 men and could be taken over in an afternoon. Which is why the Saudis try to be friendly of course."

And I'm sure there'll be other states who will be a lot more friendly when the war in Iraq is over.

If Whacko Jacko and Lisa Marie Presley weren't so damn super-famous, they would surely have ended up on Jerry Springer.