What?!

It's too early in the morning for me to write a lengthy post about this, and too early for me to really grasp why I am so offended/annoyed by this article.

But I am, so here it is. Discuss away.

Incoherent Rant

There's an article in today's 'The Age' about a woman who tried to breastfeed her child on a Tiger Airways flight, only to be told to cover up by one of the hostesses.

The pivotal moment of the article for me was:

Mrs Ward said she told the attendant that she had a right to breastfeed, but was asked again to cover her baby because a man seated near her ''might not like to see it''.

''I said to [the man], 'Does this offend you?' and he said, 'No, not at all.'

The man sums up what I suspect is the view of 95% of us. No, we are not offended by breastfeeding. There may be some that are slightly uncomfortable, some may even be squeamish, but, I imagine they are in the minority. The rest of us have a 'whatever' attitude. Hell, the kids need their milk. Beats having a screaming kid next to you on the airplane / in the cinema / at the shop.

1. There seems to be in general Australian society these days some sort of workplace-driven set of things that are considered offensive but ironically do not happen to offend anyone at all. They are offensive only in that they are said to be offensive, but I don't know of one person that is offended by them. Breastfeeding is one. Swearing is another (maybe not 'cunt', but, let's say, 'shit'). Cleavage is another. Dress-sense is another.

I know, it all depends on what industry/environment one is in, but I'm talking very generally.

What's more, people will be offended by these things in the workplace even though they may not be offended by them the second they walk out the door. "Oh, you can't say 'bullshit'", the woman may say to the bank-teller, even though that same woman may say it herself all the time. There's every chance that the hostess on the plane wouldn't care if her sister was breastfeeding at the kitchen table, but, because it's in the workplace, suddenly this thing that does not offend her, offends her.

I told a client recently that her idea was 'stupid' and she laughed. But, a work colleage looked at me afterwards and said, "You shouldn't have said 'stupid'. You should have played it safe and said something like, "I don't believe your concept has a viable outcome." I threw a copy of Don Watson's 'Death Sentence' at her and claimed my right to speak plainly... to speak and act like a normal human being.

Maybe it's our Englishness (even an Aussie without any English blood adopts / retains elements of Englishness that most of England even gave up on years ago).

Foucault has a lot to answer for. We're not just muddying the language in order to appease a non-existent fringe element, we're muddying behaviour.

If you want to breastfeed your child, do so. Nobody really cares.

UPDATE / ANECDOTE / ILLUSTRATION

A few years ago I woked at a company with about 150 employees. The Maltese receptionist wore, in summer, low lying tops, thus revealing some cleavage. Not slutty, but a bit revealing. She wasn't slutty in herself either. She was a really nice girl and was popular amongst the staff. Anyway, one day, the HR woman told her to not to reveal cleavage any more. I happened to be talking to the HR woman later and this was the convesration...

HR: I had to tell Receptionist to not wear such revealing clothing. It was awkward, bit it had to be done. She's so nice, and she was really embarrassed.

Me: Did someone complain.

HR: No.

Me: So why stop her?

HR: Well, it could be deemed offensive.

Me: By who?

HR: Clients, perhaps.

Me: Did a client complain?

HR: No.

Me: She's been here more than a year, she's a brilliant receptionist, clients come in all day... nobody has a problem with her dress sense, and yet, you have now made her feel bad.

HR: But it had to be done!

Me: Why?

HR: Because you can't dress like that in a professional environment.

Me: Why not?

HR: Because it's not professional.

Me: Who says?

HR: Umm... society.

Me: Who?

HR: Society!

Me: But we're society. Her colleagues, and our clients, and none of us have a problem with it.

HR: But they might.

Me: But they don't!

**

(May I emphasise, it's not like she dressed like a hooker. There was just a bit of cleavage, and indeed some of the management women dressed far more seductively, but because she was 'the receptionist' and at the front desk of the building, a different rule seemed to apply for no apparent reason).

Bollocks, Part Two.

An article from yesterday’s Australian on-line reports on the latest Newspoll.

The paper notes, in tones of deathless surprise;

Kevin Rudd's dominance of the Australian political landscape is still going strong according to the latest Newspoll.

Despite recent revelations of the Prime Minister’s expletive-laden tirade against factional leaders and fears world leaders will not be able to strike a deal at climate change talks in Copenhagen, Mr Rudd remains the nation’s preferred prime minister according to voters surveyed last weekend by Newspoll.

Well durrrr.

Did anybody seriously think Kruddy using a “full and frank exchange of views” in a private meeting with some Labor Party backbenchers would do anything other than make him even more popular?

Did nobody remember the “Rudd pissed in strip club shock” which pundits confidentially predicted would “seriously damage the opposition leader” but everybody else thought “yeah, bloody legend”.

The level of political analysis in large chunks of the Australian media continues to baffle me.

Now, let us resume laughing at Perseus.

Bollocks!

Everybody knows I’m a Labor man, but I’m no fan of right-wing pinheads like John Della Bosca.

That said, the story that ran in the Daily Telegraph about his six-month affair was bullshit and I doubt very much if a similar story would have appeared in the Melbourne media.

The rough rule of thumb in the media used to be that unless this sort of guff was obviously interfering with their ministerial responsibilities or it was obviously hypocritical (a strong “family values” MP conducting an affair), then what an MP did – as long as it was legal – was his or her business.

I fail to see how the story in the Tellie meets either of these criteria.

True, the woman alleges Mr Della Bosca was neglecting his duties, but this is based largely on hearsay and innuendo. And I can’t recall Mr Della Bosca making a big song and dance about “family values” but I’m prepared to be corrected.

What I do know is that the Tellie has form when it comes to dodgy news stories; witness “I can’t believe it’s not Pauline Hanson – oh wait, it isn’t” and ‘UTEGATE – the email that could bring down a Government Malcolm Turnbull”.

This seems less than a legitimate news story and more like the latest chapter in the Tellie’s “War on Everything Labor”.

Godwin Grech Explained

I don't like my next door neighbour, Kevin. I just don't like him. One day, I found an empty XXXX stubby in my backyard and because Kevin is a dickhead from Queensland, I believed it must have been him that threw it. It musta! I stewed over it for a few days, and then went to my neighbour on the other side, Mal, who's a top bloke with ample riches and a gnarly surfboard, and said, "Mal, get this... Kevin threw an empty beer bottle into my yard."

Mal said, "Oh, What a cunt. I've always hated that Kevin bloke. He's smug and fraternises with undesirables. I've always suspected he throws empty beer bottles. Listen, you seem like a nice kid, let me help you out. I'm mates with the coppers and I'll get them to arrest him for throwing the beer bottle. Do you have proof he did it?"

"I think so," I said.

"You think so?"

"Yes," I said, "I have a video of it."

"Oh bonzer!" said Mal, and ran to the cops and dobbed Kevin in, as well as the Lorne Gazette, a fine A4 photocopied leaflet that comes out monthly, and they ran with it as their leading article, right next to the one about should dogs be on leashes at the beach during summer (an article which, by the way, is in EVERY edition of the Lorne gazette).

"Kev Throws Empty Beer Bottle Into Neigbour's Yard" the headline read!

Next thing I knew, the coppers were around asking to see the video of Kev piffing the stubby. I said to them, "No worries... it's just, I'm cleaning up the house and it's temporarily lost, so I'll look through my boxes and bring it to you tomorrow."

"Nurries," the copper said, and went to the pub to arrest a 21 year old man from Colac (this also happens weekly).

Later that night, the town held a testimonial for my good neighbour Mal, who was proclaimed a hero for sticking up for me.

I didn't attend. Instead, I altered the time and date of my video camera, set it to record, put on a Kevin wig, snuck into his yard, and chucked a fourex stubby into my own yard. I felt no guilt, none, because I was sure Kev had done it in the first place anyway.

I took the video to the cops the next day and said, "Here is irrefutable proof that Kevin threw a stubby into my yard. As you can see, the clock states it is last week, and that's not me in a wig, that is clearly Kevin, and there is him throwing a stubby into my yard."

The cop looked at me and said, "But, it's a full moon in this video. The full moon was last night. And by the way, Kevin is a foot shorter than the the man in this video."

I was then locked up in a psychiatric ward, Mal was forced to shout the bar, and Kevin went to dinner at Penny Wong's joint where they thrashed out some emmission trading concepts.

...some corner of a foreign field. Forever Australian...?

While browsing the interwebs this afternoon, my jingo-o-meter was set off by reading this story, in which those dastardly Indonesians are planning to build a restaurant, bar and club on the site of the Sari Club, target of the first Bali bombing in 2002. This would be instead of a peace park and museum to commemorate the bombings in which 202 people were killed. The writer of the story declares that apparently the "desolate" 800 square metre site of the former Sari Club is "considered hallowed ground by Australians".

In that case, the construction of an 'entertainment complex' on such 'hallowed ground' is totally appropriate considering the sensitive way in which Australians have treated other 'hallowed ground', such as Gallipoli, the Gallipoli Mornington Peninsular, even the 'hallowed turf' at Flemington. Not to mention the sensitive way in which a long line of Australians emboldened by cheap booze, a relatively strong 1st world currency and a mind-numbing sense of cultural superiority have been fine ambassadors of our country to the world.

I know, I should be ashamed for reading the Herald-Sun, but without my daily dose of outrage, what would my life be?

LS

Oh, FFS!

Thank you yes, I will have another beer.

The Melbourne media, politicians, talk-back hosts and that cat who lives down the road in my street and keeps shitting in my front yard have been in a mad flap over this, with much hand wringing and cries of woe.

Imagine! A fight! In a nightclub! On Saturday night!

Hand me the soup spoons and escape pack comrades, there’s alcohol-fuelled violence in the city – sometimes, with not many people hurt.

Get a sense of perspective chaps.

Violence in inner city Melbourne is nothing new. Read any newspaper from the turn of the last century and gangs would be fighting in the streets with razors. Fitzroy and Collingwood were “no-go” regions*. Violence is obviously distressing for those caught up in it but to assume things are getting worse is a nonsense.

And now that Marcus Einfeld is in the slammer, can we get rid of this stupid, stupid “National Living Treasures” sheep shit. It’s meaningless, pompous, twee gibberish – much like Radio National, really.

Run your eyes over this list from 2003 and one name stands out (apart from Marcus Einfeld, that is)

The Most Rev Peter Hollingworth AO OBE

Whoops.

And John Farnham!? Somebody has to be taking the piss, surely?

*They’re still “no-go” regions, but for very different reasons.

Mike Sheahan's Top 50

I'm doing this post because

a) Ramon wanted Hanson begone
b) Melba suggested a sports post, and
c) I get to keep on the Herald-Sun's case for a bit longer.

For 20 years now, Mike Sheahan, chief AFL writer for the Herald-Sun, has published at the start of every season a 'Top 50' list... it is the players he thinks will cause the most impact in the coming season (on the field, otherwise surely Ben Cousins would be number one).

Every year, there is debate as to his list.

I shall not add to the debate, other than to say, the debate itself is as meaningless as the Top 50 list is in the first place.

I have two complaints...

1: A Top 5, maybe. But a Top 50?

Yo - all journalists, all movie reviewers, rock journos, bloggers, all people in all the world who compile lists of anything over TEN, listen here: Nobody cares.

I scanned Sheahan's list for Richmond players (Richo and Lids made the list) but otherwise, lost all interest after reading the top 3.

Same goes with any list of 'Top Things'. Top 10 Richest People is interesting, Top 100 is not. Top 10 songs this week is important, Top 100 is not. Footballers are no exception. The Top 2 or 3, that are a class above everyone else (Ablett, case in point), are worth discussion, but really, anyone from positions 6-50 could be interchangeable with each other.

2: But most of all, a Top 50 List of something that hasn't happened yet is ludicrous. The season hasn't started Sheahan! Half your players could be injured by tomorrow afternoon!

May as well get someone to do a Top 50 list of 'Best Movies of 2009 That Haven't Been Finished Yet, But Are In Post-Production'.

*

To the Herald-Sun: Instead of printing articles about things that haven't happened yet (Hanson's campaign being derailed) and lists of things that haven't happened yet, how about, you know, REPORTING SOME NEWS that has actually happened!

PS: Ramon. Before you seek to clarify, the above post relates to the game of AFL football.

PPS: This is Lids... Who, according to Sheahan, is number 41 in a list of players that, er, may be pretty good this year if they don;t get injured and they train hard and stuff.

Wrong - In So Many Ways

Good morning everyone.



At least the week can't get worse than this.

The above photo was taken from The Herald Sun who have published this photo, and another shot of a topless 19 year old Pauline Hanson with digitised boobs.

Here is what's wrong:

1. Pauline Hanson trying to be sexy.
2. The Herald Sun thinking shots like this are 'newsworthy'.
3. That Pauline Hanson is news on any level. It's just wrong wrong wrong. I want her to GO AWAY.
4. The fucker that sold the shots - FAIL to him - as much as I dislike Hanson, he too is a fucked up wanker creep for selling the shots.
5. The Herald Sun trying to make an angle out of it... by saying that publication of these shots may de-rail her election campaign. It strikes me that by making that statement, they have crossed from being news reporters to news-makers. It is the newspaper that published the shots. This story did not exist. They made the story. They didn't report the story, they authoured it. They are the story. The shots won't de-rail her campaing... it's the Herald Sun buying and publishing them that may de-rail her campaign. Know what I mean? The article should read, "Herald-Sun derails campaign."
6. Pauline Hanson in a state of undress. I fairdinkuum nearly spewed.
7. Just... ew.

Oh my giddy Aunt. What an awful, awful image.

Make it stop.

Make it stop.

First Lady Shock!

How is this news?

How can anybody care so much about what Michelle Obama (or anybody) is wearing that they feel compelled to comment on it in any way, let alone criticize it on such a ridiculous basis? Unless she's wearing a Nazi outfit, body paint or a bear suit, does it really matter? Isn't the USA a modern, western society which accepted many years ago that woman have not just legs, but arms? This is 2009.

Oh my God, she wore a sleeveless dress 4 times in 7 days! Outrageous! Apparently "these Big Speech Events are serious and important". She was deemed by some to be showing too much skin!* And, gasp, it was black!

Next she'll be doing a Keating when the Queen visits.


*See Picture for Appropriate First Lady Fashion

The Weight Wagon

So Oprah’s fallen off the weight wagon. That truly is a shame because she helped Obama get where he is today (actually, where is he!) and I want her to be happy.

I never watch her show so I really don’t know what it is she does to achieve her status as world’s most famous and admired woman. Luckily some of her stuff seeps into international – well, western – consciousness such as the Tom Cruise couch jumping routine. Couldn’t live without moments like that. Anyway, it’s never good to see people get fat, especially when they don’t want to be. Sadly this is, I assure you, the vast majority. Even Oprah was "embarrassed".

She blames her thyroid. At least she didn’t blame big bones. I appreciate that thyroid issues can contribute to weight gain. Also, people have varying metabolisms which means some people gain weight easily while some people can barely gain weight at all. But here’s a simple little equation I’ve devised:

Energy consumption > Energy expenditure = Weight gain.

Phew, I think I solved it. After much thought, I think that’s it. No more fad diets, no more lite ‘n’ easy, no more avoiding carbs, fats, meat, dairy, whatever the current thing is we're supposed to avoid. I can boil it down to an even simpler statement: exercise more, eat less. You heard it here first.

Ok, ok. Maybe you think I’m over-simplifying things. But you know, I’m really not. Yes, people who have slower metabolisms have to work harder. That’s true. Sorry, but that’s your lot. You have thyroid problems? I’m sorry to hear that, but you have to work a little harder too. You have big bones? Nobody has big bones. That’s not bone hanging over your jeans.

Exercise more. Eat less.

I’ve done it myself. Lost 20 kgs. How did I do it?

I exercised more and I ate less.

Who Writes The Headlines?

I saw in today's Age the headline: "Winslet panned for trivialising the Holocaust" and I thought, "Oh no, my equal with Natalie Portman number one hot actress chick has said something stupid... Noooooo!"

But when I went to the actual article to find out what my darling Kate said, I discovered that the headline had little to do with the news report.

What's actually happened is Kate Winslet appears in a film, along with probably hundreds of other actors, not to mention a support crew of hundreds, that one film critic suggests 'trivialises the holocaust'.

If you are to single out who is responsible for (allegedly) trivialising the holocaust, surely it would be the script-writer, or the producers who commissioned the script-writer, or maybe the director if s/he trivialises what would otherwise be a measured and earnest script. To create a headline inferring Kate Winslet is the perpetrator is clearly wrong.

And in any case, this is just one man's opinion. A film critic. Who of course is entitled to his opinion and may indeed be correct in asserting the film trivialises the holocaust.

Point is: Why didn't the headline reflect the story? It should have read, "Film Critic Suggests Movie Starring Kate Winslet Trivialises The Holocaust". I mean, I'd still read the article if that was the headline.

Lift your game, Fairfax.

In related news from the article, the film features Kate Winslet nude. Winslet. Nude. Oh I'll be seeing the movie and making my own boobs up on the assertion that the film boobs trivialises the boobs.

Hicksville, SA

Hicksy is back!

Yes, David Hicks, the bloke who ran off from his family and trained with an apocalyptic fascist terrorist group that called for the extermination of Jews and gays and who refused to let women be educated, is back.

And yet again, he is being propped up by the Left... the very 'wing' that under any Taliban government would be the first against the wall.

This time it's our spamming mates at Get Up! For about a year I received their constant barrage of emails. Some of them, sure, were right on the money in my mind, but a lot of their views I thought were just unwarranted and babyish first-year Marxism hysteria - oppose the US at all costs - Blair and Bush and Howard are 'evil' - and so on. I'm no Howard or Bush fan, but I sure as hell prefer having them in power to your average Talib.

So now 'Get Up' are backing Hicksy in his battle to have his restrictions lifted. I for one want Hicks to receive fair conditions. It took too long for his trial to take place, and now that he's back, he should be able to live his life like a normal person and get a job. BUT! BUT! To report in to the authorities regularly and ban him from owning weopons is, as far as I'm concerned, fair. He may not have been a terrorist killer, but we do know he was a supporter of anti-semitism, holocaust denial, extreme Muslim fanatacism and terrorism.

In Hicks' own words:

"Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?"

As far as I'm concerned, by training with these fucking nutjobs, and talking like this in the first place, he has forfeited his right to own weapons, and I for one believe that he should have to check in with the coppers 3 times a week.

And to 'Get Up' I say this: Instead of making videos looking after right-wing wannabe fascist martyrs, how about gettin' back to some leftwing basics, like, you know, the homeless, the unemployed, the persecuted minorities, the hungry.

Big Brother Is Watching... Phew. I Feel Safer.

George Orwell: "I've been taken out of context."


Every time any authority comes up with an idea to keep us all safe, some arseclown from the X Civil Liberties Whatever Organisation comes thundering out and about. “Oh, it’s an infringement on our rights!” they yell.

I have a good friend who works in forensics and she’s trained up on that whole ‘face recognising’ thingamajig; you know, a camera that zooms in on people’s faces as they walk down the street and can recognise wanted criminals and shit. From what she’s told me, there’s certain barriers preventing it from being used extensively in the country. Budget, for one thing. Arseclowns opposing it, for another.

I’m getting old, I’m getting old, I’m getting old. “I have nothing to hide,” is my opinion. Bring it on! Put cameras on every street corner. Make me carry some Australia Card ID. Plant audio devices in my bedroom. I don’t care. If it means nabbing a psychopath who would otherwise do injury to me or others, it’s fine by me. I personally don’t give a flying fuck if some camera zooms in on my face as I’m walking down Brunswick Street with spinach stuck between my teeth. I’m not a wanted criminal. Whatever.

Same goes for x-ray scanning at airports, which Fairfax reports today is being criticized by some douche pulling the tired infringement on our rights line.

I love Orwell, and his ‘Big Brother’ message is being misconstrued by a bevy of fuck-knuckles who have probably never read his books. His point was about Governments controlling people. X-Ray machines at airports aren’t about controlling us, they are about preventing apocalyptic whack-jobs from bringing weapons on to planes, and decreasing the flow of smack, fauna, laundered cash and so on.

I say to the various Civil Liberties hystericals, what is more intrusive on my ‘liberty’? An x-ray machine at an airport, or a psycho with a knife at my throat?

Legendary actress admits to taking drugs!

In the next TSFKA installment of “I can’t believe its news!” Actress Helen Mirren admits to snorting coke in the 80’s, but then she stopped cause she found out some nasty man was making money off it.

OMFG! STOP THE PRESSES!


p.s. I couldn't find a Perez Hilton style photo of the Dame, so you'll have to use your imagination.

Nikki Hudson = Evil Bitch

When will sporting stars learn that in return for stardom they are forbidden from being human?

Some shameless hussy from the Australian Hockey Team wrote on her Facebook page the following:

"Nikki thinks the running of the bulls should be changed and we should be chased by the spainish (sic) mens hockey team. I would definately (sic) make sure I got caught and impaled!''

and,

""Nikki has a black eye from all the girls pushing me out of the way to get prime position by the window seeing naked aussies in rooms across from us!!!''

The grammar is bad enough, as is her habit of talking about herself in the third person, but of course her worst crime is acting and writing like a normal member of society. This is a disgrace! She apologised to Hockey Australia today, but I don't think an apology is enough. She must be made an example of and be fired from the Australian team and perhaps given a prison sentence. Upon release, she should also do a tour of schools to talk of the evils of expressing oneself honestly in a public forum, and for having desires other than the pre-approved 'Gold For Australia'.

To all TSFKA's regular sporting star readers, may I reiterate Australian society's contract with you:

1. You must only speak in pre-approved cliches.

2. You must not express yourself as an individual because you are not an individual. We own you.

3. You must never dabble in narcotics, and we'll test you on your holidays, at your home, in the middle of the night to make sure you haven't had so much as a puff of a joint. The fact that no other occupation on Earth is subject to drug-testing for narcotics is neither here nor there.

5. You have no life other than your sport. You do not exist beyond your sport. No matter who you are, where you come from and what you aspire to, you are a 'role model' for Our Kids (TM) and as such, you must be without blemish, totally compliant to the greater society's whim and preferably a virgin.

Shame, random hockey player, shame.