I was asked by someone if there was an archive where might be stored all my articles. Well, all my articles at New Matilda of course can be accessed here, and the ABC Unleashed is where you'll find my weekly wraps - though I don't know how long those stay in the system, but I thought I'd round up what I could of stuff published in other places, and link to it, for anyone who might have come in late and want to browse some of the more exotic corners of Pobjieville:
My work from Crikey, in no particular order:
On Kyle and Jackie O
On my bid to become the right-wing Philip Adams
On Kelli Underwood's AFL commentary
On Hey Hey It's Saturday
On Michael Jackson
On Tiger Woods
On Australia Day patriots
Then there was this, from The Punch:
On Twitter
This, from Christmas 2008, in The Age:
And of course, on Twins, from babble.com.au.
Also, a couple pieces from the Australian Rationalist Society's Journal - latest one here about refugees and such. And my first here, about becoming an atheist.
Hope you enjoy reading those.
Apart from online, if you were in the mood to buy real paper books you could find my ramblings in the EWF Reader, on the subject of comedy writing. Or the Death Mook, with my short story, "The Black Angel's Love Song".
Or of course, go to http://www.lulu.com/benpobjie for my own collections, or email mrbehemoth@hotmail.com to buy them direct.
Of course, if you REALLY want a handy, nationally distributed collection of my pieces, start lobbying your local publishing house to contact me IMMEDIATELY.
But until then, thanks for reading!
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
For What It's Worth
I feel compelled to comment on the sacking of Catherine Deveny from The Age. Bear with me, or ignore it if you've no interest in my being serious - God knows I would understand that. There's plenty of good commentary about anyway, probably better than mine - from Daniel Burt, for example, or even over at Pure Poison - and anyone who reads PP regularly knows they are no fans of Deveny.
I am going to make no pretence to impartiality here. Catherine Deveny is a friend of mine, so I am by no means unbiased. She's not my friend because I agree with everything she says, but she is my friend and obviously I'm likely to take her side when she gets knocked about like this. So this isn't coming from an objective place and I know it.
BUT...
For what it's worth, I'm troubled by this. Getting sacked for a couple of posts on Twitter? Really? A couple of one-line jokes?
Now, there is no point arguing about whether the jokes were funny. That's purely subjective, and an argument without a point. It's also irrelevant. Were they offensive? Undoubtedly - they clearly offended a lot of people. But then, what comedian hasn't offended someone? What opinion writer hasn't offended someone? I'm regularly offended by right-wing columnists from all parts, and I've never believed my offence was grounds for their dismissal.
And here we are talking about being offended by actual, serious arguments being put forward in articles published in newspapers - not a couple of throwaway gags of 140 characters or less. So is offending people a sin worthy of dismissal? Clearly it's not. Not even at The Age itself - Catherine's been offending people in droves for years, and they haven't kicked her to the kerb.
Tasteless jokes are common among comedians, and even commoner on Twitter. It would seem a huge overreaction for The Age to take this action based on such minor, disposable comments.
But the thing is, they didn't. The Age didn't act on the tweets. The Age acted on the "controversy". The Herald Sun whipped it up, its readers fell into lockstep behind it, and The Age went along with it.
One can't imagine this working the other way. Were The Age to report on a "storm of criticism" being sparked off by Andrew Bolt's latest vicious slurs on refugees, or to denounce, say, his characterising of Kevin Rudd as a murderer who "fries" people in roofs, one doubts the Herald Sun would feel compelled to sack Bolt in response. Au contraire, they'd probably rub their hands with glee at the controversy.
I'm not denying The Age has a right to choose its own columnists. I was kicked off the radio for making bad-taste jokes, and I never claimed the station was engaging in "censorship" for making that kind of editorial decision. But that doesn't mean the decision is right either. The Age has been dictated to by the hysteria concocted by its rivals, and I think that's a shame. They've lost a distinctive voice that, no matter what sort of reaction she provoked, always provided something different in the paper, which could only have been a good thing. And I think that's a shame too.
And this isn't an issue of whether you like Deveny, or think she's funny or not, or approved of the jokes that got her in trouble. It's an issue of whether you think Twitter jokes should be elevated to a level of importance that will lose someone their job. And it's an issue of whether you think simply causing "offence" is a sin serious enough to warrant getting the boot. I think if being offensive is not allowed, it's a rather sad turn of events for the media.
I'm not going to boycott The Age. It will remain the best paper we've got here in Melbourne. I'm just disappointed, and I respectfully disagree. I hope at some point they might reconsider and welcome Deveny back. I would urge them to.
I am going to make no pretence to impartiality here. Catherine Deveny is a friend of mine, so I am by no means unbiased. She's not my friend because I agree with everything she says, but she is my friend and obviously I'm likely to take her side when she gets knocked about like this. So this isn't coming from an objective place and I know it.
BUT...
For what it's worth, I'm troubled by this. Getting sacked for a couple of posts on Twitter? Really? A couple of one-line jokes?
Now, there is no point arguing about whether the jokes were funny. That's purely subjective, and an argument without a point. It's also irrelevant. Were they offensive? Undoubtedly - they clearly offended a lot of people. But then, what comedian hasn't offended someone? What opinion writer hasn't offended someone? I'm regularly offended by right-wing columnists from all parts, and I've never believed my offence was grounds for their dismissal.
And here we are talking about being offended by actual, serious arguments being put forward in articles published in newspapers - not a couple of throwaway gags of 140 characters or less. So is offending people a sin worthy of dismissal? Clearly it's not. Not even at The Age itself - Catherine's been offending people in droves for years, and they haven't kicked her to the kerb.
Tasteless jokes are common among comedians, and even commoner on Twitter. It would seem a huge overreaction for The Age to take this action based on such minor, disposable comments.
But the thing is, they didn't. The Age didn't act on the tweets. The Age acted on the "controversy". The Herald Sun whipped it up, its readers fell into lockstep behind it, and The Age went along with it.
One can't imagine this working the other way. Were The Age to report on a "storm of criticism" being sparked off by Andrew Bolt's latest vicious slurs on refugees, or to denounce, say, his characterising of Kevin Rudd as a murderer who "fries" people in roofs, one doubts the Herald Sun would feel compelled to sack Bolt in response. Au contraire, they'd probably rub their hands with glee at the controversy.
I'm not denying The Age has a right to choose its own columnists. I was kicked off the radio for making bad-taste jokes, and I never claimed the station was engaging in "censorship" for making that kind of editorial decision. But that doesn't mean the decision is right either. The Age has been dictated to by the hysteria concocted by its rivals, and I think that's a shame. They've lost a distinctive voice that, no matter what sort of reaction she provoked, always provided something different in the paper, which could only have been a good thing. And I think that's a shame too.
And this isn't an issue of whether you like Deveny, or think she's funny or not, or approved of the jokes that got her in trouble. It's an issue of whether you think Twitter jokes should be elevated to a level of importance that will lose someone their job. And it's an issue of whether you think simply causing "offence" is a sin serious enough to warrant getting the boot. I think if being offensive is not allowed, it's a rather sad turn of events for the media.
I'm not going to boycott The Age. It will remain the best paper we've got here in Melbourne. I'm just disappointed, and I respectfully disagree. I hope at some point they might reconsider and welcome Deveny back. I would urge them to.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Answers: It's What I Do
For countless millennia, folks have asked the question: Which is the best city in Australia?
What do you think?
OR
?
Of course, what YOU think couldn't matter less. What matters is that I have handed down my own judgment, the definitive last word on the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry.
Head over here to find out just which city is Australia's best, assuming that we're not counting Yass.
What do you think?
OR
?
Of course, what YOU think couldn't matter less. What matters is that I have handed down my own judgment, the definitive last word on the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry.
Head over here to find out just which city is Australia's best, assuming that we're not counting Yass.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
You are so GROUNDED!
So apparently, a team of "evangelical explorers" have discovered what they believe to be the remains of Noah's Ark.
Ninety-nine point nine percent certain.
That it is.
Noah's Ark.
They found some wood on a mountain, and they are 99.9 percent certain that it is Noah's Ark.
That would be the ark built to house two of every animal on earth, gathered into one place in ancient Palestine to escape a flood that COVERED THE ENTIRE PLANET.
Hey, "evangelical explorers"!
"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a member of the team said.
Ninety-nine point nine percent certain.
That it is.
Noah's Ark.
They found some wood on a mountain, and they are 99.9 percent certain that it is Noah's Ark.
That would be the ark built to house two of every animal on earth, gathered into one place in ancient Palestine to escape a flood that COVERED THE ENTIRE PLANET.
Hey, "evangelical explorers"!
Alms! Alms!
Dear Friends,
Thank you for reading my blog, I appreciate your support. Today I am making a plea for you to turn that support into something to help me realise a dream.
Here it is: I want to put up a show in next year's Melbourne International Comedy Festival. This has been an ambition and plan of mine for some years, and frankly I am sick of seeing year after year pass me by, and festival after festival go off without me in it. It's annoying, and it's frustrating, and eventually the practice of sitting around looking at other people doing something and grouching "I could do better than THAT" becomes a little sad when you're not giving it a go. There must come a point when one must just do it, or give up the dream. I do not intend to give up.
The show - at this stage named "Ben Pobjie's Funeral" is planned out, partially written, and, modesty aside, potentially a right corker, with lots of musings on life and death, social commentary, invective against irritating people, and jokes about Jesus and animal sex and stuff. What you're used to from me.
But the problem of money now presents itself. As anyone who has read one of the seven hundred newspaper articles about struggling comedians which are printed every year around Easter knows, it's quite expensive to mount a comedy festival show. It runs into the thousands, with little hope of earning it back for the enthusiastic newcomer.
And it's money I don't have. My not-having is, I admit, largely my own fault, having chosen against all respected professional advice to have children, including, madly, twins. I blame myself entirely for this impetuosity, but the fact is, the kids are here, and they're not going to go away just because I want to crack some funnies at Trades Hall.
And so, with a due sense of shame and remorse, I'm asking for your help. That's the purpose of this group. Begging is a terrible thing, but I am doing my utmost to ensure that those who donate will get SOMEthing for their trouble.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
In a bald, blunt sense. give me money. But wait! There's more!
Firstly, anyone who gives anything will be acknowledged at showtime. Anyone who goes to the show will be informed of everyone who helped the show become reality. Any donation, from one cent up, gets you a spot on the list of Official Sponsors of Ben Pobjie's Funeral.
Now, there are several ways you can help out monetarily:
Buy something from my Zazzle shop. At http://www.zazzle.com.au/mrbehemoth, you'll find Ben Pobjie merchandise. This includes both festival-specific stuff, and also, for those who prefer something less promotional, other stuff, with quotations from my work, Handy Latin Phrases and Guanacoman merch, etc. There are t-shirt and hats and mugs which are awesome and you should buy, but also badges, magnets, key-rings etc., which are much less expensive of course. Everything bought sends a percentage to me, and anything earned from the merchandise goes to the Festival Fighting Fund. So that's a way you can help out and get something that hopefully you think is pretty cool. As is...
Buying a book or CD. At http://www.lulu.com/benpobjie you'll find my books for sale, Handy Latin Phrases and The Adventures of Guanacoman. You can buy them and again, give me royalties. OR, since they'll be coming from the US, you can order them direct from me. From me, a book costs $20. Any revenue from these, again, will go to the Fighting Fund.
Or for $15, you can get my CD, Hypnoprophet, featuring my sort-of-legendary live set performed at Blue Velvet last year, and all my sort-of-beloved best-known spoken word pieces.
To get a book or CD, email mrbehemoth@hotmail.com, and you can pay via that address on paypal, or via bank deposit to:
Ben Pobjie
BSB: 303-672
Acc. no: 0037222
Or naturally just give me the money in person if you meet me, and I will hand over your goods.
Those are of course the details for any donation you might make - if you do, make sure you tell me so I can put you on the sponsors' list.
AND...
should you make a bigger donation, there are EXTRA inducements, so to speak.
For example, if you want a CD or a book, but want to pay $30, I'll personally autograph it for you. WITH REAL INK.
$30 WITHOUT buying a CD or book will get you, if you so desire, a personalised recorded message of your choice, to be used as a ringtone or a voicemail message, or just something to scare friends with at slumber parties.
$50, on the other hand, will see me write a specially dedicated poem or story JUST FOR YOU, which I will give you in text and audio form for your lasting enjoyment.
More than $50? Well, very generous of you - let's negotiate as to just what I can do for you.
WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?
Well, look, I don't expect people to throw money at me, especially because I know most people don't have a lot to spare. That's why I want to give you something for any money you do spare, and also why I understand people might not be able to. But if you could help me out anyway, that'd be great. If you could spread the word to your friends, show them my work, ask them to join the Facebook group "Get Ben Pobjie To The Comedy Festival, show 'em the merchandise, encourage them to join the Pobjie Army and help out, that'd be wonderful. If you know any people or businesses that might like to sponsor or invest in a new comedy show, that'd be great.
And those of you who are poetry and comedy bods organising nights and rooms and gigs etc, if you think I might be suitable, or if you know someone looking for talent who you could recommend me to, that would be awesome too. Looking for paid gigs obviously, but anything to help raise the profile would be great too. Any income from public performances for 2010 will go to the Festival Fighting Fund.
Also, if you can join the Facebook Group, in order to build up the public campaign, you can be my friend forever and ever!
But most importantly, if you read this blog it's because you like my work and you want to SEE this show happen. So a really huge thing you can also do to help out is, if you are at all able, actually go watch the thing next year, and also keep on spreading the word so a lot of other people will want to go see it too.
So there's my plea. I hate asking for help, especially financial help, but I'm looking to do something special here, and I do need help. I love you all, and thank you for your support - financial, moral, and all other kinds.
Keep checking back - there'll be more merchandise added to what's on offer currently, and as time goes by there'll likely be more books as well, and gigs that I hope to see you at.
Thank you for your time, and hopefully your willingness to not just roll your eyes at my fundraising efforts with a cry of "How freaking lame is THAT?"
Lots of love,
Ben
Thank you for reading my blog, I appreciate your support. Today I am making a plea for you to turn that support into something to help me realise a dream.
Here it is: I want to put up a show in next year's Melbourne International Comedy Festival. This has been an ambition and plan of mine for some years, and frankly I am sick of seeing year after year pass me by, and festival after festival go off without me in it. It's annoying, and it's frustrating, and eventually the practice of sitting around looking at other people doing something and grouching "I could do better than THAT" becomes a little sad when you're not giving it a go. There must come a point when one must just do it, or give up the dream. I do not intend to give up.
The show - at this stage named "Ben Pobjie's Funeral" is planned out, partially written, and, modesty aside, potentially a right corker, with lots of musings on life and death, social commentary, invective against irritating people, and jokes about Jesus and animal sex and stuff. What you're used to from me.
But the problem of money now presents itself. As anyone who has read one of the seven hundred newspaper articles about struggling comedians which are printed every year around Easter knows, it's quite expensive to mount a comedy festival show. It runs into the thousands, with little hope of earning it back for the enthusiastic newcomer.
And it's money I don't have. My not-having is, I admit, largely my own fault, having chosen against all respected professional advice to have children, including, madly, twins. I blame myself entirely for this impetuosity, but the fact is, the kids are here, and they're not going to go away just because I want to crack some funnies at Trades Hall.
And so, with a due sense of shame and remorse, I'm asking for your help. That's the purpose of this group. Begging is a terrible thing, but I am doing my utmost to ensure that those who donate will get SOMEthing for their trouble.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
In a bald, blunt sense. give me money. But wait! There's more!
Firstly, anyone who gives anything will be acknowledged at showtime. Anyone who goes to the show will be informed of everyone who helped the show become reality. Any donation, from one cent up, gets you a spot on the list of Official Sponsors of Ben Pobjie's Funeral.
Now, there are several ways you can help out monetarily:
Buy something from my Zazzle shop. At http://www.zazzle.com.au/mrbehemoth, you'll find Ben Pobjie merchandise. This includes both festival-specific stuff, and also, for those who prefer something less promotional, other stuff, with quotations from my work, Handy Latin Phrases and Guanacoman merch, etc. There are t-shirt and hats and mugs which are awesome and you should buy, but also badges, magnets, key-rings etc., which are much less expensive of course. Everything bought sends a percentage to me, and anything earned from the merchandise goes to the Festival Fighting Fund. So that's a way you can help out and get something that hopefully you think is pretty cool. As is...
Buying a book or CD. At http://www.lulu.com/benpobjie you'll find my books for sale, Handy Latin Phrases and The Adventures of Guanacoman. You can buy them and again, give me royalties. OR, since they'll be coming from the US, you can order them direct from me. From me, a book costs $20. Any revenue from these, again, will go to the Fighting Fund.
Or for $15, you can get my CD, Hypnoprophet, featuring my sort-of-legendary live set performed at Blue Velvet last year, and all my sort-of-beloved best-known spoken word pieces.
To get a book or CD, email mrbehemoth@hotmail.com, and you can pay via that address on paypal, or via bank deposit to:
Ben Pobjie
BSB: 303-672
Acc. no: 0037222
Or naturally just give me the money in person if you meet me, and I will hand over your goods.
Those are of course the details for any donation you might make - if you do, make sure you tell me so I can put you on the sponsors' list.
AND...
should you make a bigger donation, there are EXTRA inducements, so to speak.
For example, if you want a CD or a book, but want to pay $30, I'll personally autograph it for you. WITH REAL INK.
$30 WITHOUT buying a CD or book will get you, if you so desire, a personalised recorded message of your choice, to be used as a ringtone or a voicemail message, or just something to scare friends with at slumber parties.
$50, on the other hand, will see me write a specially dedicated poem or story JUST FOR YOU, which I will give you in text and audio form for your lasting enjoyment.
More than $50? Well, very generous of you - let's negotiate as to just what I can do for you.
WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?
Well, look, I don't expect people to throw money at me, especially because I know most people don't have a lot to spare. That's why I want to give you something for any money you do spare, and also why I understand people might not be able to. But if you could help me out anyway, that'd be great. If you could spread the word to your friends, show them my work, ask them to join the Facebook group "Get Ben Pobjie To The Comedy Festival, show 'em the merchandise, encourage them to join the Pobjie Army and help out, that'd be wonderful. If you know any people or businesses that might like to sponsor or invest in a new comedy show, that'd be great.
And those of you who are poetry and comedy bods organising nights and rooms and gigs etc, if you think I might be suitable, or if you know someone looking for talent who you could recommend me to, that would be awesome too. Looking for paid gigs obviously, but anything to help raise the profile would be great too. Any income from public performances for 2010 will go to the Festival Fighting Fund.
Also, if you can join the Facebook Group, in order to build up the public campaign, you can be my friend forever and ever!
But most importantly, if you read this blog it's because you like my work and you want to SEE this show happen. So a really huge thing you can also do to help out is, if you are at all able, actually go watch the thing next year, and also keep on spreading the word so a lot of other people will want to go see it too.
So there's my plea. I hate asking for help, especially financial help, but I'm looking to do something special here, and I do need help. I love you all, and thank you for your support - financial, moral, and all other kinds.
Keep checking back - there'll be more merchandise added to what's on offer currently, and as time goes by there'll likely be more books as well, and gigs that I hope to see you at.
Thank you for your time, and hopefully your willingness to not just roll your eyes at my fundraising efforts with a cry of "How freaking lame is THAT?"
Lots of love,
Ben
Sunday, April 18, 2010
I Am Very Racist
So anyway, my latest article at newmatilda is right here.
It is about population policy, and includes phrases such as:
"obstetric dystopia"
"plentiful feral camels"
"take to it like a duck to breadcrumbs"
"the little buggers can swim"
How do I tie it all together? You'll only know if you click on the link!
But more important is the massive controversy that my article has inflamed among at least two people, due to the use of the phrase "Why are you being such a girl" in the introduction. Because according to "swivel35":
I have, indeed, become guilty of racism by word substitution. For example, elsewhere in the article, imagine if you substituted the "n word" for "seafood" in the following sentence:
That's even WORSE! I mean, "why are you being such a nigger?" is mainly offensive due to its incomprehensibility, but it is distressing to me to discover that I inadvertently advised my readers to eat black people.
Sorry readers!
Just so you can safely avoid this kind of accidental racism, here are some other phrases which you could not get away with if you substituted the word "nigger" for the word "girl":
"I prefer the intimate company of men to that of girls"
"I have four children - two boys and two girls"
"I have to take the girls to netball practice"
"See that girl in the straw hat? She looks pretty stupid"
"Fell In Love With A Girl is one of my favourite songs"
"I think there are distinct educational advantages to be gained by separating boys and girls into separate schools"
"I contracted AIDS from a girl I knew once"
"Girls should all go back to Africa where they came from"
"Stop these goddamned girls getting ideas above their station, strutting about the town, drinking our liquor and raping our womenfolk, damn dirty girls"
REMEMBER THIS!
It is about population policy, and includes phrases such as:
"obstetric dystopia"
"plentiful feral camels"
"take to it like a duck to breadcrumbs"
"the little buggers can swim"
How do I tie it all together? You'll only know if you click on the link!
But more important is the massive controversy that my article has inflamed among at least two people, due to the use of the phrase "Why are you being such a girl" in the introduction. Because according to "swivel35":
Substitute the “n” word for “girl” up there. See? You’d never get away with that nor could you even begin to call that satirical.
I have, indeed, become guilty of racism by word substitution. For example, elsewhere in the article, imagine if you substituted the "n word" for "seafood" in the following sentence:
if we boost our population growth we too can have a thriving electronics industry and a predominantly seafood diet.
That's even WORSE! I mean, "why are you being such a nigger?" is mainly offensive due to its incomprehensibility, but it is distressing to me to discover that I inadvertently advised my readers to eat black people.
Sorry readers!
Just so you can safely avoid this kind of accidental racism, here are some other phrases which you could not get away with if you substituted the word "nigger" for the word "girl":
"I prefer the intimate company of men to that of girls"
"I have four children - two boys and two girls"
"I have to take the girls to netball practice"
"See that girl in the straw hat? She looks pretty stupid"
"Fell In Love With A Girl is one of my favourite songs"
"I think there are distinct educational advantages to be gained by separating boys and girls into separate schools"
"I contracted AIDS from a girl I knew once"
"Girls should all go back to Africa where they came from"
"Stop these goddamned girls getting ideas above their station, strutting about the town, drinking our liquor and raping our womenfolk, damn dirty girls"
REMEMBER THIS!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
So GENEROUS of you!
Apparently the Pope has forgiven the Beatles
Phew! What a relief! I bet the Beatles had been pretty worried for the last 40 years, not knowing whether the Pope would let them off the hook. What with the Beatles being all such devout Catholics and all.
Except...
Not sure the Beatles ever actually ASKED the Pope for forgiveness, did they? Hmm.
Perhaps the Pope had the Beatles confused with this guy:
Phew! What a relief! I bet the Beatles had been pretty worried for the last 40 years, not knowing whether the Pope would let them off the hook. What with the Beatles being all such devout Catholics and all.
Except...
Not sure the Beatles ever actually ASKED the Pope for forgiveness, did they? Hmm.
Perhaps the Pope had the Beatles confused with this guy:
Saturday, April 10, 2010
From the Herald Sun 11/4/10
Exciting news about Aussies abroad:
Great news for Nicole! And certainly very plausible, right? Let's read on...
I can't help imagining an abandoned warehouse, with a handwritten sign reading "AUDITIONS FOR GENUINE HUGH JACKMAN MOVIE HERE - TOP MODELS WELCOME".
And inside, three chubby men with a camcorder and a used mattress.
AUSSIE top model Nicole Trunfio (below) has auditioned for a movie that is set to star Hugh Jackman.
New York-based Trunfio, 24, has been taking acting lessons for three years with plans to hit the audition stage more than the catwalk.
Great news for Nicole! And certainly very plausible, right? Let's read on...
"(The film) is based in the future. It ’s a movie about boxing robots and my character is Russian," she said.
I can't help imagining an abandoned warehouse, with a handwritten sign reading "AUDITIONS FOR GENUINE HUGH JACKMAN MOVIE HERE - TOP MODELS WELCOME".
And inside, three chubby men with a camcorder and a used mattress.
The Problem For Today
The Problem for Today is this:
Refugee Policy.
What is wrong with refugee policy? Well, here is the thing: a lot of debate circulates these days about whether the government's refugee policy has "failed". Fair enough? Of course. But when you're discussing whether something's failed, you must decide what exactly success would mean. And the thing about the refugee "debate" is this:
It has been entirely based on the premise that the purpose of refugee policy should be to stop people coming to Australia on boats.
This is why the debate goes like this:
"Has the government stopped boats coming? If not it has failed!"
"Wait, no! The boats come for other reasons! Therefore, it has not failed!"
You see? Government and Opposition argue over whether the policy has failed, but on both sides exists the tacit understanding that the reason we have a policy is to prevent boatpeople arriving.
But WHAT IF this was a false premise?
WHAT IF refugee policy, ideally, was not aimed at simply stopping boats?
WHAT IF refugee policy's success or failure could not be judged purely by numbers of boats coming to our country?
WHAT IF refugee policy, in fact, should have as its primary concern the protection and welfare of refugees?
WHAT IF the Australian government decided that it would calibrate its policy toward the end, not of stopping the boats, but of achieving the best outcome possible for the greatest number of desperate, dispossessed, and fearful people of the world?
WHAT IF every time the Opposition screamed, "THEY DIDN'T STOP THE BOATS! WE WILL STOP THE BOATS!" the government calmly replied:
"We are not primarily concerned with stopping the boats. Perhaps someday, when the number of boat arrivals comes anywhere near even remotely posing any kind of threat to sustainable population levels or our way of life, we might have to adjust this approach, but for now, we consider it far more important to bend all our efforts towards helping people who have suffered hardships and terror far beyond what most of us here in Australia could fathom. For now, we will do our utmost to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are identified, protected, and assisted with settling in the country that so many Australians have worked so hard to make attractive enough for people to give up all they have and risk their lives to reach. For now, we will work on educating the Australian population on actual facts, such as the tiny number of boatpeople who actually come here, the circumstances in which refugees find themselves overseas, and the total and indisputable legality of anyone claiming asylum on foreign shores. Should you, in Opposition, wish to pursue electoral success by appealing to the worst instincts of people, by spreading fear, racism and xenophobia via the propagation of lies and distortions of reality, go ahead. We believe most people are intelligent, decent and capable of rational thought, and we choose to appeal to these qualities in our attempts to remain in power. Do your worst; we will do our best."
What if that?
Haha, only kidding! As if!
Refugee Policy.
What is wrong with refugee policy? Well, here is the thing: a lot of debate circulates these days about whether the government's refugee policy has "failed". Fair enough? Of course. But when you're discussing whether something's failed, you must decide what exactly success would mean. And the thing about the refugee "debate" is this:
It has been entirely based on the premise that the purpose of refugee policy should be to stop people coming to Australia on boats.
This is why the debate goes like this:
"Has the government stopped boats coming? If not it has failed!"
"Wait, no! The boats come for other reasons! Therefore, it has not failed!"
You see? Government and Opposition argue over whether the policy has failed, but on both sides exists the tacit understanding that the reason we have a policy is to prevent boatpeople arriving.
But WHAT IF this was a false premise?
WHAT IF refugee policy, ideally, was not aimed at simply stopping boats?
WHAT IF refugee policy's success or failure could not be judged purely by numbers of boats coming to our country?
WHAT IF refugee policy, in fact, should have as its primary concern the protection and welfare of refugees?
WHAT IF the Australian government decided that it would calibrate its policy toward the end, not of stopping the boats, but of achieving the best outcome possible for the greatest number of desperate, dispossessed, and fearful people of the world?
WHAT IF every time the Opposition screamed, "THEY DIDN'T STOP THE BOATS! WE WILL STOP THE BOATS!" the government calmly replied:
"We are not primarily concerned with stopping the boats. Perhaps someday, when the number of boat arrivals comes anywhere near even remotely posing any kind of threat to sustainable population levels or our way of life, we might have to adjust this approach, but for now, we consider it far more important to bend all our efforts towards helping people who have suffered hardships and terror far beyond what most of us here in Australia could fathom. For now, we will do our utmost to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are identified, protected, and assisted with settling in the country that so many Australians have worked so hard to make attractive enough for people to give up all they have and risk their lives to reach. For now, we will work on educating the Australian population on actual facts, such as the tiny number of boatpeople who actually come here, the circumstances in which refugees find themselves overseas, and the total and indisputable legality of anyone claiming asylum on foreign shores. Should you, in Opposition, wish to pursue electoral success by appealing to the worst instincts of people, by spreading fear, racism and xenophobia via the propagation of lies and distortions of reality, go ahead. We believe most people are intelligent, decent and capable of rational thought, and we choose to appeal to these qualities in our attempts to remain in power. Do your worst; we will do our best."
What if that?
Haha, only kidding! As if!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Smarter than your average jar
The article which WAS here, on the subject of Gary Ablett's Herald Sun think-piece about evolution, peanut butter, and why it's science's fault he supplies massive amounts of drugs to women young enough to be his daughter, has been taken off the blog due to the piece being promoted to the ABC. Enjoy it there.
But while you're here, why not admire the great man's unique grace and athleticism. And, um, brains and stuff.
.jpg)
But while you're here, why not admire the great man's unique grace and athleticism. And, um, brains and stuff.
.jpg)
Friday, March 19, 2010
No, REALLY Hitting the Big Time
There are many kinds of success in this world.
There's financial success. There's career success. There's the success of raising a healthy, loving family.
But all of these are as scraps of pig slops to a strawberry cheesecake when compared to being publicly thanked by Andrew Bolt.
The fact that he later found out who I actually was, and is no longer even slightly positively-dispositioned towards me, does not diminish the honour. Neither does the fact he never really regarded me with any gratitude in the first place. Unfortunately the details are private. I'll tell you at the bar.
Incidentally, Bolt eventually did acknowledge the rather obvious error that in that post he had refused to acknowledge. I mean, he sort of acknowledged it. I mean, "I was wrong" is an acknowledgment, even if the post itself ends up being "I was wrong but still much more right than anyone else".
By the way, "reader TQS", Bolt may have thanked you, but you will never have what he and I have. It is special.
And then, of course, he has his "final last thought" (ooh, promise?) on the subject. Not quite sure what he's doing here. A few different options?
1. Bolt is suggesting that Pope Pius XII would have had his head cut off if he'd spoken out against the Holocaust.
2. Bolt is suggesting that because Dawkins won't speak out against Islamofascists, he is morally equivalent to someone who won't speak out against the Holocaust. He does this by referencing a quote wherein Dawkins speaks out against Islamofascists. He could have picked any quote of many, really. Dawkins slams Islamic extremists all the time.
3. By referring to Richard Dawkins as "the atheist al-Qaeda", Bolt is suggesting that promoting a petition asking for someone not be made a saint is morally equivalent to threatening to cut someone's head off.
You decide. I guess.
Today's homework: In 1000 words or less, compare and contrast the labelling of a Nazi-supporting Pope "Pope Nazi" with the labelling of an atheist scientist "atheist al-Qaeda". Extra points for those students who accurately ascertain the relative levels of barbarism present in each.
Incidentally, a round of applause for Bolt's work ethic: he started blogging at 7:01 am and didn't stop till 12:09 pm. You can't deny he's prolific. And if you did he'd call you a terrorist.
There's financial success. There's career success. There's the success of raising a healthy, loving family.
But all of these are as scraps of pig slops to a strawberry cheesecake when compared to being publicly thanked by Andrew Bolt.
The fact that he later found out who I actually was, and is no longer even slightly positively-dispositioned towards me, does not diminish the honour. Neither does the fact he never really regarded me with any gratitude in the first place. Unfortunately the details are private. I'll tell you at the bar.
Incidentally, Bolt eventually did acknowledge the rather obvious error that in that post he had refused to acknowledge. I mean, he sort of acknowledged it. I mean, "I was wrong" is an acknowledgment, even if the post itself ends up being "I was wrong but still much more right than anyone else".
By the way, "reader TQS", Bolt may have thanked you, but you will never have what he and I have. It is special.
And then, of course, he has his "final last thought" (ooh, promise?) on the subject. Not quite sure what he's doing here. A few different options?
1. Bolt is suggesting that Pope Pius XII would have had his head cut off if he'd spoken out against the Holocaust.
2. Bolt is suggesting that because Dawkins won't speak out against Islamofascists, he is morally equivalent to someone who won't speak out against the Holocaust. He does this by referencing a quote wherein Dawkins speaks out against Islamofascists. He could have picked any quote of many, really. Dawkins slams Islamic extremists all the time.
3. By referring to Richard Dawkins as "the atheist al-Qaeda", Bolt is suggesting that promoting a petition asking for someone not be made a saint is morally equivalent to threatening to cut someone's head off.
You decide. I guess.
Today's homework: In 1000 words or less, compare and contrast the labelling of a Nazi-supporting Pope "Pope Nazi" with the labelling of an atheist scientist "atheist al-Qaeda". Extra points for those students who accurately ascertain the relative levels of barbarism present in each.
Incidentally, a round of applause for Bolt's work ethic: he started blogging at 7:01 am and didn't stop till 12:09 pm. You can't deny he's prolific. And if you did he'd call you a terrorist.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I Have Some Problems With This...
Now, the front page story in the Herald Sun today was the story of how Melbourne City Council grants have been given to two artists whose art consists of building and then dismantling brick walls. OK. That's a pretty crucial news story. Bravo, investigative journalism etc, well done on avoiding sensationalism and triviality.
I'm not here to quarrel with the front page story. I am here to quarrel with this editorial on the same subject:
No art to this waste of cash
This story starts like this:
"A MELBOURNE City Council grant to pay artists to build a brick wall, only to knock it down again, gives new meaning to 'thick as a brick.'"
Now here's the thing, "staff writer"...
No it doesn't. I concede that you're just following a trend here, the trend of finding a commonly used phrase with some oblique connection to a story, and then saying "gives new meaning to" in a sad and almost-touching attempt to be witty. I concede that 95 percent of these usages do not in any way demonstrate a new meaning being given to said phrase.
BUT that is no excuse! Can't you think for three seconds before you write?
I mean, how the hell does that give new meaning to "thick as a brick"? If the artists were dressing up as bricks, perhaps, but they're not, are they? They're just building and dismantling walls. And you see, "thick as a brick" means the same thing as it always did, doesn't it? If you said these artists were "thick as a brick", it wouldn't actually develop some devilishly clever double meaning. Dickhead.
And you probably think, OK, "staff writer" has pulled the wrong rein there, but everyone's allowed one wrong rein-pulling in an article, as long as it is an isolated case.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is the HERALD SUN, where sensationalism walks hand in hand with semi-literacy, and scaremongering rides tall in the saddle occasionally sipping from a canteen full of cool fresh not-as-funny-as-they-think.
Because it ONLY GETS WORSE. Later in the editorial:
"Another brick in the wall, as we are reminded by the Pink Floyd song, is to cost ratepayers $5500."
Now I was stunned by this assertion, and immediately ran to my turntable to give "The Wall" a spin. And here's an interesting fact:
At NO point during the song "Another Brick in the Wall" does Pink Floyd either say, or paraphrase, the sentence, "Another brick in the wall is to cost ratepayers $5500".
Check it out, Herald Sun! The album is readily available! There is, in fact, no reference to ratepayers at all!
In other words, if you were to listen to any of the three parts of the song "Another Brick in the Wall", you would not be reminded in any way of the cost to ratepayers of another brick in the wall. What is more, I doubt that this was ever Roger Waters's intention! It seems, to say the least, far-fetched to suppose that as he sat down to compose his masterpiece, he thought, "Now we need a real epic protest song so that people will never forget how much it cost City of Melbourne ratepayers to hire two women to build and tear down small brick walls. It was $5500, and after this hits the charts, EVERYBODY WILL REMEMBER THAT!"
I do not think this happened.
And to pile outrage upon outrage, it's not even true that another brick in the wall will cost ratepayers $5500. That is the cost of the entire installation - so one brick would be just a fraction of that. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT HERALD SUN!
And even if you don't, please note that a newspaper editorial is, ideally, a considered commentary on current events. The purpose of editorialising becomes, at the least, blurred, when the editorial morphs into some kind of bizarre comedy routine/1970s prog-rock medley.
THINK about it.
I'm not here to quarrel with the front page story. I am here to quarrel with this editorial on the same subject:
No art to this waste of cash
This story starts like this:
"A MELBOURNE City Council grant to pay artists to build a brick wall, only to knock it down again, gives new meaning to 'thick as a brick.'"
Now here's the thing, "staff writer"...
No it doesn't. I concede that you're just following a trend here, the trend of finding a commonly used phrase with some oblique connection to a story, and then saying "gives new meaning to" in a sad and almost-touching attempt to be witty. I concede that 95 percent of these usages do not in any way demonstrate a new meaning being given to said phrase.
BUT that is no excuse! Can't you think for three seconds before you write?
I mean, how the hell does that give new meaning to "thick as a brick"? If the artists were dressing up as bricks, perhaps, but they're not, are they? They're just building and dismantling walls. And you see, "thick as a brick" means the same thing as it always did, doesn't it? If you said these artists were "thick as a brick", it wouldn't actually develop some devilishly clever double meaning. Dickhead.
And you probably think, OK, "staff writer" has pulled the wrong rein there, but everyone's allowed one wrong rein-pulling in an article, as long as it is an isolated case.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is the HERALD SUN, where sensationalism walks hand in hand with semi-literacy, and scaremongering rides tall in the saddle occasionally sipping from a canteen full of cool fresh not-as-funny-as-they-think.
Because it ONLY GETS WORSE. Later in the editorial:
"Another brick in the wall, as we are reminded by the Pink Floyd song, is to cost ratepayers $5500."
Now I was stunned by this assertion, and immediately ran to my turntable to give "The Wall" a spin. And here's an interesting fact:
At NO point during the song "Another Brick in the Wall" does Pink Floyd either say, or paraphrase, the sentence, "Another brick in the wall is to cost ratepayers $5500".
Check it out, Herald Sun! The album is readily available! There is, in fact, no reference to ratepayers at all!
In other words, if you were to listen to any of the three parts of the song "Another Brick in the Wall", you would not be reminded in any way of the cost to ratepayers of another brick in the wall. What is more, I doubt that this was ever Roger Waters's intention! It seems, to say the least, far-fetched to suppose that as he sat down to compose his masterpiece, he thought, "Now we need a real epic protest song so that people will never forget how much it cost City of Melbourne ratepayers to hire two women to build and tear down small brick walls. It was $5500, and after this hits the charts, EVERYBODY WILL REMEMBER THAT!"
I do not think this happened.
And to pile outrage upon outrage, it's not even true that another brick in the wall will cost ratepayers $5500. That is the cost of the entire installation - so one brick would be just a fraction of that. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT HERALD SUN!
And even if you don't, please note that a newspaper editorial is, ideally, a considered commentary on current events. The purpose of editorialising becomes, at the least, blurred, when the editorial morphs into some kind of bizarre comedy routine/1970s prog-rock medley.
THINK about it.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Hitting the Big Time
Readers with long memories and dogged senses of commitment may remember a little article I wrote a while back called "Just Done It".
This was an article about Bettina Arndt and her book "The Sex Diaries". It was, to be perfectly honest (sorry to shatter any illusions here), an article that, to a certain extent, made fun of her. That is, it sort of mocked her, her book, her theories, her genitalia. Well, not her genitalia. The editors cut those fifteen paragraphs out. But anyway, it was a somewhat mocking article with a bit of a "hahahaha Bettina you brainless twat" tone to it.
And I had thought that was the end of that.
But if life has taught me anything it is this: that is NEVER the end of that, particularly in Wagga Wagga.
For that august town's Daily Advertiser on the 10th March published an interesting piece about Mrs Arndt and her recent trip to Boorowa (not far from Young, fortunately!) to celebrate International Women's Day and tell women to get jiggy with it more often.
And you will NOT BELIEVE THIS, readers, but the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser actually MENTIONED ME!
Little me!
And this is what it said:
I was very chuffed to see I was big in Wagga Wagga, but I couldn't help noticing...well...I mean...tell me if somehow that excerpt there sort of suggests somehow that I am...kind of...
a big fan of Bettina Arndt? I mean, I can't help feeling that the Daily Advertiser has actually quoted me as a sort of pro-Arndt blurb-writer, taking the quote slightly out of context and ignoring other parts of my article, such as this:
Or this?
I just feel slightly misrepresented here. Am I wrong?
Mind you, my feeling of misrepresentation is less profound than my feeling of confusion when I read these words penned by Narelle Ross of the Advertiser:
Dear Narelle Morse:
What?
This was an article about Bettina Arndt and her book "The Sex Diaries". It was, to be perfectly honest (sorry to shatter any illusions here), an article that, to a certain extent, made fun of her. That is, it sort of mocked her, her book, her theories, her genitalia. Well, not her genitalia. The editors cut those fifteen paragraphs out. But anyway, it was a somewhat mocking article with a bit of a "hahahaha Bettina you brainless twat" tone to it.
And I had thought that was the end of that.
But if life has taught me anything it is this: that is NEVER the end of that, particularly in Wagga Wagga.
For that august town's Daily Advertiser on the 10th March published an interesting piece about Mrs Arndt and her recent trip to Boorowa (not far from Young, fortunately!) to celebrate International Women's Day and tell women to get jiggy with it more often.
And you will NOT BELIEVE THIS, readers, but the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser actually MENTIONED ME!
Little me!
And this is what it said:
"Bettina Arndt has been dubbed `man's
best friend'," Ben Pobjie author of Just Done
It comments. "Every writer knows that sex
sells. In deed when my own articles are
erotically charged each week the better they
are received and when the average person
hears the word sex they think of Bettina
Arndt. She helps people who are having
problems in their sex lives but never before
has she made such a contribution to mass
sexual satisfaction as in her latest book in
which she argues that the greatest cause of
unhappy relationships is the discrepancy
between the male and female libido.
I was very chuffed to see I was big in Wagga Wagga, but I couldn't help noticing...well...I mean...tell me if somehow that excerpt there sort of suggests somehow that I am...kind of...
a big fan of Bettina Arndt? I mean, I can't help feeling that the Daily Advertiser has actually quoted me as a sort of pro-Arndt blurb-writer, taking the quote slightly out of context and ignoring other parts of my article, such as this:
Believe me, I know whereof I speak. Like most men, I have for many years been enjoying sex that I didn’t actually want to have. On several occasions I have enjoyed sex that I didn’t even realise I was having until about halfway through. Because men are troopers. Even when they really don’t want to have sex, they are willing to roll up their sleeves and pitch in for the greater good.
Or this?
There’s no point in keeping your sex-canoe in dry dock your whole life. If you ever want to experience the joys of the river of intercourse, you have to get your canoe off the shores of abstinence, negotiate the rapids of foreplay, and tip yourself over the penetration waterfall. The American Indians knew this, but somewhere along the line we have lost the eternal truth of canoes.
Of course, it is possible that once the canoe is out, the woman might discover that she’s not actually enjoying it. Well, that’s canoes for you. Watersports are not for everyone. But would she rather not have a canoe? Would she rather her husband left her for a woman with bigger oars? In summary, the message is this: boating metaphors are less sexy than you might think.
I just feel slightly misrepresented here. Am I wrong?
Mind you, my feeling of misrepresentation is less profound than my feeling of confusion when I read these words penned by Narelle Ross of the Advertiser:
The story of the sex-starved husband has
struck a chord. For many men - not all by
any means - sexual performance is an issue
of deep insecurity. It starts in the
playground when they overhear older kids
recounting their `so-called sexual exploits'
most of which turn out to be `flights of the
fantasy'.
"We know in our hearts that any woman
lucky enough to experience the awesome
pleasure of our attention should just thank
her lucky stars as she swoons and hopes that
one day she might be allowed some more."
But it doesn't happen like this - very often
most men agree.
Dear Narelle Morse:
What?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Unusual Beyond Normal Bounds Of Politeness?
A Curious Story
Now, through a rather unlikely and complex series of events, it so happens that I found myself with a mix CD in my car which contains the rather catchy song "One Night in Bangkok" as sung by Murray Head and, apparently, Anders Glenmark - so there you go.
It also so happens that by nature I am a curious fellow, and when I find something I enjoy, I like to do a bit of research and find out more about the object of my affection. I already knew a bit about "One Night in Bangkok" - that it was composed by Benny and Bjorn from ABBA for example (although Tim Rice's involvement had been forgotten), and that it was on a vinyl LP that used to live in my family home featuring all the hits of 1984, including but not limited to:
- Michael Jackson's "Thriller"
- The Eurhythmics' "Sexcrime (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
- Black Lace's "Agadoo"
- Icehouse's "Electric Dreams"
All fine songs which I can expound on later. This is about "One Night in Bangkok". One thing I also recalled was that it was a song taken from the musical Chess, by the aforementioned Benny, Bjorn and Tim. I vaguely remember commercials for the show on TV when I was a lad, but knew little about it. So I looked it up on trusty resource Wikipedia.
Here I found out many useful facts about the musical's genesis, development, success and critical reaction. But I also found out something that may well haunt me till the day I die, or till the day there is a revival of the show that I attend.
In the plot synopsis of the Broadway version of the show Chess, we are reliably informed by Wikipedia that this happens:
Let me isolate the pertinent part of that, in case you missed it:
Let us be quite clear here. In Chess, a musical which looks at the Cold War through the medium of the tension and strategy of international chess, the opening scenes pivot on one character accusing another of cheating...with yoghurt.
Yoghurt.
He accuses him of cheating with yoghurt.
Now, I know the accusation is a trumped-up charge, but nevertheless you would think a false accuser would want something a bit more plausible, wouldn't you? A bit more plausible than "This is intolerable! He is using his yoghurt to defeat me!"
Surely?
This will gnaw at me for the rest of my life, and yet I am not sure I even want to know.
Now, through a rather unlikely and complex series of events, it so happens that I found myself with a mix CD in my car which contains the rather catchy song "One Night in Bangkok" as sung by Murray Head and, apparently, Anders Glenmark - so there you go.
It also so happens that by nature I am a curious fellow, and when I find something I enjoy, I like to do a bit of research and find out more about the object of my affection. I already knew a bit about "One Night in Bangkok" - that it was composed by Benny and Bjorn from ABBA for example (although Tim Rice's involvement had been forgotten), and that it was on a vinyl LP that used to live in my family home featuring all the hits of 1984, including but not limited to:
- Michael Jackson's "Thriller"
- The Eurhythmics' "Sexcrime (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
- Black Lace's "Agadoo"
- Icehouse's "Electric Dreams"
All fine songs which I can expound on later. This is about "One Night in Bangkok". One thing I also recalled was that it was a song taken from the musical Chess, by the aforementioned Benny, Bjorn and Tim. I vaguely remember commercials for the show on TV when I was a lad, but knew little about it. So I looked it up on trusty resource Wikipedia.
Here I found out many useful facts about the musical's genesis, development, success and critical reaction. But I also found out something that may well haunt me till the day I die, or till the day there is a revival of the show that I attend.
In the plot synopsis of the Broadway version of the show Chess, we are reliably informed by Wikipedia that this happens:
The world chess championship is being held in Bangkok. At a press conference, the brash American challenger, Freddie Trumper, relishes the crowd's affection, while the current Russian champion, Anatoly Sergievsky, and Molokov, his second, watch with curiosity and disdain. During the match, Freddie accuses Anatoly of receiving outside help via the flavor of yogurt he is eating, and Freddie storms out, leaving his second, Florence, in an argument with the Arbiter and the Russians.
Let me isolate the pertinent part of that, in case you missed it:
Freddie accuses Anatoly of receiving outside help via the flavor of yogurt he is eating
Let us be quite clear here. In Chess, a musical which looks at the Cold War through the medium of the tension and strategy of international chess, the opening scenes pivot on one character accusing another of cheating...with yoghurt.
Yoghurt.
He accuses him of cheating with yoghurt.
Now, I know the accusation is a trumped-up charge, but nevertheless you would think a false accuser would want something a bit more plausible, wouldn't you? A bit more plausible than "This is intolerable! He is using his yoghurt to defeat me!"
Surely?
This will gnaw at me for the rest of my life, and yet I am not sure I even want to know.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Spencer Tunick: A Life
Spencer Tunick is a photographer. Through his photography he seeks to reveal truths about the universe and the human condition. His camera is his means of making sense of the world, and communicating this sense to his audience, who are made wiser and more insightful as a result.
Tunick began taking photographs of nude people in 1986. Through his photographs of nude people, he made a profound statement about modernity and culture. However, he soon saw that simply taking photographs of nude people would not be enough to truly impact the world's consciousness in a way that would bring about lasting change in modes of thinking. He realised that only photographs of large numbers of nude people all in one place could do so. This insight has allowed him to explore themes of society, politics, and inner psychological states that heretofore were considered impossible for a single artist to successfully grapple with.
For example, Tunick has managed to encapsulate modern man's struggle with aspiration of status while simultaneously looking for a sense of the spiritual. He has done this by taking a photograph of a bunch of nude people:
Alternately, he has also examined human history, showing how the mistakes of the past are seemingly constantly repeated, but that progress can be and is made, however incrementally and painfully it is done. He skilfully portrays this via the means of a photograph of a bunch of nude people:
Feeling the need to explore new horizons, Tunick turned his attention to the future, and made a non-judgmental, achingly poetic exploration of how technology both shapes and is shaped by its users, and whether increased connectivity is worth the concomitant loss of deeper human feeling. This exploration was cunningly ande evocatively couched in terms of a photograph of a bunch of nude people:
The insights of Tunick on what it means to be human are almost endless. There is his comment on religious intolerance:
His summation of the immigration debate:
His opinion on the politicisation of climate change:
His thesis on tax reform:
And of course his scathing critique of the current system of banking regulation, with almost pithy comment on the urgent need for structural change to the International Monetary Fund's mechanism for providing aid to debt-stricken developing nations:
So, to sum up, Spencer Tunick is what might be called a true artist, a visionary who sees far so that we not have to, and he is no way a creepy middle-aged man obsessed with looking at nude people, or deserving of mocking phrases like "Spencer...for Christ's sake, get over it, man."
Tunick began taking photographs of nude people in 1986. Through his photographs of nude people, he made a profound statement about modernity and culture. However, he soon saw that simply taking photographs of nude people would not be enough to truly impact the world's consciousness in a way that would bring about lasting change in modes of thinking. He realised that only photographs of large numbers of nude people all in one place could do so. This insight has allowed him to explore themes of society, politics, and inner psychological states that heretofore were considered impossible for a single artist to successfully grapple with.
For example, Tunick has managed to encapsulate modern man's struggle with aspiration of status while simultaneously looking for a sense of the spiritual. He has done this by taking a photograph of a bunch of nude people:
Alternately, he has also examined human history, showing how the mistakes of the past are seemingly constantly repeated, but that progress can be and is made, however incrementally and painfully it is done. He skilfully portrays this via the means of a photograph of a bunch of nude people:
Feeling the need to explore new horizons, Tunick turned his attention to the future, and made a non-judgmental, achingly poetic exploration of how technology both shapes and is shaped by its users, and whether increased connectivity is worth the concomitant loss of deeper human feeling. This exploration was cunningly ande evocatively couched in terms of a photograph of a bunch of nude people:
The insights of Tunick on what it means to be human are almost endless. There is his comment on religious intolerance:
His summation of the immigration debate:
His opinion on the politicisation of climate change:
His thesis on tax reform:
And of course his scathing critique of the current system of banking regulation, with almost pithy comment on the urgent need for structural change to the International Monetary Fund's mechanism for providing aid to debt-stricken developing nations:
So, to sum up, Spencer Tunick is what might be called a true artist, a visionary who sees far so that we not have to, and he is no way a creepy middle-aged man obsessed with looking at nude people, or deserving of mocking phrases like "Spencer...for Christ's sake, get over it, man."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Burning Bright
I have had time to ruminate on Tiger Woods's apology, and more specifically, the reaction to it.
Now, how sincere he was, who knows? As much as everyone seems to think they know...well, they don't. But the general consensus seems to be it was cynical, rehearsed, all for appearances' sake, insincere, fake, phoney, and so on, and so on.
OK, so for everyone who has offered their opinion along the lines of "oh he was so fake, I don't buy it for a second, what a farce, what a disgrace, he's not sorry at all, how dare he..." I have a piece of advice for YOU. Which is this:
Shut the fuck up and count your goddamn blessings.
Because here is the thing: generally, people don't receive apologies from complete strangers who have not actually done anything to them. So here is what has happened.
A man has offered an apology to a group of people who he does not know, who do not know him, against whom he has committed no sin, whom he has never done anything to hurt in his entire life, and who have never ever received any sort of injury or harm as a direct or indirect result of his actions or words, ever.
And these people have immediately commenced bitching about how this completely unwarranted apology did not live up to their lofty expectations.
Seriously, stop being such a bunch of dicks. Show some frigging gratitude you got anything from Tiger, who actually didn't owe you anything, doesn't owe you anything, and won't owe you anything in the future.
"Oh, he's provided such marvellous entertainment for me over the years, I take it as a personal affront that his private life in which I have no part was less than satisfactory to me".
Dudes.
Shut up.
Now, how sincere he was, who knows? As much as everyone seems to think they know...well, they don't. But the general consensus seems to be it was cynical, rehearsed, all for appearances' sake, insincere, fake, phoney, and so on, and so on.
OK, so for everyone who has offered their opinion along the lines of "oh he was so fake, I don't buy it for a second, what a farce, what a disgrace, he's not sorry at all, how dare he..." I have a piece of advice for YOU. Which is this:
Shut the fuck up and count your goddamn blessings.
Because here is the thing: generally, people don't receive apologies from complete strangers who have not actually done anything to them. So here is what has happened.
A man has offered an apology to a group of people who he does not know, who do not know him, against whom he has committed no sin, whom he has never done anything to hurt in his entire life, and who have never ever received any sort of injury or harm as a direct or indirect result of his actions or words, ever.
And these people have immediately commenced bitching about how this completely unwarranted apology did not live up to their lofty expectations.
Seriously, stop being such a bunch of dicks. Show some frigging gratitude you got anything from Tiger, who actually didn't owe you anything, doesn't owe you anything, and won't owe you anything in the future.
"Oh, he's provided such marvellous entertainment for me over the years, I take it as a personal affront that his private life in which I have no part was less than satisfactory to me".
Dudes.
Shut up.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
An Historical ConunDrum
My latest weekly wrap at The ABC's The Drum is to be found here.
This is what "Darius the Mede" says about it:
Well that's all very well Darius, but if I were an historical figure whose existence has been called into question by numerous reputable historians, I'd be more worried about getting my own house in order before throwing stones as the houses of others.
Also, how did a 6th-centruy BC king get access to the internet? Fibre to the node?
Also, why doesn't anyone know the difference between slander and libel? J. Jonah Jameson knows, why don't you, Darius the Mede?
This is what "Darius the Mede" says about it:
for the first time in my life i agree with Miranda Devine; peurile is an apt description of Mr Pobjie's work.
Accusing Mr Garrett of being a murderer is not satire, it is slander but no doubt Mr Pobjie thinks the families of the insulation workers who have lost their lives find it hilarious.
Each day the ABC seems to find new lows in the quality of its on-line news and commentary
Well that's all very well Darius, but if I were an historical figure whose existence has been called into question by numerous reputable historians, I'd be more worried about getting my own house in order before throwing stones as the houses of others.
Also, how did a 6th-centruy BC king get access to the internet? Fibre to the node?
Also, why doesn't anyone know the difference between slander and libel? J. Jonah Jameson knows, why don't you, Darius the Mede?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
I Bet You're Feeling Pretty Low Right About Now
In today's edition of the Herald Sun, it is revealed that Australians (defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as "people who respond to online Herald Sun polls) do not believe Tiger Woods's expression of contrition.
Tiger is reportedly shattered by this news:
The Herald Sun also reports, in its "What the professionals said" section (in which professional people who are professional at something say things) that breakfast radio co-host Brigitte "Brig" Duclos thinks that "All the sex therapy in the world wouldn't allow me to trust Tiger again."
"Brigitte Duclos doesn't trust me anymore?"
Because how can Tiger pick up the pieces without Brig's trust? How can he try to rebuild his relationship with this complete stranger if she does not trust him anymore. From now on, whenever he is playing golf on the other side of the world, or sitting in his house nowhere near Brigitte Duclos, or going out to a function that has no connection to Brigitte Duclos at all, she will have this gnawing doubt..."what's he up to?" she will think. "Is he doing something that is none of my business? Who can tell with a cad like he's been?"
And that's the real tragedy. From now on, there's only one man for Brig.
Tiger is reportedly shattered by this news:
The Herald Sun also reports, in its "What the professionals said" section (in which professional people who are professional at something say things) that breakfast radio co-host Brigitte "Brig" Duclos thinks that "All the sex therapy in the world wouldn't allow me to trust Tiger again."
"Brigitte Duclos doesn't trust me anymore?"
Because how can Tiger pick up the pieces without Brig's trust? How can he try to rebuild his relationship with this complete stranger if she does not trust him anymore. From now on, whenever he is playing golf on the other side of the world, or sitting in his house nowhere near Brigitte Duclos, or going out to a function that has no connection to Brigitte Duclos at all, she will have this gnawing doubt..."what's he up to?" she will think. "Is he doing something that is none of my business? Who can tell with a cad like he's been?"
And that's the real tragedy. From now on, there's only one man for Brig.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Out Now!
I bet you often say to yourself, "It's great reading the work of Ben Pobjie on my electrical computer, but I wish there were some way that I could hear his rich, mellifluous voice speaking as if only to me, while I relax in the bath or drift gently off to sleep. Why is there no way for me to hear him yell and scream in the privacy of my own home?"
Brace yourself for some startling news...
THERE IS!
HYPNOPROPHET - TALES OF TRUTH AND EXPLOSIONS is an exclusive LIVE recording of all those well-loved spoken-word hits that you have never heard in your life. So it's not only classic, it is surprising.
It is $15 from all good record stores. Unfortunately, no record stores are good, so you can't get it from them. But you CAN get it from me, either by emailing hypnoprophet@gmail.com, or stopping me in the street and flattering and/or kissing me until I agree to sell you one.
Don't wait! Rush to buy!
Brace yourself for some startling news...
THERE IS!
HYPNOPROPHET - TALES OF TRUTH AND EXPLOSIONS is an exclusive LIVE recording of all those well-loved spoken-word hits that you have never heard in your life. So it's not only classic, it is surprising.
It is $15 from all good record stores. Unfortunately, no record stores are good, so you can't get it from them. But you CAN get it from me, either by emailing hypnoprophet@gmail.com, or stopping me in the street and flattering and/or kissing me until I agree to sell you one.
Don't wait! Rush to buy!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Today in Tabloids
(cross-posted at Gather Around Me)
You may have got the impression from earlier postings that Melbourne's Herald Sun was mainly a repository for the ramblings of developmentally delayed readers with too much unsupervised email time available.
This is not true. It is also a repository for the ramblings of developmentally delayed journalists. Take for instance today's front page headline, which screamed "RED ARMY" in huge letters.
The story, with an update noting the army's backdown, is here. It's all about the shocking revelation that the government planned to MAKE OUR BRAVE FIGHTING SOLDIERS WEAR CHINESE MATERIAL!!!!!
And so the headline, RED ARMY. Get it? Because they're communists? So our soldiers would be wearing communist fabric? So our army would be "red"?
GET IT YET?
"Bizarre cost-cutting strategy"? The strategy is to cut costs. This is, you know, to save money. Apparently this is bizarre to the Herald Sun? No, Herald Sun - a "bizarre cost-cutting strategy" would be one where you, say, threw a million dollars in cash into the river in order to cut costs - that would be quite bizarre. A cost-cutting strategy that saves you money is not a bizarre one; it's actually quite a sensible one, I would have thought.
And maybe the defence department would say, "To save money, cockface - now get back in line".
Because MAYBE, Mr Sher, the idea is to save money on uniforms - which, in a world full of SANE PEOPLE, would be made wherever was most convenient and cost-effective, with a general agreement that it doesn't matter the slightest, tiniest, infinitesimal bit where the fabric got made, for Christ's sake.
Oh, well if they're PROUD. I mean, you didn't mention they'd be PROUD to make uniforms. By all means, let the necessities of the defence budget take a backseat to company pride - the self-esteem of factory workers is after all the main purpose of the Defence Force, innit?
Yes, how undignified! Good God, our brave diggers might catch Chineseness from their uniforms! How can any soldier feel dignified fighting in a uniform that is exactly the same as any other uniform, knowing the identical uniform was made in China? How could this bunch of sissy, pansy-arse, wussy, limp-wristed nancy-boys handle it, given they're such a bunch of soft, namby-pamby little girls they can't even handle putting on a foreign-made shirt? Pussies.
Oh yeah, and Sophie Mirabella weighed in:
But we already knew she was a total fuckstick, so no need to pay much attention there.
Still, they backed down, so it's nice to see the Herald Sun's proud tradition of racist, xenophobic scaremongering continues to get results in the corridors of power.
Bravo Herald Sun.
You may have got the impression from earlier postings that Melbourne's Herald Sun was mainly a repository for the ramblings of developmentally delayed readers with too much unsupervised email time available.
This is not true. It is also a repository for the ramblings of developmentally delayed journalists. Take for instance today's front page headline, which screamed "RED ARMY" in huge letters.
The story, with an update noting the army's backdown, is here. It's all about the shocking revelation that the government planned to MAKE OUR BRAVE FIGHTING SOLDIERS WEAR CHINESE MATERIAL!!!!!
And so the headline, RED ARMY. Get it? Because they're communists? So our soldiers would be wearing communist fabric? So our army would be "red"?
GET IT YET?
Felix Sher, whose son Gregory was killed in a rocket attack in Afghanistan last year, said this morning questions had to be asked over what justified the bizarre cost-cutting strategy.
"Bizarre cost-cutting strategy"? The strategy is to cut costs. This is, you know, to save money. Apparently this is bizarre to the Herald Sun? No, Herald Sun - a "bizarre cost-cutting strategy" would be one where you, say, threw a million dollars in cash into the river in order to cut costs - that would be quite bizarre. A cost-cutting strategy that saves you money is not a bizarre one; it's actually quite a sensible one, I would have thought.
"If Greg was alive I don't think he would be happy," Mr Sher said. "To wear a Chinese-made uniform just to save a dollar ... I don't think any Australian soldier would be happy.
"Greg was devoted to his job and to his country but if he was alive he'd definitely be asking why the Defence Department were doing this.''
And maybe the defence department would say, "To save money, cockface - now get back in line".
Because MAYBE, Mr Sher, the idea is to save money on uniforms - which, in a world full of SANE PEOPLE, would be made wherever was most convenient and cost-effective, with a general agreement that it doesn't matter the slightest, tiniest, infinitesimal bit where the fabric got made, for Christ's sake.
Jennifer Ward, whose son Benjamin Ranaudo was killed in Afghanistan last year, said the cost-cutting strategy was going too far.
"It might just be factory work to some people, but that company would be proud to make those uniforms,’’ Mrs Ward told the Herald Sun.
Oh, well if they're PROUD. I mean, you didn't mention they'd be PROUD to make uniforms. By all means, let the necessities of the defence budget take a backseat to company pride - the self-esteem of factory workers is after all the main purpose of the Defence Force, innit?
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James blasted the decision.
"Do we seriously expect our soldiers to fight a war dressed in a uniform made in China?" he said.
"There's a simple dignity issue."
Yes, how undignified! Good God, our brave diggers might catch Chineseness from their uniforms! How can any soldier feel dignified fighting in a uniform that is exactly the same as any other uniform, knowing the identical uniform was made in China? How could this bunch of sissy, pansy-arse, wussy, limp-wristed nancy-boys handle it, given they're such a bunch of soft, namby-pamby little girls they can't even handle putting on a foreign-made shirt? Pussies.
Oh yeah, and Sophie Mirabella weighed in:
Opposition industry spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella said it was outrageous.
"Our soldiers risk their lives under the flag and in the uniform of this country," she said. "It's dangerous, unpatriotic and tawdry for the Government to save a few dollars and buy the fabric overseas."
But we already knew she was a total fuckstick, so no need to pay much attention there.
Still, they backed down, so it's nice to see the Herald Sun's proud tradition of racist, xenophobic scaremongering continues to get results in the corridors of power.
Bravo Herald Sun.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Coming...now
Christopher Monckton is a funny man, with a brain that works, but not in the way it's supposed to.
Here is what I have written about him.
The article also features Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd, and ice cream.
Also, go to Gather Around Me to get the latest podcast from me and Cam Smith, in which war veterans and Indian thieves are discussed in a mature and responsible way.
Here is what I have written about him.
The article also features Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd, and ice cream.
Also, go to Gather Around Me to get the latest podcast from me and Cam Smith, in which war veterans and Indian thieves are discussed in a mature and responsible way.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Just Asking
OK, so you know those people who are all like, "Wow, Prince William is nice, isn't he? We can't have a republic, we love Prince William too much, cos he's GREAT!"?
And you know those other people, who are sometimes the same people, who are all like, "Hey, we can't have a republic, because our system of government works so well and if we didn't have a hereditary foreign monarch performing a purely ceremonial role on the other side of the world, it would all collapse because look at like Cuba and the Congo and stuff, they're republics and they're awful so if we didn't have the Queen we'd be like that!"?
You know all those people?
I just had a question about them:
Are they, like, retarded?
I mean, have they suffered massive head trauma at some point? Did their mothers drink a lot during pregnancy? Is it a genetic thing? Were they dropped as babies? Did they fall in a pool and lose consciousness for five minutes?
Are these people walking around wearing helments and knee pads? Do they go to special schools and work in sheltered workshops? Are they on government pensions due to their inability to make a living in normal society?
If you see these people in public, are they always walking into shopfront windows, thinking there's nothing there? Do they stare into mirrors for hours on end, trying to make friends with the nice person inside? Do they burst into tears on trains because they can't figure out how to open a broadsheet newspaper?
Do they squint in confusion at the Quick Crossword? Do they complain about the menus at McDonald's being too confusing? Do they quote the Herald Sun letters page at dinner parties?
Do they sit backwards on horses? Do they get stuck in revolving doors? Do they take half an hour to buy a train ticket from a machine? Do they get migraines from trying to follow the plot of Adam Sandler movies?
Do they watch Adam Sandler movies?
Are they, like, absolute irretrievable fucking morons?
Is there any other conclusion to come to?
And you know those other people, who are sometimes the same people, who are all like, "Hey, we can't have a republic, because our system of government works so well and if we didn't have a hereditary foreign monarch performing a purely ceremonial role on the other side of the world, it would all collapse because look at like Cuba and the Congo and stuff, they're republics and they're awful so if we didn't have the Queen we'd be like that!"?
You know all those people?
I just had a question about them:
Are they, like, retarded?
I mean, have they suffered massive head trauma at some point? Did their mothers drink a lot during pregnancy? Is it a genetic thing? Were they dropped as babies? Did they fall in a pool and lose consciousness for five minutes?
Are these people walking around wearing helments and knee pads? Do they go to special schools and work in sheltered workshops? Are they on government pensions due to their inability to make a living in normal society?
If you see these people in public, are they always walking into shopfront windows, thinking there's nothing there? Do they stare into mirrors for hours on end, trying to make friends with the nice person inside? Do they burst into tears on trains because they can't figure out how to open a broadsheet newspaper?
Do they squint in confusion at the Quick Crossword? Do they complain about the menus at McDonald's being too confusing? Do they quote the Herald Sun letters page at dinner parties?
Do they sit backwards on horses? Do they get stuck in revolving doors? Do they take half an hour to buy a train ticket from a machine? Do they get migraines from trying to follow the plot of Adam Sandler movies?
Do they watch Adam Sandler movies?
Are they, like, absolute irretrievable fucking morons?
Is there any other conclusion to come to?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Do I never STOP?
I know this blog excites you, and I know you go all gooey over Gather Around Me, the blog and podcast I co-host with Cam Smith.
But imagine if I had ANOTHER blog to thrill you all with!
And imagine if that blog were devoted to reviews of movies that don't actually exist, but which should!
Wouldn't that be amazingly wonderful?
YES, I imagine you are screaming loudly, startling family and co-workers.
HERE IT IS! Make This Movie, a blog for people who watch movies and believe there is a better way.
First review on the site: Random Acts Of Blindness, starring Jeff Bridges
Enjoy! Then come back here and enjoy some other stuff!
But imagine if I had ANOTHER blog to thrill you all with!
And imagine if that blog were devoted to reviews of movies that don't actually exist, but which should!
Wouldn't that be amazingly wonderful?
YES, I imagine you are screaming loudly, startling family and co-workers.
HERE IT IS! Make This Movie, a blog for people who watch movies and believe there is a better way.
First review on the site: Random Acts Of Blindness, starring Jeff Bridges
Enjoy! Then come back here and enjoy some other stuff!
I just realised...
In my last post I wrote "Intellectualism is not my god."
That was a bit of an odd thing for me to write, surely?
That was a bit of an odd thing for me to write, surely?
Friday, January 15, 2010
In Case You Hadn't Heard
Yes, The Rue McClanahan Hour is no more. Due to a disagreement with Triple R management - we thought we weren't disgustingly offensive and irretrievably unfunny, and they disagreed - our radio show was canned after two episodes. We apologise, since we do know there were people who were actually enjoying our little stint Make sure you tune in to Triple R from February on in our timeslot, every Monday 7pm Eastern time, as the Lime Champions will be back, and that's a quality show.
I won't go into too much detail as to the details behind the canning, suffice to say there were irreconcilable differences.
BUT the Gather Around Me podcast starring Ben Pobjie and Cam Smith continues, and there is a brand-new one, in which the Triple R "Kerfuffle" (call-back) is discussed. Go to Gather Around Me both for downloads and hilarious bloggettes.
Do not listen if you don't like hearing the word "rape", or you have a soft spot for hypothetical cats.
Should you be craving even more of the squeezings of my brain, check out my first newmatilda article of the year, in which I tackle the important and delicious issue of whaling.
This is a wonderful read. As "scepticcritic" says:
And as you read the article, maybe you'll ponder that question. WHY?
Furthermore, there's my latest review of weekly doings for the ABC, in which are discussed koalas, farmers, starvation, sailing, Indians, earthquakes and zany Christians.
To get the man in the street's typical reaction to this piece, why not ask "david hicks":
You're a fine one to talk, David. Glass houses, my friend, glass houses.
Or consider the opinion of "Crepitus":
OK, firstly, I can't really match wits with those who would agree with Miranda Devine. Intellectualism is not my god.
Secondly, what the sulphur-crested fuck is with people who don't like my articles being unable to spell my name. My name which is ON THE GODDAMN PAGE THEY ARE READING AT THE TIME THEY ARE COMMENTING. I mean, this isn't someone hearing my name and being unable to determine the correct spelling. This is someone who is incapable of directly copying down six letters in a row.
And why do people put an R in my name? I've never understood that? Do they assume I must actually have the terribly common everyday name "Probjie" that most people know and love?
Jesus.
Anyway, much as I have never belittled rape victims, Muslims or the mentally ill on the radio, I have never scoffed at the Haitian earthquake on the ABC website. Read closely and you'll notice this fact.
In fact, you don't even have to read that closely. Just don't be a cretin.
That aside though, I am pretty irrelevant and unfunny. Luckily I have a weekly appointment wherein I sexually gratify the entire ABC board in a disabled toilet in Box Hill, so my job there's pretty safe.
With newmatilda, it's mainly the high-grade heroin I mail to them that keeps on the site.
In summary: spell my fucking name right, for Christ's sake. It's really starting to piss me off.
And now, on a lighter note:
I'm a FATHER, guys. Don't you realise how much the criticism hurts my children?
I won't go into too much detail as to the details behind the canning, suffice to say there were irreconcilable differences.
BUT the Gather Around Me podcast starring Ben Pobjie and Cam Smith continues, and there is a brand-new one, in which the Triple R "Kerfuffle" (call-back) is discussed. Go to Gather Around Me both for downloads and hilarious bloggettes.
Do not listen if you don't like hearing the word "rape", or you have a soft spot for hypothetical cats.
Should you be craving even more of the squeezings of my brain, check out my first newmatilda article of the year, in which I tackle the important and delicious issue of whaling.
This is a wonderful read. As "scepticcritic" says:
How can you consider yourself any sort of authentic political satirist when you group ‘black people’ in a separate category from ‘humans"? If you can’t even respect the diversities within your own species I doubt you can do much for the whales.
And as you read the article, maybe you'll ponder that question. WHY?
Furthermore, there's my latest review of weekly doings for the ABC, in which are discussed koalas, farmers, starvation, sailing, Indians, earthquakes and zany Christians.
To get the man in the street's typical reaction to this piece, why not ask "david hicks":
There is a lot that is hugely distasteful about this article
You're a fine one to talk, David. Glass houses, my friend, glass houses.
Or consider the opinion of "Crepitus":
I think Miranda Devine sums up Ben Probjie when she calls him "puerile".(Click on Ben's CV)
Judging from his article, I would add "unfunny and irrelevant" but then I have never heard of Ben till now. He has some work to do if he wants to become relevant and be taken seriously as a comedian or satirist.
To scoff at the Haitian catastrophe is heartless. He had nothing worth while to say about the whaling issue on which he is biased anyway. Does he really want us to go to war with Japan over blubber? Sounds a bit like the War of Jenkins Ears.
OK, firstly, I can't really match wits with those who would agree with Miranda Devine. Intellectualism is not my god.
Secondly, what the sulphur-crested fuck is with people who don't like my articles being unable to spell my name. My name which is ON THE GODDAMN PAGE THEY ARE READING AT THE TIME THEY ARE COMMENTING. I mean, this isn't someone hearing my name and being unable to determine the correct spelling. This is someone who is incapable of directly copying down six letters in a row.
And why do people put an R in my name? I've never understood that? Do they assume I must actually have the terribly common everyday name "Probjie" that most people know and love?
Jesus.
Anyway, much as I have never belittled rape victims, Muslims or the mentally ill on the radio, I have never scoffed at the Haitian earthquake on the ABC website. Read closely and you'll notice this fact.
In fact, you don't even have to read that closely. Just don't be a cretin.
That aside though, I am pretty irrelevant and unfunny. Luckily I have a weekly appointment wherein I sexually gratify the entire ABC board in a disabled toilet in Box Hill, so my job there's pretty safe.
With newmatilda, it's mainly the high-grade heroin I mail to them that keeps on the site.
In summary: spell my fucking name right, for Christ's sake. It's really starting to piss me off.
And now, on a lighter note:
I'm a FATHER, guys. Don't you realise how much the criticism hurts my children?
Friday, January 1, 2010
There WAS a Year Zero!
Seriously, there was! Or at least, there COULD have been.
Snooty pretentious people like to sneer at those who would say 2000 is the start of a new millennium, or 2009 is the end of a decade, by saying, "Well, there was no year zero, so the decade/century starts at whatever-01, so blah blah blah".
BUT!
The idea that there can have been no year zero depends on one counting years the way one would count, say, magic beans, that is, start at 1, then 2, 3, etc.
HOWEVER!
We are counting years here, and not just years, but years since a supposed person's birth (we are aware that the said birth probably never even happened, and even if it did, it didn't happen at the point the calendar's dated from, but that's the conceit it's based on, so let's go with it).
And what do you do when you count the years since someone's birth? You say "Mr X is ONE, when he has finished his first year, not when he is starting it.
In other words, in all of our lives, there IS a year zero - the year from our birth up to our turning one year old.
And there is no reason not to suppose that, say, the year 2010 marks, not the start of the 2010th year, but the year following the END of the 2010th year.
That is, the number attached to the year indicates the "age" of the world, counting from 0, not the progressive year. In just the same fashion as somebody who is 50 is living in their 51st year, and the 1900s were the 20th century, it is entirely reasonable and consistent to say that 2010 is the 2011th year.
Now of course it's all arbitrary anyway, and the starting point of our calendar was just plucked out of the air, but the fact is that those who claim "there was no Year Zero", "the millennium began in 2001, not 2000", etc., are relying on making a grand statement that sounds unassailably rational, and will therefore not be questioned. Since, once questioned, the grand statement is found to be entirely without evidential backing, and the stater to have not a leg to stand on. The entire argument is a house of cards, waiting for clever people like me to blow on it.
There is absolutely no reason there can't be a year zero. The assertion that there was is just as sensible as the assertion that there wasn't, with the added bonus that it accords with our natural human sensibilities to see a year like 2000 as a milestone, rather than 2001.
Incidentally, the only reason people are really kicking up about 2010 not being the start of a new decade is that 2010 is not blatantly enough a change from 2009, especially since most people are still pronouncing it "Two Thousand and Ten". It's a lot easier emotionally to accept 1990 as a new decade following 1989 - 80s to nineties - than it is the seemingly non-existent distinction between nine and ten.
Tell your friends!
Snooty pretentious people like to sneer at those who would say 2000 is the start of a new millennium, or 2009 is the end of a decade, by saying, "Well, there was no year zero, so the decade/century starts at whatever-01, so blah blah blah".
BUT!
The idea that there can have been no year zero depends on one counting years the way one would count, say, magic beans, that is, start at 1, then 2, 3, etc.
HOWEVER!
We are counting years here, and not just years, but years since a supposed person's birth (we are aware that the said birth probably never even happened, and even if it did, it didn't happen at the point the calendar's dated from, but that's the conceit it's based on, so let's go with it).
And what do you do when you count the years since someone's birth? You say "Mr X is ONE, when he has finished his first year, not when he is starting it.
In other words, in all of our lives, there IS a year zero - the year from our birth up to our turning one year old.
And there is no reason not to suppose that, say, the year 2010 marks, not the start of the 2010th year, but the year following the END of the 2010th year.
That is, the number attached to the year indicates the "age" of the world, counting from 0, not the progressive year. In just the same fashion as somebody who is 50 is living in their 51st year, and the 1900s were the 20th century, it is entirely reasonable and consistent to say that 2010 is the 2011th year.
Now of course it's all arbitrary anyway, and the starting point of our calendar was just plucked out of the air, but the fact is that those who claim "there was no Year Zero", "the millennium began in 2001, not 2000", etc., are relying on making a grand statement that sounds unassailably rational, and will therefore not be questioned. Since, once questioned, the grand statement is found to be entirely without evidential backing, and the stater to have not a leg to stand on. The entire argument is a house of cards, waiting for clever people like me to blow on it.
There is absolutely no reason there can't be a year zero. The assertion that there was is just as sensible as the assertion that there wasn't, with the added bonus that it accords with our natural human sensibilities to see a year like 2000 as a milestone, rather than 2001.
Incidentally, the only reason people are really kicking up about 2010 not being the start of a new decade is that 2010 is not blatantly enough a change from 2009, especially since most people are still pronouncing it "Two Thousand and Ten". It's a lot easier emotionally to accept 1990 as a new decade following 1989 - 80s to nineties - than it is the seemingly non-existent distinction between nine and ten.
Tell your friends!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The Rue McClanahan Hour
The first Rue McClanahan Hour on Triple R, hosted by myself and Cam Smith, went off without a hitch, unless you count Cam's awful taste in music and his ignorance of Brittany Murphy's career trajectory.
You DO NOT want to miss the next episode, as it will be the one in which we:
a) reveal our secret identities, and
b) party with hot chicks
It's laughter, it's banter, it's wondrous tales of magic and incredibleness, it's occasional swearing and a burgeoning bromance that warms the cockles of the heart and vice versa.
You can listen to it on 102.7FM in Melbourne, and worldwide you can listen to it at http://www.rrr.org.au.
Or go to http://gatheraroundme.libsyn.com, which is where the podcast of the first show (sans music) is right NOW, and where future episodes will be posted as they arrive. That's also, of course, where you can download all previous Gather Around Me podcasts, and bonus tracks. Keep up to date on GAM and RMH news by checking out Cam's and my joint blog, http://gatheraround.me. But of course you're all devoted enough to know this already.
Don't forget, The Rue McClanahan Hour, Mondays in January, 7pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time and so forth. Go listen, sweetcakes.
You DO NOT want to miss the next episode, as it will be the one in which we:
a) reveal our secret identities, and
b) party with hot chicks
It's laughter, it's banter, it's wondrous tales of magic and incredibleness, it's occasional swearing and a burgeoning bromance that warms the cockles of the heart and vice versa.
You can listen to it on 102.7FM in Melbourne, and worldwide you can listen to it at http://www.rrr.org.au.
Or go to http://gatheraroundme.libsyn.com, which is where the podcast of the first show (sans music) is right NOW, and where future episodes will be posted as they arrive. That's also, of course, where you can download all previous Gather Around Me podcasts, and bonus tracks. Keep up to date on GAM and RMH news by checking out Cam's and my joint blog, http://gatheraround.me. But of course you're all devoted enough to know this already.
Don't forget, The Rue McClanahan Hour, Mondays in January, 7pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time and so forth. Go listen, sweetcakes.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Children: ruining it for the rest of us
As a father of three who is very concerned about the welfare of my young, vulnerable, children, I would like to tell Senator Stephen Conroy to jam his internet filter right up his mangina.
I'll protect my kids myself, thank you very much, Senator Khomeini.
Fuck internet censorship in the ear. And to put it more eloquently, a completely awesome article by Helen Razer.
And just to piss off anyone who disagrees:
I'll protect my kids myself, thank you very much, Senator Khomeini.
Fuck internet censorship in the ear. And to put it more eloquently, a completely awesome article by Helen Razer.
And just to piss off anyone who disagrees:
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Commenting on comments
You may have noticed on my latest ABC article that there are quite a few comments. Do take the time to trawl through them - diamonds they are. Anyway, having (belatedly) become smart enough to avoid arguing with stupid people who hate me, I'm going to muse on some of the comments here.
For example, "shane" writes:
"Anybody who follows Jesus as Lord & savoir according to the bible are saints"
Kind of a low standard, isn't it?
"If you pray to dead people this is called necromancy"
You mean like...Jesus?
"fed up" writes:
"Well i dont find this funny at all"
Damn...I've failed with a key demographic here.
"how sarcastic.
mr. Rudd has been going to Marys Chapel for some time
WHY O WHY ARE THE ABC PICKING ON OUR P.M.
SO MUCH ARE YOU ALL SERIOUS
CAN YOU DO BETTER AT COPENHAGEN I SUGGEST YOU CATCH THE NEXT PLANE
mary has anwered many a prayer for me you may laugh but i hope you dont need to prayer her soon for something that comes in your life.
i am fed up of the abc taking the mickey out of every one that does good in this country in couding out p.m TALL POPPY SYNDROM ITS ABOUT TIME THIS COUNTRY GREW UP
of course you all write this rubbish but then do you move on to the next thing without reading what we saY.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO OTHERS AND MYSELF NOT TO BOTHER BECAUSE I DOUBT YOU READ WHAT WE SAY.
AND IF WE DID NOT MAKE COMMENTS THEN THERE WOULD BE NO DRUM SO FROM NOW ON I AM NOT COMMENTING"
Now that my career has been destroyed by the mass grassroots "no commenting" movement, I guess I have some free time. So yeah, I WILL get on the next plane. And I will give those pollies a talking to, "in couding out p.m."
Hopefully the plane doesn't run into trouble, or I might have to prayer Mary MacKillop for something that comes in my life.
And then there's "Dazza":
"First of all God does not make mistakes, it is our fallen world that has caused all of this."
I wonder, when I hear someone express this sentiment, if you put the person in a nice quiet room and just left them there, without interruptions, for an indefinite length of time...would they eventually figure out what's wrong with their picture?
"ElijahThomas" chips in:
"like all anti-religion arguments yours demonstrates a woefully inadequate (even theoretical) understanding of God.
look at your own language...
"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it."
what of an author who has planned the end of his book? are they powerless to change it?"
Powerful, powerful analogy, Elijah. Now if you'd just step into this nice quiet room...
"DocMercury" changes the subject:
"One of the cures for cancer is known to be preventive rather than responsive, such as making it a habit to ingest or inhale zero dosage in toxins, avoiding aldehyde in the liver and benzene in the air.
So we're told, now that gambling excise more than makes up for lost nicotine excise, and the ethanol consumption remains constant."
Good point, Doc. You've really, er, cut to the heart of the article...um, there...
Last word goes to "John":
"Abbott will make a fine prime minister and I will be first in the queue to vote for him. Thumbs up!"
And you can NOT argue with that!
For example, "shane" writes:
"Anybody who follows Jesus as Lord & savoir according to the bible are saints"
Kind of a low standard, isn't it?
"If you pray to dead people this is called necromancy"
You mean like...Jesus?
"fed up" writes:
"Well i dont find this funny at all"
Damn...I've failed with a key demographic here.
"how sarcastic.
mr. Rudd has been going to Marys Chapel for some time
WHY O WHY ARE THE ABC PICKING ON OUR P.M.
SO MUCH ARE YOU ALL SERIOUS
CAN YOU DO BETTER AT COPENHAGEN I SUGGEST YOU CATCH THE NEXT PLANE
mary has anwered many a prayer for me you may laugh but i hope you dont need to prayer her soon for something that comes in your life.
i am fed up of the abc taking the mickey out of every one that does good in this country in couding out p.m TALL POPPY SYNDROM ITS ABOUT TIME THIS COUNTRY GREW UP
of course you all write this rubbish but then do you move on to the next thing without reading what we saY.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO OTHERS AND MYSELF NOT TO BOTHER BECAUSE I DOUBT YOU READ WHAT WE SAY.
AND IF WE DID NOT MAKE COMMENTS THEN THERE WOULD BE NO DRUM SO FROM NOW ON I AM NOT COMMENTING"
Now that my career has been destroyed by the mass grassroots "no commenting" movement, I guess I have some free time. So yeah, I WILL get on the next plane. And I will give those pollies a talking to, "in couding out p.m."
Hopefully the plane doesn't run into trouble, or I might have to prayer Mary MacKillop for something that comes in my life.
And then there's "Dazza":
"First of all God does not make mistakes, it is our fallen world that has caused all of this."
I wonder, when I hear someone express this sentiment, if you put the person in a nice quiet room and just left them there, without interruptions, for an indefinite length of time...would they eventually figure out what's wrong with their picture?
"ElijahThomas" chips in:
"like all anti-religion arguments yours demonstrates a woefully inadequate (even theoretical) understanding of God.
look at your own language...
"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it."
what of an author who has planned the end of his book? are they powerless to change it?"
Powerful, powerful analogy, Elijah. Now if you'd just step into this nice quiet room...
"DocMercury" changes the subject:
"One of the cures for cancer is known to be preventive rather than responsive, such as making it a habit to ingest or inhale zero dosage in toxins, avoiding aldehyde in the liver and benzene in the air.
So we're told, now that gambling excise more than makes up for lost nicotine excise, and the ethanol consumption remains constant."
Good point, Doc. You've really, er, cut to the heart of the article...um, there...
Last word goes to "John":
"Abbott will make a fine prime minister and I will be first in the queue to vote for him. Thumbs up!"
And you can NOT argue with that!
A Brave New World?
For those of you who haven't seen it yet, this is the first of what will, it would seem, be a series of weekly articles for the ABC's new site, The Drum (or The Drum Unleashed, or...something). Go check it out! I deal with Copenhagen, Rudd, Obama, Abbott, Joyce, and of course Mother Mary MacKillop
This does NOT mean I am leaving newmatilda - I remain the resident satirist at NM, long may their hit-count multiply. In that spirit, also go check out my end-of-year column for newmatilda, in which I look back at 2009 and make some bold predictions for 2010.
Also, keep looking out on newmatilda for another piece by me, part of the site's summer series. Maybe you should subscribe (for free!) so you NEVER miss a piece I write? Just a thought.
This does NOT mean I am leaving newmatilda - I remain the resident satirist at NM, long may their hit-count multiply. In that spirit, also go check out my end-of-year column for newmatilda, in which I look back at 2009 and make some bold predictions for 2010.
Also, keep looking out on newmatilda for another piece by me, part of the site's summer series. Maybe you should subscribe (for free!) so you NEVER miss a piece I write? Just a thought.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fill in the blanks: Oh My Sainted _unt
So anyway, Mary MacKillop is set to become a saint, AUSTRALIA'S FIRST!
Now, far be it from me to distract from the orgy of patriotic pride that will undoubtedly spew forth like a great burst abscess at the canonisation of the dear lady,; I enjoy the assigning of nationalistic value to arbitrary decisions of the religiously insane as much as the next man.
HOWEVER
Given that the qualification for MacKillop's sainthood is the performance of two miracles...
And given that these two miracles were performed by Sister Mary many, many years AFTER her death...
And given PM Rudd's enthusiastic support for the canonisation and the fact he is sure to pontificate on the significance of the event when it comes...
Will ANY journalist have the guts to ask the obvious question, which is:
"Prime Minister, do you actually believe that the ghosts of dead nuns heal the sick, and if your answer is yes, do you think you are of sound mind to be in charge of a sharp kitchen utensil, let alone a country?"
Now, far be it from me to distract from the orgy of patriotic pride that will undoubtedly spew forth like a great burst abscess at the canonisation of the dear lady,; I enjoy the assigning of nationalistic value to arbitrary decisions of the religiously insane as much as the next man.
HOWEVER
Given that the qualification for MacKillop's sainthood is the performance of two miracles...
And given that these two miracles were performed by Sister Mary many, many years AFTER her death...
And given PM Rudd's enthusiastic support for the canonisation and the fact he is sure to pontificate on the significance of the event when it comes...
Will ANY journalist have the guts to ask the obvious question, which is:
"Prime Minister, do you actually believe that the ghosts of dead nuns heal the sick, and if your answer is yes, do you think you are of sound mind to be in charge of a sharp kitchen utensil, let alone a country?"
Monday, December 7, 2009
A Quick Quiz
My latest newmatilda article...and comments.
Now, having read said article and said comments, a quick quiz for readers to take, to win big!
1. In what sense can "motherlode" (however you spell it) be construed as a religious reference?
2. What is the average IQ required to grasp the difference between ridiculing someone who IS a Catholic, and ridiculing someone for BEING Catholic, with no other reason?
3. Is there any particular reason anyone's religion should be immune from ridicule?
Highest scores win a specially autographed essay on the links between anonymous abusive internet warriors and virulent anti-Semitism.
Now, having read said article and said comments, a quick quiz for readers to take, to win big!
1. In what sense can "motherlode" (however you spell it) be construed as a religious reference?
2. What is the average IQ required to grasp the difference between ridiculing someone who IS a Catholic, and ridiculing someone for BEING Catholic, with no other reason?
3. Is there any particular reason anyone's religion should be immune from ridicule?
Highest scores win a specially autographed essay on the links between anonymous abusive internet warriors and virulent anti-Semitism.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
A Glossary
Here is a list of South Australian political puns that you can drop into conversation to make your next social event go with a zing:
Nick Xenuphon
Mike Ranndy
Sandra Skanck
Penny Wrong
Natasha's Hot - Despoil Her
Alexander Downer
Submit your own South Australian Political Puns and win BIG PRIZES!
Nick Xenuphon
Mike Ranndy
Sandra Skanck
Penny Wrong
Natasha's Hot - Despoil Her
Alexander Downer
Submit your own South Australian Political Puns and win BIG PRIZES!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Yes, WHY?
I have made my debut on The Punch, with my Twitter piece.
The commenters are already out in force, with the usual nice mix of applause and duhhhhh.
My favourite example, from "Colin Campbell"
"why did you spend seven hours on something you hate?"
Colin is SO onto me. Why DID I do that? It's a completely absurd thing to do! It's just stupid! It's like some ridiculous JOKE!
Hee.
The commenters are already out in force, with the usual nice mix of applause and duhhhhh.
My favourite example, from "Colin Campbell"
"why did you spend seven hours on something you hate?"
Colin is SO onto me. Why DID I do that? It's a completely absurd thing to do! It's just stupid! It's like some ridiculous JOKE!
Hee.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Hitler: the lighter side
Most of us are aware that Hitler is a pretty common go-to guy for politicians, writers and public figures looking to score debating points against their enemies. You know how it goes: "What M X is proposing is disturbingly similar to the policies enacted in 1930s Germany"; "The honourable member brings to mind frightening echoes of the excesses of the Nazi Party"; "The government's policies carry more than a whiff of the Third Reich"; "You're a fucking Nazi, pal" and so forth. Many a reputation has been effectively smeared in this manner, not least that of Mr X.
However, all of these smears have, until now, had one notable thing in common: in all cases, the Nazi parallels were brought up to show the person, party or policy being compared in a bad light. That is, the rule has hitherto been, if you say that something is a lot like what Hitler would do, you are saying it is not a good thing.
NOT ANY MORE, BABY!
West Australian state MP Peter Abetz has changed the game for everyone with a breathtakingly original move: citing the Nazis as a positive example to demonstrate the soundness of his proposal.
That's right: Abetz, pushing the WA Liberal government's legislation that would grant police powers to search people in public without needing to show reasonable cause, chose to illustrate the good sense and practicality of the policy by pointing out how well it worked for Hitler.
"When it comes to the crunch, people prefer to be safe than to have freedom," said the good member, cannily putting his finger on just why the Liberals are known far and wide as "The Cuddly Party".
Bravo, The Hon. Mr Abetz. We thought we had seen every political trick, every cunning tactic, every sly manoeuvre, every cheap rhetorical trick, every piece of clever spin under the sun. We had, I confess, yet to consider the possibility that a politician who to all outward appearances is a fully-functioning adult human being might at some point try to put into play that rarest of political gambits, the old "A vote for me is a vote for a police force modelled on the SS" ploy. Kudos to you, sir!
However, all of these smears have, until now, had one notable thing in common: in all cases, the Nazi parallels were brought up to show the person, party or policy being compared in a bad light. That is, the rule has hitherto been, if you say that something is a lot like what Hitler would do, you are saying it is not a good thing.
NOT ANY MORE, BABY!
West Australian state MP Peter Abetz has changed the game for everyone with a breathtakingly original move: citing the Nazis as a positive example to demonstrate the soundness of his proposal.
That's right: Abetz, pushing the WA Liberal government's legislation that would grant police powers to search people in public without needing to show reasonable cause, chose to illustrate the good sense and practicality of the policy by pointing out how well it worked for Hitler.
"When it comes to the crunch, people prefer to be safe than to have freedom," said the good member, cannily putting his finger on just why the Liberals are known far and wide as "The Cuddly Party".
Bravo, The Hon. Mr Abetz. We thought we had seen every political trick, every cunning tactic, every sly manoeuvre, every cheap rhetorical trick, every piece of clever spin under the sun. We had, I confess, yet to consider the possibility that a politician who to all outward appearances is a fully-functioning adult human being might at some point try to put into play that rarest of political gambits, the old "A vote for me is a vote for a police force modelled on the SS" ploy. Kudos to you, sir!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books - a Spotter's Guide
How to recognise a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book:
Here is one:
And here's another:
This is another one:
This one too:
And goodness gracious me, even this one:
But here is what a Hitchhiker' Guide to the Galaxy book does NOT look like:
So fuck YOU, Eoin Colfer, you smug Irish bastard.
Here is one:
And here's another:
This is another one:
This one too:
And goodness gracious me, even this one:
But here is what a Hitchhiker' Guide to the Galaxy book does NOT look like:
So fuck YOU, Eoin Colfer, you smug Irish bastard.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Asylum Seekers: A User's Guide
Written by me.
Brown people - providing comedy fodder through their misery for over five hundred years!
Brown people - providing comedy fodder through their misery for over five hundred years!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
I have been saying this for YEARS
Look! Here it is people. From snopes.com. Read carefully and live the rest of your life free from ignorance.
You don't figure out dog years by multiplying the dog's age by seven
And I already knew this, because sometimes dogs live to, like 20, which would mean they were "really" 140. And since no human lives to be 140, and the whole "dog years" formula is supposed to give us a point of comparison between human and dog ages, that would be...
FRIGGING STUPID.
Thank God for Snopes.
You don't figure out dog years by multiplying the dog's age by seven
And I already knew this, because sometimes dogs live to, like 20, which would mean they were "really" 140. And since no human lives to be 140, and the whole "dog years" formula is supposed to give us a point of comparison between human and dog ages, that would be...
FRIGGING STUPID.
Thank God for Snopes.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Who's Gonna Drive You Home...Tonight?
There but for the grace of Cthulhu...
I used to LIVE in this house.
That was 10 years ago, but my mother and sister lived there up until June this year.
Of course, THEY knew how to keep the place in good order. Unlike these new owners, who seem to think they can leave their trash lying about any old place, park wherever they please etc.
I used to LIVE in this house.
That was 10 years ago, but my mother and sister lived there up until June this year.
Of course, THEY knew how to keep the place in good order. Unlike these new owners, who seem to think they can leave their trash lying about any old place, park wherever they please etc.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Regrets
What is my number one regret? The lies I've told, the friends I've hurt, the manslaughter of the childhood friend I covered up?
NO
My number one regret is that I have been neglecting my faithful blog readers. Both of you. Ha ha ha self-deprecation!
Anyway, I was away for a little bit decompressing from a rather frantic personal and professional period, visiting family and lying down etc. I'm back now, blogging for your delectation.
What's been happening since the last update?
Well, there have been more writings, obviously. Check them out:
At newmatilda.com:
Thoughts on rugby league and great 20th-century statesmen
Thoughts on the Victorian government's affaire grande with the religious right
My thoughts on silly immigrants and why the athletic ones are better
At Crikey:
My first stab at investigate journalism; I managed to smuggle out the minutes from Hey Hey It's Saturday's production meeting prior to their second reunion special.
Please note: not only did John Blackman comment on that last one, he almost knows my name! I am pretty special I think you will agree.
So in other news...a new project! Gather Around Me, with Australia's hippest young pop culture vivisectionists Ben Pobjie and Cam Smith bringing you their thoughts through the magic of Montenegran internet.
GAM will feature random musings by Cam and myself throughout your long, otherwise-stultifying days, but the main meat of the site is in our regular podcasts. There are two up so far, check 'em out. You can also subscribe through iTunes.
Also, following my gig way back at the Emerging Writers' Festival, I have a piece in the EWF Reader, a collection of writers writing about writing. To quote the EWF:
"The Reader is a new collection that combines highlights of the 2009 festival with general writing information and new creative works across various writing forms.
The Reader is about the craft, the approaches, the techniques and processes; the discipline(s), the forms, the experiments; the inner life, the social life, the lifestyle; the ups and downs, the tricks and the tribulations, the fun and the failure…
The Reader is Artworks, Illustrations, Flash Fiction, Fragments, Interviews, Short Stories, Sketches, Songs, Sonnets, Haiku, Poetry, Plays, Photos, Comics, Couplets, Verse, Recipes, Rants, and Memoirs.
The Reader is Steven Amsterdam on writers’ workshops, Clem Bastow on freelancing, Jen Breach on writing comics, Mel Campbell on pitching to editors, Kathy Charles on shameless self-promotion, Stephanie Convery on writing Black Saturday, Olivia Davis on fear and writing practices, Lisa Dempster on how much writers earn, Koraly Dimitriadis talks to Christos Tsoilkas, Caroline Hamilton compares writers’ festivals and music festivals, Stu Hatton on his mentorship with Dorothy Porter, Jane Hawtin discusses publishing academic research for a general audience, Andrew Hutchinson recalls the Emerging Writers’ Festival, Tiggy Johnson on parenthood and writing, Krissy Kneen on not writing about sex, Benjamin Law on failure, Angela Meyer reviews books for writers, Jennifer Mills on the politics of publishing and engaging with readers, Anthony Noack on good grammar, John Pace on re-drafting your screenplay, Ryan Paine on the role of the critic, Ben Pobjie on writing comedy, Robert Reid on the role of the contemporary playwright, Aden Rolfe on the emergentsia, Jenny Sinclair on the landscape of her book research, Chris Summers talks to Lally Katz about theatre writing, Mia Timpano on how to cultivate the ultimate author profile photo, Estelle Tang on Christopher Currie and blogging fiction, Simmone Michelle-Wells pens a letter to her younger self, Cameron White reviews alternatives to Microsoft Word.
And new creative works by Maxine Clark, Chris Currie, Chris Downes, Claire Henderson, Kirk Marshall, Scott-Patrick Mitchell, Alice Mrongovius, Meg Mundell, Warwick Sprawson and Cameron T"
Nota Bene: "Ben Pobjie on writing comedy". Yes! After reading the Reader, you will know how to be funny, like me! I'm not even joking, y'all! In bookstores now!
More soon, you sexy readers.
NO
My number one regret is that I have been neglecting my faithful blog readers. Both of you. Ha ha ha self-deprecation!
Anyway, I was away for a little bit decompressing from a rather frantic personal and professional period, visiting family and lying down etc. I'm back now, blogging for your delectation.
What's been happening since the last update?
Well, there have been more writings, obviously. Check them out:
At newmatilda.com:
Thoughts on rugby league and great 20th-century statesmen
Thoughts on the Victorian government's affaire grande with the religious right
My thoughts on silly immigrants and why the athletic ones are better
At Crikey:
My first stab at investigate journalism; I managed to smuggle out the minutes from Hey Hey It's Saturday's production meeting prior to their second reunion special.
Please note: not only did John Blackman comment on that last one, he almost knows my name! I am pretty special I think you will agree.
So in other news...a new project! Gather Around Me, with Australia's hippest young pop culture vivisectionists Ben Pobjie and Cam Smith bringing you their thoughts through the magic of Montenegran internet.
GAM will feature random musings by Cam and myself throughout your long, otherwise-stultifying days, but the main meat of the site is in our regular podcasts. There are two up so far, check 'em out. You can also subscribe through iTunes.
Also, following my gig way back at the Emerging Writers' Festival, I have a piece in the EWF Reader, a collection of writers writing about writing. To quote the EWF:
"The Reader is a new collection that combines highlights of the 2009 festival with general writing information and new creative works across various writing forms.
The Reader is about the craft, the approaches, the techniques and processes; the discipline(s), the forms, the experiments; the inner life, the social life, the lifestyle; the ups and downs, the tricks and the tribulations, the fun and the failure…
The Reader is Artworks, Illustrations, Flash Fiction, Fragments, Interviews, Short Stories, Sketches, Songs, Sonnets, Haiku, Poetry, Plays, Photos, Comics, Couplets, Verse, Recipes, Rants, and Memoirs.
The Reader is Steven Amsterdam on writers’ workshops, Clem Bastow on freelancing, Jen Breach on writing comics, Mel Campbell on pitching to editors, Kathy Charles on shameless self-promotion, Stephanie Convery on writing Black Saturday, Olivia Davis on fear and writing practices, Lisa Dempster on how much writers earn, Koraly Dimitriadis talks to Christos Tsoilkas, Caroline Hamilton compares writers’ festivals and music festivals, Stu Hatton on his mentorship with Dorothy Porter, Jane Hawtin discusses publishing academic research for a general audience, Andrew Hutchinson recalls the Emerging Writers’ Festival, Tiggy Johnson on parenthood and writing, Krissy Kneen on not writing about sex, Benjamin Law on failure, Angela Meyer reviews books for writers, Jennifer Mills on the politics of publishing and engaging with readers, Anthony Noack on good grammar, John Pace on re-drafting your screenplay, Ryan Paine on the role of the critic, Ben Pobjie on writing comedy, Robert Reid on the role of the contemporary playwright, Aden Rolfe on the emergentsia, Jenny Sinclair on the landscape of her book research, Chris Summers talks to Lally Katz about theatre writing, Mia Timpano on how to cultivate the ultimate author profile photo, Estelle Tang on Christopher Currie and blogging fiction, Simmone Michelle-Wells pens a letter to her younger self, Cameron White reviews alternatives to Microsoft Word.
And new creative works by Maxine Clark, Chris Currie, Chris Downes, Claire Henderson, Kirk Marshall, Scott-Patrick Mitchell, Alice Mrongovius, Meg Mundell, Warwick Sprawson and Cameron T"
Nota Bene: "Ben Pobjie on writing comedy". Yes! After reading the Reader, you will know how to be funny, like me! I'm not even joking, y'all! In bookstores now!
More soon, you sexy readers.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Deep in the Enchanted Woods...(cross-posted in Gather Around Me)
Some news has recently come to light that will CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
I am serious. I know you thought the moon landing would change your life. I know you thought September 11 would change your life. I know you thought a long-term relationship or a fulfilling career would change your life. You were WRONG.
Because - and I hope you're sitting down - it has been revealed that there is a city in Sweden inhabited entirely by 25,000 lesbians.
I would like to point out at this point that this story was carried by both the Xinhua AND Harbin news agencies of China, so you can be sure of its veracity.
Founded in 1820 by a man-hating widow, who decided for some reason to build a medieval castle while she was at it, Chako Paul City is apparently a great tourist attraction. Only for women, though, because if you are a man, you will be beaten to death (or, depending on who you're talking to, "half to death") by gender police as soon as you arrive. It is also guarded at the entrance by two large blonde women, so it sounds devilishly hard to sneak into.
The men of China have cottoned on to the enormous potential of this place, since the women are apparently only lesbians because of their desperation at the lack of men - which makes the "kill every man who comes here" policy somewhat odd, but anyway - and Sweden has been besieged by inquiries from lonely Chinese men asking how they can visit Chako Paul.
That's the Chinese for you. Crazy-brave, and true romantics at heart, willing to travel halfway around the world and risk a fatal beating for the chance to get it on with a Swedish lesbian. I salute you, men of China.
I think the most exciting part of this is the realisation that the castle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail REALLY EXISTS. And in fact, I sense a chance for a really great blockbuster movie, combining elements of Some Like It Hot, Sorority Boys, Alvin Purple, and Lost Horizon.
Snap to it, titans of Hollywood!
Perhaps we should leave the last word to Claes Bertilson, a spokesperson for Sweden’s Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR), who says, " I find it hard to believe that you could keep something like that a secret for more than 150 years".
Hard to believe, Claes? Perhaps for YOU.
I am serious. I know you thought the moon landing would change your life. I know you thought September 11 would change your life. I know you thought a long-term relationship or a fulfilling career would change your life. You were WRONG.
Because - and I hope you're sitting down - it has been revealed that there is a city in Sweden inhabited entirely by 25,000 lesbians.
I would like to point out at this point that this story was carried by both the Xinhua AND Harbin news agencies of China, so you can be sure of its veracity.
Founded in 1820 by a man-hating widow, who decided for some reason to build a medieval castle while she was at it, Chako Paul City is apparently a great tourist attraction. Only for women, though, because if you are a man, you will be beaten to death (or, depending on who you're talking to, "half to death") by gender police as soon as you arrive. It is also guarded at the entrance by two large blonde women, so it sounds devilishly hard to sneak into.
The men of China have cottoned on to the enormous potential of this place, since the women are apparently only lesbians because of their desperation at the lack of men - which makes the "kill every man who comes here" policy somewhat odd, but anyway - and Sweden has been besieged by inquiries from lonely Chinese men asking how they can visit Chako Paul.
That's the Chinese for you. Crazy-brave, and true romantics at heart, willing to travel halfway around the world and risk a fatal beating for the chance to get it on with a Swedish lesbian. I salute you, men of China.
I think the most exciting part of this is the realisation that the castle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail REALLY EXISTS. And in fact, I sense a chance for a really great blockbuster movie, combining elements of Some Like It Hot, Sorority Boys, Alvin Purple, and Lost Horizon.
Snap to it, titans of Hollywood!
Perhaps we should leave the last word to Claes Bertilson, a spokesperson for Sweden’s Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR), who says, " I find it hard to believe that you could keep something like that a secret for more than 150 years".
Hard to believe, Claes? Perhaps for YOU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)