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.