Who gives a fat rat's.

I promise, this will be the last time I’m going to write about this cunt.

The Smage is running big with their “exclusive” story that Peter Costello A) thought he could have won the last Federal election and B) won’t be challenging for the Liberal Party leadership.

Well, whoop-de-whoop.

I told you lot weeks ago that Costello won’t challenge, so why this is suddenly news is beyond me.

Actually, I do know why Fairfax management is treating it as news. They forked out a shitload of dosh for this “exclusive” and they’re desperate to recoup some of that by beating up a non-story. It’s just a shame they had to drag in the two Age journos I still have some respect for, Michelle Grattan and Shaun Carney.

As for Pete “I coulda won it” Costello, my response can be summed up as “fuckin bullshit”.

Pete, old buddy, you were a senior member of a government that was seriously on the nose with the punters*. To imagine that you could win over the Australian electorate when you couldn’t even convince your own party colleagues to back you is laughable.

I also think Fairfax and the book’s publishers, Melbourne University Press, have seriously fucked up their own product. By running endless pieces for weeks about “Peter Costello’s tell-all memoirs” means nobody gives a shit about “Peter Costello’s tell-all memoirs”.

I’m a sad political junkie but if you think I’m going to wade through 400 plus pages of sanctimonious, self-justifying nonsense and dull political tittle-tattle- then you’ve owls in your belfry.

*Sorry Desci.

What's so bad about the Greens?

For some reason, I know more about US politics than I do about Australian politics. Probably because I find the candidates in the current US election fascinating, and the reactions from the media and citizens very puzzling at times, so it keeps my attention.

I have noted a lot of bagging of the Greens on this site and its previous incarnations, and I am somewhat confused. Why are they so bad? A lot of their policies seem perfectly reasonable to me (quotes taken from their website):

- On same-sex relationships: remove discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity from legislation; support equal and legal recognition of gay marriages; promote equal parenting rights regardless of sexuality or gender identity; allow people to make fully informed choices about their lives and access appropriate medical intervention if required.

- On education: increase funding for all levels of public education, including TAFE and university; fund at least two years of public preschool education for all Australian children; abolish university fees and forgive HECS debts; provide a living allowance for full-time tertiary students.

- On health: redirect the $3 billion private health insurance rebate to public health and hospitals; establish 24 hour community mental health services; ban junk food advertising on children’s television; protect women’s access to affordable, safe abortion and reproductive health services including genuine pregnancy counselling.

- On workplaces: repeal the federal WorkChoices legislation in its entirety; abolish Australian Workplace Agreements and guarantee the right to collectively bargain; establish a strong expanded safety net of minimum conditions, and restore the award system; provide universal access to unfair dismissal laws; return conciliation and arbitration powers (including setting minimum wages) to the independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission; protect the rights of employees to take industrial action and protect legitimate union activity

And various other seemingly sensible policies on climate change, transport, immigration, environment, etc.

I do disagree with some of their policies, but overall I think they seem ok. So why the hate? As I said, I know very little about Australian politics, so perhaps I've missed something.

For the record, I think I've only voted for them once in a local election, and that was because the Labor candidate was a complete asshat. But I wouldn't hestitate to vote for them again if I didn't like the Labor candidate. Is that wrong??

For the levels, can you tell me your name and title, please.

Could you speed it up a little, sir?

The other day I mentioned a recurring nightmare where I’m interviewing Alexander Downer. For some reason, halfway through the interview he leans across the table and tries to strangle me*.

That got me thinking about all the pollies I’ve interviewed; the good ones, the cunts and the just plain awkward. Here, for the benefit of history, is the Ramon Insertnamehere Guide to Famous People who have talked to Me.

The good ones. I’m probably biased but the Labor chaps always seemed more approachable. Bracksie came across as a lovable goof and Beazley impressed me with his obvious intelligence and passion. Even Alexander Downer, with a habitual expression on his face of “what-ho, you media chappies” was usually pretty relaxed.

The awkward. Xanana Gusmao was a fascinating man to talk to, the years of suffering and struggle there on his face but fuck, he was frustrating to interview.

Mainly.

Because.

He.

Spoke.

So.

Fucking.

Slowly.

I had thought it was because English wasn’t his first language but he spoke like that all the time. I’d hate to be stuck behind him if you were trying to order a beer in a pub.

The bad. John Howard clearly regarded the media as a pack of uppity, insolent tradies and Tony Abbott had the dead, black eyes of a shark but the cunt of cunts was Peter Costello.

A vicious bully, a nasty sneering prick, it should come as no surprise that opinion polls consistently rated Costello as marginally less popular than a rat-poison enema. The Gallery’s Cult of Costello always baffled me and I’m confident the Costello memoirs will tank, leaving Melbourne University Press and Louise Adler looking like a pack of dills.

Good.

*I can't recall Alex actually trying to strangle me, but it is a nightmare I have had.

There's no 'pet' in public transport

It's not easy being a top-drawer transport bureaucrat. One day it's not enough trains, the next day, it's too many passengers.

These very real transport challenges aside, every now and then, the unusual and bizarre aspects of public transport appear, such as the correspondence that crossed my desk from the improbably named Barking Mad. They are animated by the belief that pet owners have a 'right' to use public transport and other public spaces (like parks, beaches, etc) with their pets and that the rest of 'us' need to accommodate their needs.

They also seem to believe that, since 88% of disabilities are invisible, public transport operators need to allow people with 'companion animals' on to their vehicles, with not a lot of evidence that they are trained appropriately or otherwise not a hazard to others. Oh and also that the monolithic 'we' of the transport world need to change the Transport Act to take the needs of pet owners into account.

What is interesting is that Barking Mad underline the way that the world of disabilities is not one big, happy special needs family. In my work, I've become aware of a very real hierarchy of disabilities. Many deaf people don't believe they're disabled, they just use a different language. The wheelchair people are fighting off the demands for 'their' spaces on trains, buses and car parks from the morbidly obese and elderly who use 'gofers' and other motorised mobility aids. And of course, every other disability group hate the blind (thanks to all those top bloke diggers blinded by gas in WWI, the Blind Pension in Australia is the only disability pension without a means test).

Yes, dealing with nuffies who think their choice to own a dog means the rest of us should shove over is just part and parcel of the rich and varied life of a public transport bureaucrat. In times like this, I refer to the wisdom learned from the Basil Fawlty school of management: "This transport system would run perfectly well without any passengers".

Of course, in the light of record high patronage and overcrowding on public transport, how we're ever going to get people with companion animals on board is another question all together...

End of Week MILF

Being single, I am often asked or forced to consider what attributes I might like in a potential partner.

The following things come to mind.

1. Ideally they will be a bit or a lot intelligent.
2. I must find them attractive.
3. They should be happy (even if they look like Audrey Hepburn and have Einstein's brain, if they're bitter I lose interest).
4. Likes footy, or tolerates my love of it.

That's about it.

But, I'd like to add one, given the events of the past few days.

5. Must be able to shoot a caribou, like Sarah Palin.



Ramon thinks I'm a nutsoid, and yeah, she's a right-wing brain-dead conservative Christian drongo who clings to dangerous superstitions (ie: the Bible) and with such archaic, childish and moronic value systems could potentially bring damage to many people's lives, but, like I said, after half a bottle of wine, I'd hit it.

BECAUSE SHE'S POWERFUL!

AND SHE SHOOTS CARIBOU!

Put her in a policewoman's outfit and I'll be jizzin' all over the axeminster.

Sort of like the Australian Democrats, only in turbans.

One of the things that struck me while reading media reports about the recent biffo* in Afghanistan was the way various journos kept referring to an attack by “Taliban extremists”.

As opposed to what, Taliban moderates?

“Well, yes, you have been found guilty of sending your daughter to school but instead of stoning you to death you’ll receive a written reprimand.

“Oh, and you’ll have to pick up all the rubbish around the cave for a week.”

UPDATE:

On doing some research for this rant, I’ve discovered most of the journos are now describing them as “Taliban fighters”. Which is a little better, but given they were armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades, they were hardly going to be “Taliban social workers”.

*I’m not going to describe it as a “firefight”. People who use the word “firefight” are cunts.

Birds are crunts.

Feck off, you!

My loathing of owls is a matter of public record but now I’m forced to conclude the entire avian species has it in for me.

For the past week at around six in the morning, a bird has taken to waking us up with its particularly revolting early morning call.

If you travel long enough on public transport, you’ll eventually come across an older citizen (usually a bloke) with one or two hygiene issues and a hacking cough of a strength and quality which suggests he’s in the process of coughing up his lungs, spleen and a portion of lower colon into his hankie*.

That’s what has been greeting us each morning.

I suggested to Kitty that she might like do her job and remove said bird.

Her expression suggested that I might like to go fuck myself and where was her fucking breakfast?

It’s true, my cat is Father Jack.

*If you’re lucky, they have a hankie.

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.

Clam Barstool is a monumental tool

The other day, while leafing through the usually excellent Walkley magazine produced by my union, the MEAA, I came across a piece written by our old friend – Clam Barstool.

I’m not going to provide a link – the article itself is turgid beyond belief – but poor old Clam takes the opportunity to rehash the unpleasantness of some months ago.

Amid from the whining and self pity, the Clammy one did manage to produce at least one par that made me laugh out loud.

Clem Barstow is a freelance writer, editor of The Dawn Chorus and associate editor of Defamer Australia.

Bugger me sideways, could this woman get any more pompous?

Freelance writer my arse, you produce the odd bar review at the end of the Age’s EG section.

Associate editor of Defamer Australia – you contribute to a D-grade gossip site because your mate Ausculture Jess got you the gig.

But the “editor of The Dawn Chorus” really gets me – she writes for a group blog with more contributors than readers.

If Clam is “editor of The Dawn Chorus” then I’m editor-in-chief of TSFKA and God-King of Preston.