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.