The Red Pill Survival Guide

New blog!

2012-01-07T21:48:00.002+10:00

Hello again!

I have a new blog. You can now find me over here.

See you there.

Goodbye, 2011

2011-12-30T21:50:00.000+10:00

So ends another year. I'll be spending the last evening of the year at Woodford, watching NerdBoy play in one of his many bands. Second year in a row where I've actually been out in public for new years! The shock! Heh heh.

The past month has had me thinking about blogging - and my lack of it over this past year.

I think my enthusiasm has waned in part because of the baggage that comes with this blog and everything I've written here. It's a psychological barrier, I know, but my life has changed since I first started blogging and since I moved to this blog.

So, to acknowledge my change in circumstances and headspace, I'll be moving to a new blog in the next month. A few things will be different - I won't feel the pressure to blog every day which seems to be why I haven't blogged for ages here. Weird, yes, but I'm sure you understand. This may mean that my posts will be more frequent, but I'm not going to make assumptions.

It will also be on Wordpress. Not a massive change really, but the changes that have been made to Blogger over the past couple of years have annoyed me. Wordpress is a smoother, sleeker platform.

BUT, in the meantime, I hope everyone has a fantastic new years and spends it in a manner that makes them happy.

See you in the new year!!

M xo

A thought

2011-12-05T20:49:00.000+10:00

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Mildred Loving.

While many of the issues faced by people of colour are different to those who identify as LGBTIQ (and not nearly as complex as those POC who are LGBTIQ), the same basic principle applies.

Adults who are in love and who wish to marry, should have the right to do so. Their right to marry should not depend on the race, religion, gender or sexuality of the couple.

If you marry your partner, your marriage is recognised as a full and legitimate union. If you undergo a civil ceremony, it can be considered void if one of the people then gets married to another. That is, you don't have to undergo a legal separation in order to get married if you are already part of a civil union. How is that equal to marriage? It isn't.

Civil unions are only available at a State and Territory level, not Federal. Marriage is recognised at a Federal level, thanks to the Marriage Act.

Marriage is not about having children.
Marriage is not only a religious ceremony.
Marriage is not equal to a civil union.

Marriage should not only be for the privileged.

Paper or plastic?

2011-11-12T23:17:00.000+10:00

I always thought that I'd avoid the ebook route. I love books. Holding them. Turning the pages. I don't feel at home without books.

But in the past year I started thinking about getting a kindle. My travel has increased over the past few years and my main concern has been the number of books I carry with me. When flying to Sydney I worry about the weight of my suitcase when I come back. I carry 4 or 5 books with me to Sydney (not including the ones that I'm carting around in my satchel) and purchase several more while there (I'm looking at you Kinokuniya, gleebooks and Galaxy Books.) So I have a bit of a problem.

Just under a month ago I bought myself a kindle.

It has taken some getting used to. When using it I become so engrossed in what I'm reading, I move my hand as though I'm going to turn a page. Other times, I accidentally hit the forward button when trying to find a comfortable position.

I read on the kindle while on the bus, but when at home I'm reading a paperback. The change between the two on a daily basis probably isn't helping the adjustment to the ebook format, but then, I don't really want it to be the only way I pursue my love of reading.

I can never give up paper books. Through reading on the kindle I've discovered that not only am I emotionally attached to print, there is also a tactile need. I also prefer the ease of just flipping a book open to any page to get a feel for it (although Amazon does offer a "free preview", it's not quite the same).

I'm happiest surrounded by books. I always knew this, but the kindle experience has reinforced that for me.

One thing I am loving - the thousands of books I can carry with me. I've acquired quite a collection so far (approx 1500). Some of which I have in print format, but the majority I do not. Of course, this has added to the list of books on my to be read list, but if I didn't have a gigantic TBR list, I wouldn't be happy.

If someone forced me to choose between the two, I'd go for print every time. But I'm enjoying the ebook experience and don't regret my purchase.

No. Just, no.

2011-10-25T19:59:00.001+10:00

(from The Age)

PJ20

2011-09-24T16:22:00.000+10:00

This is how I spent my Tuesday night:

Up until right before No Code was released I was a pretty big Pearl Jam fan. I lost interest in music for a while around then (due to my depression) and subsequently never really regained my passion for any band, let alone revisiting the love I had for specific groups. As a consequence I've not really followed the band over the last 15 or so years so my knowledge of them during that time has been patchy.

About a month or so ago Miss-a-Ree asked if I wanted to see PJ20 with her, and I said I'd think about it. I decided I would but then promptly forgot about it until Tuesday, at which point the previous tentative trivia plans were scrapped (sorry Sal and Rob!) and we headed to Garden City to see the Cameron Crowe documentary.

We loved it.

I really had forgotten how much their music meant to me. I remembered how I loved Eddie, but preferred Jeff. I discovered that Temple of The Dog technically came before PJ (I always thought it was the other way around) and was reminded that Chris Cornell is another favourite musician. It hit me that I haven't listened to Mother Love Bone for years.

Yes, I am a teen of the 90s. Welcome to Generation X.

While Nevermind is frequently hailed as the great album of the 90s (and for some, of all time), I'm not moved by today's 20th anniversary of its release. It's another album that I love, although it feels dated, but I think it tends to be seen in a better light than perhaps it would were Kurt still here today. (Of course, I'd love for him to be alive to prove me wrong.)

Unlike Nirvana, Pearl Jam's music seems timeless. While it transports me back to my teens, it also keeps me grounded in the here and now, and I think that is why I can come back to it years later and feel like I've never left, despite the changes the band has made to its style.

One lovely surprise in the film was my discovery that PJ have been covering Crown of Thorns, a Mother Love Bone song. For those of you who are unaware of the history, MLB is the band that Jeff Ament and Stone Gossard were in before their lead singer Andy Wood died in 1990. (A Chris Cornell connection that I was unaware of - Cornell and Wood were roommates.) It's a lovely tribute.

If, like me, you've not really followed the band for a while, it's still a really good film. A film made by a fan, for the fans, and isn't that all we really want from a documentary about a band that's still around?

In which True Blood and I break up

2011-09-18T13:21:00.000+10:00

So, I just finished watching season four of True Blood. I don't think I'll be watching season five.

Needless to say, this post will have spoilers so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading now.

I've been reading the Southern Vampire books since they first began to be published. It started slow, I wasn't sure if I'd last too many books but they have gradually gotten better (although the last couple in the series have been of questionable quality). When I first heard they were making a series based on the books, I was looking forward to it.

The show has proved itself to be good. Not great, but certainly enjoyable. There have been questionable moments, some of which I have written about before and the ongoing split of Sookie's affections between Bill and Eric is grating.

Violence, death and sex permeates the vampire (and supernatural) genre; I've known this since I first read Dracula over 20 years ago. In True Blood it has reached a point where I can no longer support the show.

Last season the vampire on human (and vampire on vampire) violence kicked up a few notches; familial violence also increased, this time with the shifters and weres taking center stage. Season four has taken things to a new level.

At the beginning of the season, Jason is kidnapped and gang raped by a group of weres. He actually uses the term rape when trying to convince one of the women to let him go; later when he's talking to Hoyt about his experience he once again says he was raped.

I have issues with the way this was handled. When Jason is talking to Hoyt about what happened, he concludes that he deserved to be raped purely because of the number of women he has slept with and his objectification of them. Later, when Hoyt wants to talk to him about it, he just brushes the experience off.

Compare this to how Tara continued to experience trauma in the aftermath of her abuse and rape. She's still dealing with the emotional consequences in season four.

Later in the season, another character is raped, this time because she thought she was sleeping with someone else. Tommy is a skinwalker and sleeps with Luna, who thought she was with Sam as Tommy had taken on the guise of Sam. Then in another episode we see, in a vision, the rape of Antonia (a necromancer) by some vampires.

In the show, when women are (obviously) raped (many people wouldn't class what happened to Luna as rape, but in my opinion it is) there is some serious and obvious repercussions. Yet when it happens to a man, it is just brushed off.

Even the creators of the show make it obvious that they don't consider what happened to Jason to be as serious as what happened to Tara. David Petrarca and Alan Ball described as him getting "his comeuppance" and being "used against his will", while at the same time showing their amusement at Jason's situation.

Ultimately, I feel that the show trivialises rape, particularly against men. Not everyone will agree with me, but I cannot watch a something where I spend most episodes waiting for the next round of non-consensual sexual violence and then seeing that is ultimately just treated as another plot device. The suggestions that Tara is now dead and Russell will be back next season are not even enough to entice me.

Ch-ch-changes

2011-08-31T16:44:00.000+10:00

As you have probably gathered from the above, I have stopped drinking Coke.

It's not the first time, but this time it was a decision I made on the spur of the moment and I began to notice the improvement within 24 hours.

Basically, I'd been sleeping very poorly and decided that I'd just cut out all caffeine. Given that I don't actually drink coffee (or tea), it basically came down to no more Coke.

Last time it was forced upon me and it was bloody difficult to stick to. This time it was much easier as I made the choice myself, and am allowing a drink when I do feel like some. Yet I am consciously choosing not to drink it too often.

It's been two months and I've had it three times. Each time I've done so with the full knowledge that I won't sleep well that night. A few weeks ago I had some and was up until after 3 the next morning. So you could say my body is getting accustomed to the no caffeine thing.

The other day I decided that since this has been quite successful, I'd start making more small changes. Not just getting rid of Coke, but any soft drink. Again, I'm going to permit myself some if I really want it, but I'm going to continue to make a conscious choice. If I do get the urge, soda water and some cordial should do the trick.

I guess on some level I've reached the point where I'm happy to start making heaps of little changes (other than large sweeping changes) to continue dealing with my mental illness. It occurred to me today that at some point an article I read a few months back not only clicked with me, but started to wind its way through my subconscious, until I was ready to begin the next step.

Yeah, sound totally hippy doesn't it?

The way I see it, the aforementioned grand changes have been done, but there is still more that I can do. Each small step brings me that much closer to a little bit more control over my illness. I'll never have complete control, I'm aware of that, but why hand over my hard-won sanity to a less uncertain future? I know that I can expect more depression, more mania, but anything that can help me reduce the impact of the inevitable is worth working towards. I won't always be successful, there will be stumbles along the way, but I'll be damned if my brain will get the better of me.

Presented without comment...

2011-07-23T22:25:00.000+10:00

but with uncontrollable laughter.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Degree in Economics

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

This.

2011-07-18T18:24:00.000+10:00

So much this:

found via this (which is a good read).

Busy. I've been busy.

2011-07-10T11:48:00.000+10:00

I have been busy. Did I mention that?

A few weeks ago I got word that I would be doing higher duties for 3 months. This is something that I've been wanting for some time. Basically, I want to "try out" the position before I possibly apply for it as a permanent role. There is no doubt I have the skills needed, but it's more about whether I like doing the role full-time, or prefer to just be a back-up for when others are unavailable.

And if I can deal with the stress.

I've been doing the role for a little over a week now and I'm very happy that my stress level has not moved. Given that it is the first of a few ridiculously busy months, this is a very good omen.

I made the conscious decision to stop drinking anything with caffeine in it. Basically, Coke. It stemmed from a few bad weeks I had recently, and I figured that while it doesn't stop me from falling asleep, it affects my quality of sleep and as such I'm tired all the time for no apparent reason.

Well, this has worked splendidly. I've not slept this well in a very long time. As an added bonus, it means that I've been getting up earlier and as such have been getting more done during the day. Not that I like getting up early, but during the work week it makes things so much easier.

As a result of getting up at stupid hours in the morning, I am going to bed much earlier. I'm finding I can barely keep my eyes open after about 9pm, but that's fine.

So I think that is one of the reasons my body is responding well to the increase in responsibility and work.

I'm also studying for something at work. I do my exam in 9 days, so there's that as well. I'm really looking forward to that being finished - I want to have my time back.

I've not been on the computer as much either. I've been doing a lot of online reading, but mostly via my iPhone (and subsequently spamming my Twitter feed with links a bit). I love my iPhone almost as much as I love my calculator. It is an unnatural love, but we're all allowed a few over our lives.

So, while not much has been happening, everything feels like it has been happening. I'm very very please with myself. :-)

Depression, concern trolls, and silencing

2011-06-20T20:29:00.000+10:00

Frequently on the internet, people mouth off about stuff without giving it much thought. Normally I can ignore it despite my initial reactions. But when it comes to things that are close to my heart, things that affect me personally, I become, well, pissed off.

Pretty much anyone who knows me online or in person knows that I have Bipolar 2. It’s not a secret. That particular diagnosis came in 2009 (at the age of 33), but I had suffered with severe clinical depression on and off since my teens (and had been treated since my early 20s). I’ve written quite a lot about it here, so feel free to go through the archives if you wish.

During all this I think it’s fair to say that I’ve experienced both the good and bad of other people when they know that you have some kind of mental illness.

The bad:

Being discriminated against.
Being treated like an idiot.
Being spoken down to.
People have avoided me.
It has been assumed that I am incapable of any kind of thought or behaviour independent of my illness.

The good:

The amazing understanding of so many people.
If they ask, being able tell of my experience to others.
Finding out that it is more common than I thought.
Discovering how much unconditional love I have in my life from friends and family, no matter how difficult my behaviour has become.

I love the idea of people with mental illnesses opening up about their experiences. I encourage anyone who feels that they are able to to do so. Other people’s stories have helped me immensely.

But there are many people who can’t, don’t or won’t talk about their experiences. Whether it be because they are embarrassed or ashamed, or concerned about the impact it could have on their professional and personal lives. Or because they are very private people.

But that’s OK. Not everyone who has a mental illness, or has experienced bouts of depression has to talk about it. To demand that they do is the behaviour of someone not understanding the privilege they have in being able to be open about it.

If someone doesn’t discuss it, it doesn’t mean they’re not getting help or that they’re not talking to someone, it means they’re not talking to you. As is their right. Because it isn’t any of your damn business.

You can offer support, sure. But then you let it lie. You do not keep haranguing them, or trying to get them to talk to you. You let it go. If they want your help, and they feel they can ask for it, they will.

If they get angry at you, do not assume that it is because of their illness. Yes, depression can manifest itself as anger, but that doesn’t mean that all their anger is the result of depression. Anger can be anger at you being unable or unwilling to understand their needs.

If you ignore or write off those of us who are upset, angered, or even disappointed in the method/s of “support” and "concern" that people offer, particularly online, you are silencing us. You are silencing our experiences.

Hail!

2011-05-31T18:30:00.000+10:00

I was home sick today (no worries, back at work tomorrow - it's just my asthma being a bitch. Also, first sick day in over 6 months! WOO!!) and we got hit with a small hail storm.

The hail was about the size of a large ball-bearing, and was pretty awesome. It lasted about 10 minutes.

Front yard during the storm:

Then after:

Back yard:

Brisbane Slutwalk

2011-05-29T23:04:00.003+10:00

Yesterday I attended the Brisbane Slutwalk.

It didn't receive as much publicity in the lead up to it as Melbourne Slutwalk, but we still had a crowd of a few hundred turn up.

I've got a piece that I wrote about the Slutwalk last week, now up at The King's Tribune, expanding on the points I made in the mini rant from the other week.

I've been reading lots of pieces about the walks and when I get the chance I'm going to compile a number of them here. Some I don't agree with, some I do, some I just think are so out of the park I don't understand why people actually bothered to write anything, but the ones that I find interesting (for whatever reason) I'll throw up here. I think it's important to see all points of view on this, even if I don't agree with some of them.

Anyway, back to yesterday's walk.

What I found heartening from the people who were there yesterday was the variety. There were even a few dogs out in solidarity. :-)

First, a snippet from the opening speech by the woman who was introducing the speakers. I didn't catch her name so if anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it. In this clip, she's addressing the use of the term "Slut".

Next was The Porn Report co-author, Professor Alan McKee:

Then, the most touching and amazing speech was from Tiara. She opened by telling of her own sexual assault at the hands of another woman. I didn't capture her entire speech (which was fantastic), but she really summed up the reasons and anger behind the Slutwalks.

Finally, Fiona Patten from The Australian Sex Party spoke. I didn't get any footage, but grabbed photo:

My friend Kathleen with her own personal message:

Finally, a couple of signs and some of the walkers:

EDIT:

Tiara's full speech is now up on YouTube:

Raaaaaapture

2011-05-21T01:34:00.001+10:00

Slutwalk: a rant

2011-05-18T22:29:00.000+10:00

(I'll probably write a better post over the weekend addressing some of the criticism I've seen of the Slutwalk, in the meantime, I present this.)

A 15 year old girl is sitting in class. The guy sitting next to her is being annoying and she's trying to ignore him.

He grabs at her breasts.

She turns around and punches him hard in the arm. She looks up at the teacher, who is looking back at her, laughing. He doesn't tell the boy he's done something inappropriate.

Later, this same boy sits next to her in another class. He grabs at her breasts again, once more she punches him. This time the boy says to the teacher, "Miss, she punched me." The teacher replies that he deserved it. But nothing further is said or done.

Nineteen years later this same girl, now a woman, is standing waiting to be served at a favourite cafe near her work. A man comes and stands behind her and "casually" rests his hand on her arse.

Shocked at the blatant behaviour, she is unable to move. Finally she pulls away, glaring up at him. He is not looking at her, and his face reveals nothing.

Months later she realises she's not been back there for lunch since that incident.

*

You've probably seen all the commentary in the media over the past few weeks about the Slutwalk movement gaining traction in Australia.

The moment I first heard about the movement, I knew I wanted to be a part of it should we ever have one in Brisbane. On Saturday 28 May, I will be walking with a few hundred other women (and men) from King George Square to Fortitude Valley.

Slutwalk began in Toronto in reaction to a police officer's comment that women shouldn't dress inappropriately if they wanted to avoid the likelihood of being assaulted*.

It's classic victim-blaming.

I, for one, am fucking over it.

But what is really, really pissing me off are comments in which people agree that blaming the victim for their assault is wrong, but by the way, they believe in personal responsibility when it comes to safety.

Thanks.

You have just proved our point.

By telling women - people - that they need to take personal responsibility for their safety, you are still telling them that they are the ones responsible for what has happened.

You are giving old rhetoric a fresh coat of paint but neglecting to clean the mould off before doing so. It's the same old shit, just a little more shiny.

Are you telling the person who is doing the assaulting that they need to STOP ASSAULTING people? No. Once more you are making the victim the guilty party.

We are marching because despite people making the right noises, the message isn't getting through.

It may also come as a surprise to some of you, but these marches aren't full of women dressed in revealing clothing. Sure, some will do that and I say go for it; but it's not a prerequisite.

Nor is the march about defining women by their sexuality. We don't need to do that, society has been doing that for a long time and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Slutwalk is different to the Take Back The Night movement. TBTN is about all violence against women - not just sexual violence; while Slutwalk is focused on one aspect of that violence - slut-shaming. Despite all the right words being said, women are still blamed for "putting themselves" in the position to be assaulted.

That is why we march.

*

When I was 15, I wasn't asking to have my boobs groped; last year I wasn't putting my arse out there to be grabbed by some random dude when I was trying to work out what salad I felt like.

I wasn't dressed like a "slut".

I was in a "safe" place.

* assault is not confined to rape, please remember that.

Rape porn as "male erotica"

2011-04-27T15:24:00.000+10:00

I don't normally mind Psychology Today. I admit I just pop in every now and then, but when I read a piece on how feminism kills boners, I got a bit irate.

It wasn't the topic itself, god knows, look anywhere on the internet and you're going to read stuff like that so that is easy to ignore. No, it was this (my italics):

These include some of the most inventive and varied genres of male erotica, such as hypnotism porn (where Svengalis hypnotize woman into having sex), drunk porn (where men trick inebriated women into having sex), sleep porn (where men take advantage of sleeping women), and a wide diversity of exploitation porn (where women exchange sexual favors for school books, a ride, or a rent-free apartment).

Rape is erotic, apparently.

I get that men and women have rape fantasies. I don't understand the attraction, but I know that people have them and if these are acted out in a mutually consenting sexual relationship between adults, then that is fine.

But framing rape porn as erotica is just infuriating.

To make matters worse, when a reader points out that the examples used are examples of rape porn, it is denied:

We did not point to porn that depicts rape, we pointed to porn that depicts dominance.

Bullshit.

The examples given are showing men initiating sex in a manner that suggests that the women have not consented to the act. THAT IS RAPE. "Trick", "hypnotise", "take advantage of" - these are all words and phrases that demonstrate lack of consent. I repeat, THAT IS RAPE.

I don't care about the typical crap in the piece about feminism; feminism is not dominance, it is about equality; there is a significant difference. Although, Ogas does claim that "gender equality inhibits arousal" and that "the majority of women have submission fantasies". Cue eyeroll. That, I suggest, has more to do with society's ongoing issues surrounding equality and gender roles than it does with neuroscience.

What is disturbing is the apparent inability to distinguish genuine consensual dominant acts from acts of rape. Yes, rape is a form of dominance, but to frame it in a way that suggests it is consensual is problematic at best, dangerous at worst.

Baby did a bad, bad thing

2011-03-26T17:54:00.000+10:00

Tonight NerdBoy and I are heading off to see Chris Isaak.

The show is at the Riverstage and the weather is lovely for it (thank goodness). I've been wanting to see him live for ages and the last couple of times he has been in Brisbane I've not been able to see him.

Until tonight!

Did you know he's actually 50? I swear I keep thinking he's still in his 30s.

International Women's Day

2011-03-08T21:45:00.001+10:00

Today marks the centenary of International Women’s Day. It is a day born of the European labour movement and in the 70s it developed into its current incarnation of celebrating women’s achievement.

However, IWD not only celebrates achievements, it also serves to highlight the continuing gender inequality in society, placing particular emphasis on that which impacts women.

Despite what some media commentators would like us to believe, we don’t live in a “post-feminist” world; women are still underpaid and undervalued. Australia has women in significant positions of power, however this is not indicative of an equal society – women in this country are still earning 84 cents on the dollar when compared to men; less if they are in part time work.

The theme for this year’s IWD is equal access to education and equality in the workplace. There was a discussion on QandA last night regarding the composition of corporate boards and whether there should be quotas for the number of women filing the positions. Personally, I believe this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Yes, the gender ratio on boards is disheartening, but we need to look at why there are so few women in these positions.

Quotas will do nothing but entrench resentment in those who are genuinely more qualified than those who take the positions to fill a percentage. Quotas don’t address the underlying issue of why women are not members of boards – it’s less about qualification and more about institutionalised inequality.

Women spend less time in the workplace then men. Why? Because society expects them to take extensive time off to look after children. Men are not encouraged to take extended parental leave when a child is born. In fact, the Liberal Party’s proposed parental leave scheme reinforces income disparity: regardless of who takes the leave, the amount that will be paid is based on the woman’s salary. Given that many women earn less than their partners, the scheme would actually be exploiting inequality.

Legislation specifying the number of women on corporate boards will not change wage gaps; it will not make it more socially acceptable for men to take parental leave of more than a few weeks.

It won’t make childcare easier to access; rape culture to disappear; ensure non-cis people aren’t discriminated against or victimised; prevent child exploitation; stop the trafficking of women and children; legalise marriage for all; prevent burqa bans; cease the advertising of unattainable beauty standards; ensure PWD are treated equally.

It doesn’t address the fact that women still don’t have full reproductive rights or are victims of passive and agressive sexual violence. That in our fight to bring assailants to justice, we may be further victimised or even slut-shamed.

These things (and more) impact more Western women on a daily basis than the gender distribution on corporate boards.

IWD reminds us of the great achivements in women’s rights; but it also serves to underscore how much progress is yet to come.

I’ll leave you with one of my favourite quotes from Emma Goldman:

The history of progress is written in the blood of men and women who have dared to espouse an unpopular cause, as, for instance, the black man's right to his body, or woman's right to her soul.

Lazy Sunday

2011-03-07T17:15:00.000+10:00

Last Monday I got an email from Miss-a-ree asking if I wanted to join her for the Chicks-In-Pink/International Women's Day Fun Run/Walk. I agreed, despite having to get out of bed at 5 a.m. on Sunday (yesterday). It was only 5km, half that of the MS walk we did a few years ago, so I figured why not? I wouldn't be running it (unlike my sister) and I could always spend the afternoon recovering (sleeping) from the horrors of such an early start.

See, this is where I seem to go wrong. Making assumptions about how my weekend is going to go. Thankfully I arranged to have today off, knowing that I'd be a little bit sore. What I wasn't expecting was to be sunburnt.

Oh, it wasn't from the walk. See, we were prepared for that with hats and sunscreen. It was the rest of our day that ensured we'd remember it for a little while longer.

When we got back to the car after the walk and were about to head off for breakfast, Miss-a-ree received a text from a very hungover friend saying she wasn't going to be able to go to the Friends of Folk Festival later that day. I volunteered to take her ticket.

It was great. I saw some fantastic new bands, got some wonderful music, met some of Miss-a-ree's oldest friends ... and was the recipient of some fabulous sunburn.

We didn't think to take our hats and sunscreen to the festival. Because it was an all-weather gig and so it was assumed that the entire festival was held indoors. And most of it was - except for the main stage. Where we were at midday.

Yes, yes, I know. Two very pale girls in the sun in the middle of the day in QLD. You can see how it went.

But, whatever. The day was wonderful. We got there late because we had to pick up my ticket (as well as have breakfast and change from the walk) so we missed one of the bands Miss-a-ree wanted to see: The Flumes. They're actually old friends of hers and it was disappointing to not see them play. They did catch up with her later (and I got to talking with their drummer DJ who it turns out is very familiar with one of NerdBoy's bands so we were gushing over them) so all was not lost.

But, on the recommendation of a friend, we did sit and watch Spacifix. They were awesome. Their energy was huge, and the music - a mix of reggae, funk and soul - had me up and buying my first CD of the day. I took a small amount of footage, but it really doesn't do them justice:

Next was The Good Ship. We only caught the end of their last song, but again found ourselves at the merchandise desk. I'm hoping to see them again in May.

As much as I loved those two bands, and Rachael Brady who we saw just before we left, the highlight for me was Emma Dean.

I cannot stress enough that should you have the opportunity to see her live that you do it. She performed songs from her Dr Dream and the Imaginary Pop Cabaret album.

She has three 'imaginary friends' on stage with her. They interact with the audience at the beginning of the show, then move onstage to perform with Emma and around her. A clip:

It really doesn't demonstrate the absolute magnificence of the performance. Yes, I am gushing. Check out some of the clips on her YouTube channel to get a better idea. She is, however, one of those performers who must be seen live to be fully appreciated.

After Emma Dean, we went and saw Rachael Brady. She happened to be playing as the same time as Don Walker, so her audience wasn't as large as I expect she would normally attract. (And yes, it was painful missing out on Waker, but he wouldn't have missed us.) Rachael apologised for being ill, but there was no need. Her voice is so strong her cold didn't seem to impact one bit.

At the end of her show she spoke about how while she grew up in Brisbane she now lives in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains. She talked of how she performed at a Brisbane flood benefit gig in Leura and that she was overwhelmed by their generosity - they raised $15,000. Having been to Leura myself recently (one day I'll tell you all about it!) I am amazed that such a small town, village really, could raise such an amount. Hearing that really topped off a fantastic day.

Seeing great music with an even better friend - can't get much better than that!

One thing Rachael and Nigel played at the gig was a cover of Edith Piaf's La Vie en Rose (one of my favourite songs) I'll leave you with a clip I found on YouTube:

Underrated trash tv

2011-03-05T20:58:00.000+10:00

I'm a fan of trashy television. I do, of course, have what could would laughingly be call standards*.

Most reality shows I will not watch. I get sucked into Master Chef and So You Think You Can Dance on a pretty regular basis, but I generally avoid all the rest. That's not to say that I don't watch them. I'll watch a season (or half of one) here and there of new shows but don't end up making them part of a must watch list.

There are some shows I think are underrated. Yes, they might still be trashy, but they meet my requirements - believeable acting and tolerable storylines. It shouldn't be difficult.

I used to watch Relic Hunter regularly when it was on free-to-air many years ago. It was incredibly cheesy; a blatant rip off of Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider - and I loved it. My dad even likes it, and he is usually disdainful of bad television shows.

Three seasons were made and up until recently only the first two were available on DVD. A few weeks ago She-ra and I stumbled across season 3. I saw it first and she was devastated as it was the only copy. I win at JB Hi-Fi. *evil laugh*

So now I'm spending a few weekends rewatching episodes of the show.

Tia Carrere plays Sydney Fox - a professor of Ancient Studies, part-time relic hunter and full-time Mary Sue. She is assisted by Nigel Bailey (Christian Anholt**) who is uptight, British and somewhat enamoured of his boss. Claudia (Lindy Booth) is Sydney's secretary - supposedly a stereotypical dumb blonde, she comes through for Sydney and Nigel more than once.

I'm halfway through season 2 at the moment. I'm surprised by the number of episodes that I don't remember seeing on television. It's been a few years since I watched the DVDs, but despite my previous viewings I can still pick the ones that I didn't see back in the day.

Claudia is replaced in season 3 - I think I only saw one or two episodes of that season, so it's going to be like watching a new series.

Of course, after watching all of these, I'll have a desire to re-watch Tomb Raider, the Indiana Jones films (excluding the travesty that was Crystal Skull) and the Young Indiana Jones series.

Oh, and the Librarian films.

* I still feel superior to She-ra, who loves the Kardashians and never met a Footballer's Wives episode she didn't enjoy.

** The first time I ever saw Preaching to the Perverted, I was highly amused by his leading role. I will never be able to watch him as Nigel again without picturing the pony scene from the film.

Still alive

2011-03-05T18:03:00.000+10:00

Hi, how are you? Me? I'm fine for the most part.

Yes, I have writer's block. Sort of. I know what I want to write, I start writing but just can't finish. I have half a dozen partially written posts sitting in draft form but just can't push them over the line to complete them.

It's horribly frustrating.

My time for writing is becoming more limited as well. A while back I instituted a "no computer after 8:30 pm on a school night" rule so that I wouldn't spend half the night on the computer and thus take forever to get to sleep when I finally dragged myself to bed.

Last week I also started an experiment. No television Monday to Thursday. At all. Instead, I've been using the extra time to read, yet another thing that the internet has been slowly stealing from me over the past few years. I'm not sure how long this will last, but it seems to be going well so far.

I've no intention of stopping the blog though. I just need to find the motivation to finish things; the time to do so. I suspect blogging will become just a weekend / day off / holiday thing from now on. I'm OK with that, I think. The mood may take me during the week and I'll run with it if that is the case, I'm not going to stop myself from writing if the brain gears up.

It's frustrating wanting to write, having the desire to do so, starting a task but not finishing. I love writing, I don't care if that many people read what I write, I just like the process.

But I am annoyed with my inability to do this at the moment.

I know everyone goes through it, but that doesn't make it as easy to tolerate. Not when on some level you know you need to write in order to be yourself. You know those phases where you just don't read anything, or complete anything that you begin to read? That's what this reminds me of. You just go with the flow and know that one day you'll get your mojo back.

Until then, it's bloody frustrating.

So I've not voluntarily left my peeps, it's just that my brain has temporarily left me. Hopefully for not too much longer.

Any suggestions you might have to help me along in this time if first world need would be greatly appreciated!

Generation Y: Gender Traitors!

2011-01-30T17:15:00.000+10:00

Every few years an article or two appears in the paper griping about how the young 'uns today don't know how to do the most basic of tasks.

Enter the women of Generation Y. In 2011, women under the age of 30 are no longer capable of "basic 'female' skills".

What makes a skill a 'female' skill? Does it wear pink and simper at the sight of a lumberjack?

BASIC "female" skills are becoming endangered with fewer young women able to iron a shirt, cook a roast chicken or hem a skirt.

Just as more modern men are unable to complete traditional male tasks, new research shows Generation Y women can't do the chores their mothers and grandmothers did daily, reported The Courier-Mail.

Only 51 per cent of women aged under 30 can cook a roast compared with 82 per cent of baby boomers.

Baking lamingtons is a dying art with 20 per cent of Gen Y capable of whipping up the Aussie classic, down from 45 per cent for previous generations.

Let's set aside the blatant gender stereotypes and look at the examples provided.

Hemming a skirt. Roasting a chicken. Ironing a shirt. Making lamingtons. None of these are everyday tasks in the 21st century, yet apparently our mothers and grandmothers did these every day. That's news to me and I expect it would be surprising to my mother and my grandmothers.

Why these particular skills? Why not vacuuming? Is it because we want to give the impression that young women are forgoing what are seen as the nurturing and caring aspects of what it "means to be a woman"?

Let's take a look at those stats. Why is it that 18 percent of baby boomers are unable to cook a roast? They should be ashamed of themselves. Not to mention the 35% who can't make lamingtons. What. Is. This. World. Coming. To?

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said: "Women of today tend to be busier, juggling more roles, and are quite prepared to compromise a bit of the homemade just to save some time.

"They also have a lot more disposable income compared with their mums and their grandmothers so buying a cake mix or lamingtons ready-made is not a big deal."

Yes, women are busier today. Many work full time then arrive home to put in several more hours around the house. If that means sacrificing a living up to the expectations of others in favour of time relaxation time, then I'd say it's worth it.

Traditional skills outside the kitchen are falling by the wayside with Gen Y women woefully behind their older counterparts, the study by McCrindle Research found. Only 23 per cent can grow a plant from a cutting when 78 per cent of older women say this is a breeze.

How many people under the age of 30 have even attempted to grow a plant from a cutting?

"We live in a throw-away culture where, rather than repair something, we will buy a new one, even if it is just a matter of darning holes or sewing on buttons," Mr McCrindle said.

"As such, many women have lost these skills. If we do want something repaired, women today are more likely to take it to their local drycleaner because they are busy and can afford it."

If we live in a throw-away culture and would rather bin clothes instead of mending them ... why would people take them to a drycleaner?

Driving manual cars is also on the decline with just 40 per cent of women under 30 possessing this skill compared to 71 per cent of older women.

I'm not familiar with new cars, but I'm going to take a guess and assume that many of them are automatics rather than manual.

Frankly, I'm confused about why this is even an issue. Isn't driving a manual car a "male skill"?

The results tally with a recent survey, which found that Australian men from Gen Y were more comfortable changing a nappy than changing a tyre.

Oh shit. The feminists are turning men into eunuchs.

But Gen Y women are taking on other skills.

As well as working full or part-time, they are doing tasks previously done by men.

More than 70 per cent of women under 30 say they often take out the bins, 77 per cent mow the lawn and 70 per cent claim they wash the car.

Women are ignoring their nurturing imperative to become more like men. Or, at least, so they claim.

*

Here's the thing - more people in their 20s are living with their parents because the cost of living is so high. Rent and electricity do not come cheap, and if you want to be able to save anything you need to reduce these two expenditures.

Given that more adults are finding themselves in this situation, it comes as no surprise that they are less inclined to cook, or perform simple tasks like hemming skirts or ironing shirts. Or washing.

If they are living away from their parents they are likely to be working full-time, in a two or more income household, and are thus less likely (or inclined) to do what seems like more work during their own time.

Like it or not, gender roles are also breaking down (albeit at a snail's pace). More men are willing to forgo working outside the home if their partner wants to remain in the workforce. Having said that, many couples need two incomes if they want to purchase a house, or even save for a holiday. This doesn't allow much time for making lamingtons.

Finally, people need to have the interest in doing all those things. If you aren't interested in gardening then you're unlikely to even attempt to grow something from an already established plant, let alone a cutting.

So once more we have to listen to a few days about how people are too reliant on modern day conveniences, and if we're really unlucky Miranda Devine will write a column blaming feminism. All so that baby boomers can run around with a feeling of superiority.

(Relatively) calm in the face of a storm

2011-01-28T22:31:00.000+10:00

Today Julia Gillard did the rounds on various media, talking up the flood levy. The MSM seems to be intent on pushing back on this, convinced that this is the wrong thing to do, buying the Liberal Party line that the most important thing a government can do is deliver a surplus, and not expect the community to contribute to disaster relief at the infrastructure level.

The first one I heard about was her Sunrise interview. Predictably, a phone poll was done and unsurprisingly 93% of callers were against the levy. As one of the guys at work said to me when we were muttering over this, "If phone polls were accurate, that's how we'd vote!" Media phone (and website) polls prove nothing other than people who are outraged are the ones most likely to participate, resulting in fodder for journalists.

What astounds me is David Koch demanding a guarantee from the Prime Minister that the levy will be reimbursed should the rebuild be less than estimated. This is after questioning the wisdom in not reducing the amount of foreign aid and referring to the contingency money as a "slush fund". Way to editorialise there, David.

But it's about what I'd expect from that particular outlet.

Later, she was interviewed by Neil Mitchell on 3AW. I don't listen to the radio much anymore, but will if I've been told that I need to listen to a particularly interesting segment. As such, I don't listen to Neil Mitchell (the man who made Tony Abbott sign the infamous WorkChoices pledge) and after today's performance I don't think I'll ever tune in for the hell of it.

Mitchell was being patronising and Gillard called him on it. He started with (17:55 in):

I would just say if there is one rort, if there is one travel junket, if there is one wasted dollar in the next couple of years, there's gonna be hell to pay because the people won't cop it.

Then when Gillard was trying to talk to him he spoke over the top of her, chastising like she is a child:

And to manage the money properly! Please!

Gillard told him to stop being patronising (rightly so), and while trying to speak to him said she understands the need for people to see where the money is going and for it to be managed well. That's when he started yelling over her:

Oh Prime Minister you didn't when you were running the building education system!

Then:

You say I'm patronising you, well I am not! You ran the Building Education Revolution, and it was an absolute disaster, so don't tell me that!

It wasn't a disaster. If you took the time to study the report (PDF) that came out, you would know that less than 3% of projects attracted complaints. Which Gillard pointed out to Mitchell.

She then goes on to state that she has deferred some infrastructure spending to allow for the flood spending, but that it was a difficult decision to make. His response?

Don't patronise me, Prime Minister, of course it's not an easy decision.

Gillard kept her cool. Mitchell was the one behaving like a brat. But what is the headline news.com.au runs with?

Flood tax: Julia Gillard loses cool over Neil Mitchell's 'patronising' response to levy

Of course the media tells people what they want them to hear. How many would seek out the actual interview and judge it for themselves? Certainly not those who already dislike the idea of the levy, or who even have issue with the Gillard government as a whole.

While her performance wasn't perfect (how can it be in the face of such an attack), she certainly held her own and didn't lose her temper. She got a bit snippy perhaps, but considering what she was dealing with it was understandable. I'm waiting for someone to use the term "shrill" in describing her side of the interview, even though she is clearly not the one who can be characterised as such.

With Abbott playing politics with the flood virtually from day one, Gillard was never going to be able to convince taxpayers that spending money is a good thing. If the levy (and spending cuts) weren't introduced, there would have been wailing about the deficit, but now that a levy has been announced there is bitterness about having to pay "out of our pockets" - even when that is precisely where all government money is sourced.

Any Labor government in this country is going to be scrutinised carefully, even unfairly so, when it comes to economic management. The Howard government was an expert at building fear in Australians, and the two major achievements they have in this area are the increase in xenophobia and the distrust of Labor's pecuniary credentials.

Mitchell was out of line. Despite his personal feelings about Gillard, the government and the levy, he should have at least affected respect. What may be acceptable from the Opposition on the floor of parliament, is not justifiable in an interview.

GREAT! BIG! NEW! TAX! A rant.

2011-01-27T20:38:00.000+10:00

I don't have an issue with the proposed GREAT! BIG! NEW! TAX!, despite how Tony Abbott and brainless baboons would like me to feel.

Nor will it stop me from donating additional monies. I've already donated, when I've got some more money I'll donate again. The GREAT! BIG! NEW! TAX! itself will cost me well under $100 for the entire 11/12 financial year - not the hardship he would have you think it is.

Bizarrely, Abbott seems to think volunteers shouldn't have to pay the GREAT! BIG! NEW! TAX! Why? Because they've donated time? I wanted to donate time but my doctor advised against it. Do good intentions count?

Abbott has, virtually from day one, used the floods as a political football. Rather than assist in any way he is able, he started on about the NBN and hasn't let up.

Hey Tone! Guess how a lot of information was shared during the worst of the Brisbane floods? ON TWITTER! You know, that interweb thingy that all the kids are using these days?

And the fucking surplus. Oh my fucking god. The country will not fall apart if it takes another year or two to get back into surplus.

I'm so fucking sick of people, not just Tony Abbott, behaving as though paying a little GREAT! BIG! NEW! TAX! is the end of the world. It's not. The GREAT! BIG! NEW! TAX! is being used to help your fellow Australians get back on their feet. It is going towards building infrastructure after one of the greatest natural disasters Australia has seen. Are you really going to sit there and be an arsehole about 0.5%?

At least this money is going towards something that the whole community benefits from. Not like funding private schools that go on to make profits!

Since I'm on a rant, can I just say how much I am over people becoming overnight experts on Brisbane, the Wivenhoe Dam, and the fucking weather? Unless you live in this city you have NO FUCKING IDEA just how hard it has hit. Even those of use who haven't been directly affected still feel the impact.

Finally, do you want to be the one to tell the people of Toowomba that sorry, because you're a selfish arsehole who wants to buy a cup of coffee every week, they can't rebuild their community?

/rant.

Cory Booker

2011-01-14T17:07:00.001+10:00

I wrote this in March 2007 and it appeared on my former blog. Reposting to show that Booker has been brilliant for years, he's not just started helping his community in the blizzards. His actions are not the behaviour of someone who is doing it to get in touch with his constituents, as was suggested on Sydney radio this afternoon.

This afternoon I watched a documentary that was on SBS the other night - Street Fight.

Street Fight focuses on the 2002 Newark NJ mayoral race between Cory Booker and incumbent Sharpe James. Booker lost the race but later became Mayor in 2006.

What struck me about Booker was his passion. His passion for his community and for those less fortunate. Newark is plagued by poverty, crime and unemployment. Booker is keen to do something about it.

Cory Booker is the son of political activists. He graduated from Stanford, attended Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and attended Yale Law school. In 1998 he won a seat on the notoriously corrupt Newark City Council and it was while there that he learnt that if he was to get anything done for the city, he had to run for Mayor.

Booker puts his money where his mouth is. In 1998 he moved to Brick Towers, an apartment building filled with squatters and drug dealers in a notorious crime-ravaged neighbourhood. He remained there for 8 years before being evicted along with the remaining tenants, so that a new apartment block could be built. Upon eviction, Booker moved to another troubled neighbourhood and has no plans to move in the near future.

Since becoming Mayor in July last year, Booker has announced that he will addressing crime, increasing transparency in the council and generally trying to increase the quality of life for those who live in his city. Perhaps the most interesting of his actions is that which has drawn some of the most criticism - he has introduced "office hours" during which he invites the public to come and talk to him about their issues. He has come under fire by people who see it as a stunt and point out that none of the issues raised have been followed through. I say give him time, bureaucracy does not allow for instant results.

It is going to be interesting watching him over the next 3 years, to see if he can achieve what he has set out to achieve. The thing is, it will take longer than a single 4 year term to change the years of corruption and incompetence that has lead to the impoverishment of the city.

I can't really do justice to Cory Booker in one blog post. Read about him, watch footage, watch the documentary and you will see a man who is willing to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

For an example of the passion that fills Booker, watch this speech on YouTube. You'll see why I like him so much.

Brisbane floods

2011-01-12T06:51:00.000+10:00

Just a quick note to let you know that me and mine are safe and dry.

I'm actually currently in Canberra (Mikey, I forgot to arrange a meet up but it is top of the list for next time, I guarantee) and won't be back in Brisbane until Friday night. The river is due to peak on Thursday and it doesn't take long for flood waters to recede (I know this from growing up in Maryborough - more on that in a minute) so getting home shouldn't be a problem at this stage.

I also live in a reasonably high spot and my house will be safe. I'm waiting to see if it will become emergency accommodation for a friend who lives about 5 km away from me. Fingers crossed it won't be needed.

Work was evacuated yesterday after lunch (our office building is right near the river) and the CBD gets its power cut off at 7 am Brisbane time today.

Another friend was lucky enough to have a stranger drive her home from work.

My parents in Maryborough are fine. The 'borough gets flooded every couple of years and since they are downstream on the Mary River, are fortunate not to cop as much grief as Gympie. Their house is about 5 blocks away from Queens Park and Woolworths and if you saw anything on the news about it you would see that these are (were) under. Again, not unusual in a flood.

I am having to avoid too much news about what is going on - mental health and all that. Despite my awesome holiday, I am also wishing I was back in Brisbane so I could be helping out.

Dad is supposed to be heading down to my place on Thursday - by train so that should be OK. Maybe. No idea yet if Bookfest will be on given it's right near Southbank. Yes, I have priorities.;-) Although, when you think about it, Lifeline will be desperately needed.

So that's my update.

Hope you're all well and safe. Please, if you can, give to the flood appeal. People forget how utterly devastating flooding can be for many.

Love, Michelle. xx

Love & Other Drugs (and why it made me cry)

2011-01-04T00:11:00.002+10:00

Today some of our plans went awry due to weather, so we decided to go see an early movie - Love and Other Drugs.

Note: This post contains spoilers

All I knew about this film was from one preview and it appeared to be a stock-standard rom-com. Boy sleeps with a lot of women - meets a woman who calls him on his bullshit and rejects him - decides she's the woman for him - successfully woos her.

It turns out the preview left out a LOT of information. Like the fact that Anne Hathaway's character Maggie had stage one early onset Parkinson's.

This would not have stopped me from seeing the film, but it would have changed my expectations. Rather than expecting a light rom-com, I would have expected the drama-comedy I saw.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Jamie Randall, a guy who has just been fired from his job (for sleeping with the owner's wife) and whose brother arranges for him to get a job at Pfizer. The film is set in 1997 (just before Pfizer bought out Viagra) and Jamie starts to shill Zoloft to doctors.

It is while trying to convince one doctor (played by Hank Azaria) to start prescribing Zoloft that he meets Maggie. Instantly taken with her, he tries all his usual tactics out on her, only to be rebuffed. He pursues her, and she finally sleeps with him but with one condition - that there are no strings attached.

This being a Hollywood film, the strings appear then multiply and ... I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you don't know how it will go.

What resulted in me sitting in the cinema with tears streaming down my face while the credits ran was Maggie and how much I related to her.

Obviously I don't have Parkinson's, but I do have Bipolar II. I first started seeing myself in Maggie when she said she had to give up painting when she could no longer hold a brush. Modifying my life to fit with my illness is something I am familiar with, so that was point number one.

The next moment was when she is in her apartment, going through a bad patch with her illness, and feeling like the world is against her.

Ding!

Next, Maggie and Jamie head to Chicago so he can go to a conference. Maggie ends up across the road at an alternative gathering, which happens to be full of Parkinson's patients talking about their illness, making jokes and so on. When Jamie arrives there to meet her, he starts to talk to a man whose wife is in stage four. He tells Jamie with brutal honesty what life is like for him, and recommends that he get out of the relationship ASAP. He also says that if given the chance, he'd never choose to go through it with his wife.

Ding ding!!

This hit me hard. A deep fear came to life for me - someone staying with me out of a feeling of duty, rather than love. It's hard for anyone to cope with the disease of a loved one, but the fear of being a burden weighs heavily on anyone with a chronic illness.

Jamie becomes obsessed with finding a cure for Parkinson's. They go from doctor to doctor, Maggie undergoes test after test ... until finally she snaps. She breaks up with him. It becomes quite clear that he's wanting her to not be ill more for himself than for her. He's treating her as though she is the one who needs to be cured, not the disease. She tells him flat out that it can't be cured and that it just something she has.

Ding ding ding!!!

As I've repeatedly said, I am not my illness. I am not Bipolar. I suffer from it, but it isn't who I am. Jamie was letting the Parkinson's define both Maggie and their relationship.

Finally, part of the conversation that hit me like a sledgehammer and, when combined with all the previous parts of the film, turned me into a blubbering mess (I'm paraphrasing):

Jamie: I need you. And you need me.
Maggie: But I'll need you more than you'll need me.
Jamie: That's OK.
Maggie: I can't ask you to do that.
Jamie: You don't have to.

That was it. There is my ultimate fear. Needing someone more than they need me. Needing someone to help me get through each day. All the guilt that I feel for having a mental illness, and the likelihood I'm going to need people to be there for me unconditionally at some point was summed up in that one conversation.

Sure the guilt is misplaced, but it's there. I know that everyone hates to feel like they are a burden or are imposing on another in some way, but I'm willing to bet that those of us with chronic illness feel it tenfold.

I'm fortunate that my condition isn't degenerative - but it is my passenger, and it would be foolish of me to not expect that in the future it will have a larger impact on my life and on the lives of those around me.

I've already almost lost my job because of it; I've damaged relationships. There are things in my life that are severely restricted due to limitations imposed by my mental illness.

In trying to not be an encumbrance on others, we burden ourselves. This may make us strong, but it also makes us more vulnerable to our own emotional demons. We close ourselves off in some way, not only to protect others, but to protect ourselves from our fear. To let our fear take hold is to allow our illness to win.

Of course, by closing ourselves off, we are also allowing the illness to beat us. It then becomes a matter of determining which option will cause us less harm.

Naturally there were aspects of the film I found problematic, but for me these were overshadowed by Maggie's vulnerability and the parallels in my own life. They manifested themselves differently with her, but nonetheless I found myself relating to the character. This resulted in me sitting in a cinema in Chatswood with tears streaming down my face and a perplexed boyfriend hugging me.

Having said all that, I do recommend it. Maybe not to pay full price, but it's certainly better than what the previews would lead you to believe.

Happy new year!

2011-01-01T17:54:00.001+10:00

Hello! I hope everyone had a good holiday period and new years and that you aren't too hung over.

I'm currently in Sydney. NerdBoy and I arrived on Wednesday (he spent Christmas with my family and I), and we've been pottering around the house and wandering various 'hoods since then.

I said a few weeks back that I wanted to take advantage of the fact that I was in Sydney for NYE and see the fireworks. I didn't harbor any illusions about seeing them from the best vantage points - neither of us had a desire to camp out for the day waiting for them, but said if there was some place where we could see them without too much of a crowd, I'd be up for it.

NerdBoy came up with the idea of going to Balmain's Birchgrove Oval. We wouldn't see the front of the Harbor Bridge, but we'd still get a good view - if we were willing to be surrounded by mostly teenagers.

So last night we rocked up to Rozelle, parked the car, and started to walk for 45 minutes. We arrived at the oval with 10 minutes to spare and found a pretty good spot.

Within minutes, the fireworks started our left:

Then to our right:

Immediately after the fireworks finished, we started walking back to the car.

The intent was to catch a bus part of the way. We ended up walking. The traffic was so heavy, we were walking faster than the cars and buses.

Early on in our walk back (which took an hour), we saw a ute with a dirt bike in the back. When we were driving home, we looked to our right, and there was the very same ute. We obviously did the right thing walking back to the car, no matter how painful it turned out to be!

By the time we got home, had a shower (it wasn't hot, but the walk home made us very sweaty), and chilled out for a bit, it was after 3am. Zzzzzzz.

Unintended break

2010-12-23T22:30:00.000+10:00

I appear to have taken a bit of an unintended break from the blog.

Nothing to worry about, a few weeks ago I was so busy and exhausted I didn't have much of a chance to write, and now NerdBoy and my parents are here for Christmas so I'm not going to get much of a chance.

And then I'm heading to Sydney for a few weeks. There might be some posting then, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

So I might sign off for the year (just in case). Rest assured I'll be back in January.

(Of course, now that I've written this, I'll probably post something!)

Have a great holiday period!

Book snobs: a confession and some snark

2010-12-12T18:05:00.001+10:00

I abhor book snobs yet I'm ashamed to say I have a touch of the snob in myself.

I have a love of books and reading. I don't get nearly enough time to read these days - even when I make time I don't seem to get through the piles I once did. It's hard for me to accept that and I don't think I will. I will fight myself until the day I die, trying to make more time for it.

My tastes have expanded over the years, for which I'm grateful, and I no longer write off entire genres like I once did. While there are certainly books I would never seek out for myself, if I'm in the mood to give something different a go, I will.

One book series I do rally against is the Twilight books. When I read the first one I remember feeling like I'd been swimming through wet cement and I was very pleased it was a library book; but for some reason I felt compelled to read the rest of the series. It wasn't until I started looking back on the books that I pinpointed what bothered me: the stalkerish, controlling behaviour of Edward (and Jake!); the whiny internal talking of Bella; the racial and gender stereotypes are the issues that spring to mind instantly. Given the variety of approaches to the looks and behaviour of vamps in canon, I was able to tolerate the sparkles, but I argue with anyone who describes the books as romantic. It actually disturbs me the number of people who loudly dismiss my concerns as an overreaction - most notably from women older than me.

Even though I dislike the Twilight books, and think people can read better, I don't actively scoff at the idea of anyone enjoying them. How can I when on some level I must have received some kind of enjoyment to be able to make it through all four? I only hope that the series pushes people into reading more books involving vampires, werewolves and other creatures so they can see that there is more to it than pretty boys arguing over who gets to protect the damsel in distress, and from there they are moved to expand out of the genre.

I need to move off this tangent and get back to the point.

So, book snobs. Yes, I do channel snobbery myself on occasion - I made fun of my dad for reading a few Mills and Boon books (his defense - which I still choose to mock - was that they were crime ones) and I cringe when I see the Shopaholic books being read on the bus, but I try not to make judgments unless I've read (or tried to read) the book/author in question.

A relative of mine likes to promote this idea that non-fiction is superior to fiction and so she won't read anything that is "made up". Frankly, I think that if you're going to avoid fiction altogether then you are lacking in imagination and are therefore a very dull person and not someone I wish to know. (And if you read nothing but fiction then how are you learning? Same response from me.)

A co-irker of mine dismisses my choices because I don't like Great Expectations. Yet he also tries, and fails, to convince me that Stephen King is a genius.

Book lovers are a peculiar lot, I tell you.

One of my favourite television shows is the ABC's First Tuesday Book Club. I love to hear people talking about books and the show has led to me adding some to my "to read" list.

Last weekend they had their one hour summer special. Aside from the usual panelists (Jennifer Byrne, Marieke Hardy and Jason Steger), Michael McGirr and Maggie Alderson joined in the discussion.

Maggie Alderson revealed herself to be an atrocious book snob.

Let me get one thing out of the way first: it was her comments about the latest Phryne Fisher book - a series I love - that I took issue with.

I'm not someone who isn't open to criticism of beloved authors or books, in fact I find that to be quite interesting as it will force me to take another look. But there is some criticism that I think is just unfounded. That would be the use of the word, "fluff" to write off a book or an entire genre.

Chick-lit* cops it the hardest and while I think there is some basis to the criticism, there are some good authors who are dismissed because of this label. But I do think that someone like Alderson, who writes "fluff", might not want to insult her readers.

MAGGIE ALDERSON: OK, so I'm in Alexander McCall Smith brain dead territory - I'll go with that. And then there's a reference to female masturbation thrown in. You know, when she hasn't had a male caress for a while. Using her usual technique, Phryne achieved a climax, but it wasn't enough.

[...]

MAGGIE ALDERSON: While there is a book by Zola left on the planet that I haven't read, I don't want to spend time reading that, sorry.

JENNIFER BYRNE: But Maggie, it's holidays! You don't take Zola on your holiday's beach!

MAGGIE ALDERSON: That's when I can sit down with a book like that and give it a few days' go. Something like that I would maybe read in the hairdresser's, but the holidays to me are a chance to have a really good run-up at something like the Peter Carey, which you need a day of solid reading to get into. I don't understand this idea of holidays where you leave your brain at home and read fluff.

I'm not coming into this with an inexperienced view - I have read two of her novels, enjoyed them, tried a third and had to step away from it. But they certainly are the very thing she is so dismissive of. Apparently 'brain dead territory' is writing historical cosy mysteries which actually require research, as opposed to novels that extol the virtues of designer shoes and handbags.

*retract claws*

I've been wanting to write a post about book snobs for a while now. And this mildly incoherent rant isn't the one I intended on writing. But that's OK, Leigh Sales has done that for me.

* Oh, how I despise the term. But for the purposes of this blog post, that is the one I shall begrudgingly use

Guy Rundle in Crikey

2010-12-08T19:42:00.000+10:00

Displaying a lack of understanding of what it means to consent to sex, or how feminists see the world.

Missed the fucking boat.

Rape is not a punchline

2010-12-08T00:02:00.003+10:00

I should be in bed, but I am pissed off and can't sleep until I get this off my chest.

Tonight the news that Julian Assange had been arrested was all over Twitter. Perfectly understandable, given what has happened over the past week.

The charges he is apparently facing involve "sex by surprise" which involves some law about not wearing a condom during sex, yet Slate reported that the ~~Swiss~~ Swedish authorities are going to charge him with rape. At this point I don't know, but I tell you this to give you an idea of what has been the catalyst for my hissy fit right now.

Rape "jokes".

Rape is not something you joke about. Full stop. And, to make this clear since people seem to have difficulty with the distinction at times, this includes prison rape. Nor is rape a metaphor.

When I see rape jokes on twitter, I get quite annoyed. I get pissed off when I hear them around me, and get frustrated when not only do I see them made, but I see them retweeted.

We live in a rape culture. I know this is something that people are going to shy away from but we do.

Rape culture is when a woman is judged for being raped and made to feel guilty.

When a woman can't be raped because she is unmarried.

When you withdraw rape charges due to intimidation and are then charged with giving a false report. Or withdraw charged because you are bullied by police officers due to you saying you were raped by their fellow officer.

When a man admits to being raped it is laughed off as "losing your virginity" because he's a guy! He must want it! That is a rape culture.

It is rape culture when a man drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl and is defended by other people because he is an "artistst" and has had a hard life.

When it is assumed she just "regrets" having sex when there was a lag time between when an assault occured and the reporting.

When a scorned woman writes an angry rant about how to get revenge - not actually saying that you should accuse someone of rape but people take it as a given that that is what you meant and therefore any allegations she may make must be automatically suspect.

If you can't understand those very basic concepts, then I don't want you in my life or my twitter feed.

(Also, please note I am not saying whether or not Assange is guilty or innocent - that is not my call to make and nor is it yours.)

Update: Read The River Fed. She is way more articulate than I was last night and I agree with every single point.

Update2: I would also like to point out that jokes can be made like this. And this. That is playing the man, not the ball. Although I am certain some people would disagree, and I'm OK with that.

Wikileaks, Assange, and freedom of information

2010-12-05T14:35:00.000+10:00

I'm going to get hit with a lot of criticism for this so let me explain my point of view before you decide to go at me in the comments (or on Twitter).

Julian Assange isn't a hero, but an attention seeker who is now setting himself up as a martyr. I do however think that the Australian government's reaction is indicative of the sycophantic behaviour towards the US government that became prevalent in the Howard/Bush years. I even agree with Assange's accurate, if crudely put, comment:

This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.

One Congressman in the US wants Wikileaks to be declared a terrorist organisation. A laughable demand, but typical of a government that doesn't like to have its authority questioned. Bill O'Reilly is calling for the execution of the person who leaked the information while Glenn Beck has tied Assange to George Soros, presumably as part of his ongoing conspiracy theory. Not credible voices, but ones that are loud enough to be heard by the public. Meanwhile, Republican Ron Paul has come out in support of Assange.

Then we have the decisions of Amazon and PayPal to pull any support for the site even though they have not previously taken issue with Wikileaks' terms of use violations.

I have been a fan of Wikileaks for quite some time. But the sheer glut of information they are releasing at the moment seems counterproductive. I'm with Leslie Cannold when she says:

There is a legitimate role for editorial judgment and a need to protect individual privacy in media and corporate dealings, not to mention sometimes a requirement for secrecy in military operations, intelligence gathering and diplomatic negotiations. The arbiter for disclosure is the public interest.

It is vital that WikiLeaks not become about leaking for leaking's sake. It must not abandon its fight against corruption in defence of the public interest to favour what the Federation of American Scientists calls "an assault on secrecy".

Instead, WikiLeaks must ensure it continues to grab headlines with the same stories that have won it awards from Amnesty and made its name. These include images of the Baghdad air strike and documents about extra- judicial killings and disappearances in Kenya. WikiLeaks is a game-changer, providing the raw data that can be used to shine light into the dark corners of corrupt corporate and civil institutions. It can be expected to change the way governments and businesses operate. In the future, openness may be the default and arguments made about why something should stay secret. This profound and important paradigm shift is largely down to WikiLeaks.

This is why I hope the organisation will move to protect is own legacy, and the public support required for its continuing influence, by sticking to the task of whistleblowing, not just divulging secrets because they're interesting or because it can.

(My emphasis.)

There is no doubt that some of the information provided contains information people should know. The torture of Khaled El-Masri was a despicable act, made worse by the Bush government pressuring the Germans to not prosecute those who were involved. The authoritarian attitude of the US government is well-known so sadly this information comes as no surprise. Yet being made aware of Clinton ordering diplomats to spy is hardly groundbreaking stuff - anyone with an ounce of sense would expect this from not just Clinton, but any Secretary of State (or their equivalent).

But do we really need to know the details of a wedding just because Ramzan Kadyrov attended as a political move?

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the cables released and the subsequent uproar about security violations we will only hear about a few things: 1) Assange's arrest warrants; 2) the outrage from governments around the world; and, 3) the childish name-calling.

What I think we need to remember is that while there are things that need to be made public, some information needs to be kept confidential to protect not only governments but individuals who try to make the world a better place.

Overall, my reaction is a giant "meh". It's not that I don't understand what is at stake for FOI and freedom of speech, it's just that I don't have the energy to get riled up about it. There are so many things to be outraged about in the world, and I think I've already used up my rage for the year. I also find it difficult to get worked up about something that is not a black and white issue, not when the lives of people like USAID workers and government whistleblowers (from all over the world) are put at additional risk.

One final thing. If the US government does pursue Assange for making the documents available, they better do something about the people involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity, otherwise another point in the hypocrisy column will be added.

Further reading:

The Nation: Did US Special Forces Want to 'Target' Refugee Camps in Pakistan?
The Monthly: The Man Who Fell to Earth
Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins
The Economist: In defense of Wikileaks; Missing the point of Wikileaks; Releasing, Reporting or Dumping?
The Guardian: The US embassy cables

Me and my children

2010-11-26T21:36:00.000+10:00

A little over a month ago I acquired just under 100 children.

The Colonel, who was what was known as "The Stationery Nazi", left for another job. Before leaving she bequeathed me with the role, which I've since renamed "The Stationery Bitch".

Anyhoo, the problem is many of the people on our floor don't realise just how much additional work she did, over and above dealing with stationery orders. I knew but, silly me, assumed that people would accept that I was taking over the stationery and nothing else.

In the past two weeks, I've discovered that isn't the case.

See, The Colonel was also in charge of ordering the milk for the kitchen, kept the photocopy room tidy (which I knew, and helped out with from time to time), and would clean out the fridge every now and again.

Things I've had to do in the last few weeks that I shouldn't have to do:

send an email telling people to flatten boxes before putting them in the hallway (which we've done since forever)

send an email telling people to use the milk with the earliest expiry date, not the latest (apparently adults don't understand this concept)

have to cancel the milk order for a week because we had 18L of milk in the fridge (which no one thought was odd until there was no more room in the door for it. I didn't notice because I don't use the milk so don't even look on the inside fridge door.)

have to put up signage to tell people to take empty toner boxes to our corporate services section and not just leave them in the photocopy room

have to put up signage to tell people that they need to inform me when they've taken the last box of letterhead as there is a 24 hour turn around on getting more

reorganise the photocopy room because people are ignoring the sign telling them where the spare paper is

filling up the paper in the photocopier because people don't seem to understand that there is enough room for an entire ream of paper in each tray. (This doesn't include getting frustrated with people who go to the photocopy room, retrieve ONE ream of paper then return to the printer to (half) fill it up. Dude, take an entire box! It doesn't go stale!)

putting faxes in the correct tray - when the faxes were just placed on the bench in front of said tray

And so on.

In the past week I've had people coming up to me, telling me the fridge is disgusting and asking if I was going to clean it out.

Really? You think that's my job? I get paid as much as you and I'm the one who has to clean it out because you're the one who's upset with the state of it? (FTR, I had noticed that it was looking dodgy, but I was waiting for someone else to volunteer. Apparently I've not learned my lesson yet.)

Sorry, just had a moment of bitchiness there. I've actually arranged with my TL to talk to the other sections to put together a roster - our area will NOT be solely responsible for the job as far as I'm concerned.

However, I did tell my TL that I would do it this week, because it was starting to bug the hell out of me (people were just buying groceries and shoving them in so you'd open up the fridge to a wall of plastic bags - and milk, if you looked at the door.)

I gave everyone one day notice. The standard rules applied - things not labeled with "Do not throw out" (we have special stickers!) are thrown out. This includes plastic containers.

At 2pm, I dragged the kitchen bin over to the fridge and started throwing things. H wandered in a few minutes later and started helping without my asking (she's from another section).

Half an hour and 3 bins (one large, 2 small) later, all that was left in the fridge was: some cans of Coke, a couple of jars of jam (we threw out about a dozen other ones), tomato sauce, 7 containers of yoghurt, the milk, 2 bottles of OJ, 2 containers of butter, one lunch box that was labeled (the other 6 were tossed) and two bags of perishables.

Some of what we found:

half an avocado. That would be the skin of half an avocado, plus the seed. Apparently when you've finished scraping it out you actually put it back in the fridge rather than the bin. I don't eat avocado so I wasn't aware of this rule.

liquefied tomatoes. Thankfully in plastic bags.

several containers of mouldy cheese

one container of cream cheese. H: "Are they chives? [pause] No, not chives."'

mouldy bread

a packet that once held ham but was now empty

a slice of petrified salami (I knew it was petrified because it ran away from me. Thank you! I'm here all night; try the chicken.)

It truly is like having a heap of kids. I don't know why, but the moment people walk through the door at work they seem to forget all the rules (shut up, NerdBoy) of communal living and common courtesy. (Do NOT get me started on the emails the WH&S officer has to send around about proper hygiene in the toilets.)

Oh, and we only had two bottles of milk left: the one with the expiry date of 1 December was half full; the one with the expiry date of 30 November hadn't even been opened. *headdesk*

/rant.

More classic apologies

2010-11-24T19:14:00.000+10:00

Remember earlier in the month when The Courier Mail had to apologise for getting their Star Trek facts wrong?

Well, we have more media apologies this week.

Last week, Crikey published a First Dog On The Moon cartoon about the just-announced engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton (who, by the way, also works in Toowoomba!):

(click to enlarge)

The header, however didn't originally look like that. In fact Mr Dog, diabolical fiend that he is, used Franklin Mint as part of his attack on the monarchy.

Yesterday Crikey made the following apology:

Last Wednesday, in a work commemorating the impending nuptials of Prince William and Kate Middleton, Crikey cartoonist First Dog on the Moon used the registered service mark of The Franklin Mint.

Crikey has now removed The Franklin Mint registered trademark and would like to make clear that The Franklin Mint does not in any way endorse nor manufacture the following products:

1. William and Kate Royal Wedding Commemorative Gigantic Pile of Animal Excreta, collected by hand from the perfumed bottoms of endangered animals carefully selected by David Attenborough.

2. William and Kate Royal Wedding Commemorative Self Harm Kit, or gold planted diamante tipped stick to stab your eyes out, including pretend encrusted silver canister containing a mixture of industrial grade epoxy and finest gravel to stick in your ears, encased in a velvet lined spatter proof box of endangered wood.

3. William and Kate Royal Wedding Commemorative Desire to Drink Yourself to Death with Cheap Scotch and then Punch Yourself in the Face Heirloom Quality Collector Plate (or maybe tankard).

Crikey apologises to The Franklin Mint and in no way suggests that these products are the perfect way to remember this special and memorable fairy tale occasion.

Hell hath no fury like the Australian Monarchist League.

See more here, including the cartoon with the original header.

Things I wonder...

2010-11-24T13:40:00.002+10:00

Do the people who hold David Hicks up as a terrorist who should have been left to rot in Guantanamo Bay think that Ned Kelly is a hero?

*sits back and waits for the trolls*

Julia Gillard: EPIC FAIL

2010-11-24T01:04:00.000+10:00

Niki Savva dispenses Julia Gillard some advice in The Australian:

She has to sharpen up in every way, every day.

Some people welcomed her recent performances in parliament as feisty. To others they were scratchy and screechy.

Her humour often lapses into bitchiness or condescension. As Prime Minister, she has to be measured and respectful. She needs to delegate the attack dog role.

She should sack her hairdresser (sorry, Tim) get a decent cut and colour, pack up all her clothes and send them to the Smith Family. There are plenty of stylists who can buy her smart clothes that fit her properly. She needs to hire a good one or get the name of the Governor-General's dressmaker.

If all this sounds gratuitous, it isn't. The photograph of Julia Gillard in Sydney's The Daily Telegraph yesterday, wearing a coat that looked as if it was made out of an army blanket by one of the infantry, said it all.

How you look is as important as what you say and how you say it. And the rules apply equally to male and female politicians.

A bit of exercise wouldn't go astray either, a healthy body and a healthy mind and all that.

Of course Savva would give the same advice to a male Prime Minister. God knows, we were all sick of the articles about John Howard's eyebrows and how they affected his performance. Oh, and Keating! Yep, he was such a big ol' bitch, screeching his insults across the floor and causing car alarms to go off.

And do you remember how Bob Hawke's philandering meant he was unable to say no to that hideous jacket that he put on when Australia II won the America's Cup?

It's also a little-known fact Alfred Deakin was respected more than Edmund Barton because he was man enough to grow a beard. (Although some say that the guy who wrote all those articles criticising Barton's lack of facial hair - one Hirsute McBeardy - may have been Deakin writing under a nom de plume.)

Yep, the Australian media has a history of pointing out repeatedly to Prime Ministers that they don't look the part, need new haircuts, have weird earlobes and should carry handbags.

They're only trying to help Julia because something so, so terrible could happen if she doesn't take notice of their advice:

Bob Brown will sneak into Labor's bedroom in the middle of the night and steal their soul.

See, Gillard has made "unconventional life choices". Choices that don't reflect those of any other women in Australia and this impacts on her ability to retain the Prime Ministership and, more importantly, keep the Greens from infecting us all with their evil ideas.

Do you remember all those times that previous PMs took time out to spend time with their families; to take on the roles of care giver and demonstrate what it means to be a regular family? Julia wouldn't understand any of this since she's deliberately barren. But Abbott? Oh yes, Tony understands:

Abbott knew what families had to go through, because he had one. Gillard said she knew, but she didn't have one, so how could she?

It wasn't just the financial pressures either that people related to, but the whole life-work equation. Abbott knew how hard it was to have a demanding job and keep a family together.

Yep, Abbott always pulls a second-shift and takes care of his "women" when he gets home - that cleaning and cooking and nurturing won't happen by itself!

No, Julia Gillard needs to focus on the important things in life - getting a decent hair cut; maybe some plastic surgery to make those grotesque earlobes smaller (honestly, I can't focus on anything else when she speaks!) Then she should sit down for a nice cup of tea with the Governor General and swap stories about clothes and inside info where the best bargains can be had.

After all, she does need to find herself a good quality handbag.

The Greens want to ruin the country by letting gays marry

2010-11-20T11:18:00.000+10:00

The Australian isn't the place where you will find rational coverage of any issue the Greens raise, and this morning they continue to bray hysterically into the ears of their ~~constituents~~ readers with a piece about gay marriage and all the evils it entails.

Immediately you know it's going to be a calm and nuanced piece with this opener:

THE most obvious thing about arguments for same-sex marriage is their shallowness.

Translation:
Demanding equal rights for your fellow human beings is a shallow pursuit. The kind TEH GAYZ are already accustomed to, given their love of sequins and flannel.

IN last Saturday's Focus, Paul Kelly wrote a memorable piece, taking issue with Labor senator Mark Arbib's suggestion that it's time for the ALP to support gay marriage.

"Why is it time?" Kelly asked. "Because the Greens are stealing Labor's votes, that's why. So Labor should cynically abandon its support for the foundational social institution, a move that will trigger a deeply polarising debate and brand Labor indelibly as a libertarian personal rights party ready to ditch any institution or principle. In the process, Labor will alienate permanently an important section of its base."

Oh, it's time. Not because 'the Greens are stealing Labor's votes', but because people who respect others know it is the obvious thing to do.

Labor will never run the risk of being labeled Libertarian. Given their treatment of asylum seekers, the mentally ill, and women (to name but a few), they can't be considered progressive any longer.

Kelly's analysis was in marked contrast to that of The Age's political editor, Michelle Grattan. She told ABC Radio National's Breakfast show this week that Julia Gillard would have to change tack on the subject, preferably sooner rather than later.

Mind you, she was talking to the show's presenter, Fran Kelly, whose agenda on same-sex issues is well known, and to some extent may have been framing her remarks accordingly.

Translation:
Psst, Fran Kelly is a lesbian.

Grattan's argument is the same sort of vulgar inevitabilism that she, Paul Kelly and the press gallery at large displayed on the outcome of the republican referendum. But Kelly at least has more of a feel for the values of blue-collar workers in the outer suburbs. As he says, Arbib's push to change the law on marriage "testifies to how politicians can be fooled by opinion polls and miss the bigger picture".

The most obvious thing about the arguments in support of same-sex marriage is their shallowness. The best Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young could manage last week was to remind us breathlessly that we are living in the year 2010, as though that settled the matter. The Greens' line that all loving couples deserve to be treated equally is just as specious.

Yes, we are living in the year 2010. We have the advantage of the understanding that all that entails.

And yet we still don't afford everyone the same rights.

To say wanting equal rights for anyone is specious demonstrates, in one word, just how little you think of anyone who doesn't conform to your narrow-minded ideal.

Few have argued more consistently over many years than I have done that same-sex partners should get a fair deal on superannuation and other entitlements of that kind. Labor's reforms in the last parliament mean that couples are treated pretty much equally except in the matter of marriage.

But the few remaining privileges reserved for matrimony are there for sound, practical reasons.

Translation:
"Some of my best friends are gay."

"Marriage is for procreation!"

Men and women tend to have different needs and priorities when they enter a mature sexual relationship.

So ... wouldn't that mean that gay couples would be more aligned to each other?

Oh! Wait! They're immature! Silly me.

Most men are not naturally disposed to be monogamous, for example. One of the purposes of marriage is to bind them to their spouses and children for the long haul and to give the state's approval to those who enter such a contract and abide by its terms.

A new way of saying, "gay men can't keep it in their pants." Also, "women use marriage and children to trap men."

Do you realise just how sexist that argument is towards both men and women?

Another of the purposes of marriage is to affirm that parenthood is a big, and in most cases the primary, contribution a couple can make, both to their own fulfilment and the public good.

Translation:
If you're a childless couple, you are not as important as those who have done their duty.

It follows that societies which want to sustain their population size, let alone increase their fertility level, should positively discriminate in favour of stable, heterosexual relationships and assert the preferability of adolescents making a normal transition to heterosexual adulthood.

Translation:
TEH GAYZ are abnormal. And adolescent. And you all know how fickle teenagers are!

It should be obvious to unprejudiced observers that, while there are plenty of well-adjusted gays who manage to lead satisfying and productive lives, rational people do not of their own volition choose to be homosexual.

I. Can't. Even.

It should be equally obvious that those who, through whatever mixture of nature and nurture, end up at whatever age identifying as homosexual, bisexual or whatever, need to be protected from any kind of persecution.

Unless it comes from the government.

Among the reasons the Greens are so keen on same-sex marriage is that they want to reduce the population and drive down national fertility. Their refusal to discriminate positively in favour of heterosexuality and uphold the distinctive value of normal marriage shows their political project yet again for what it is: a dead end.

Translation:
THE GREENS ARE GOING TO DESTROY US ALL! They want to rid the planet of people!

POSITIVE discrimination is OK! It reinforces how abnormal the rest of usare.

Speaking of dead ends, some American bishops have recently given a persuasive account of why same-sex marriage has come to look like a modest reform. They put it down to a culture where contraception and abortion are so widely practised that the crucial differences between a fertile couple, a couple childless by choice and a gay couple have been largely obscured and each partnership is seen as morally equivalent. They also lay some of the blame on a UN version of entitlement, in which marriage could be reduced to an unqualified abstract right.

Translation:
Positive discrimination in favour of the already privileged is moral and right.

The blue-collar social conservatives of the outer suburbs inhabit a less theoretical world. They are often unapologetically tribal in outlook and their best hopes are often invested in their children.

Translation:
Real men and women don't want any of this namby-pamby "we are one" bullshit. They live in reality.

Most parents on low wages routinely make sacrifices on their kids' behalf in ways middle-class couples seldom do these days. There is also still something self-sacrificial among many of them on marriage: the notion that it's hard work much of the time but worth the effort.

Translation:,
If you "choose" to be gay after your parents have made sacrifices for you, you are selfish.

There is another core constituency, sometimes overlapping, who have been critical to Labor's victories in the past two elections. I'm talking about not just the Christian vote but the votes of people who are adherents of all the main, organised religions.

Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all take the institution of marriage very seriously. As things stand, Labor can normally count on a fair share of those people's votes. However, the electoral implications of giving them a faith-based reason for voting for the Coalition are obvious.

In Australia, marriage is a contract you enter into with each other, and it is validated by the government.

When religion enters into it, it is just there to add additional terms and conditions, but it doesn't determine the legality of the situation. Religion is included in some ceremonies, but it's not compulsory.

Perhaps Arbib should look beyond the Galaxy polling commissioned by an advocacy group, Australian Marriage Equality. A sample of 1050 found, after a prompt-question on gay marriage being introduced overseas, that 62 per cent supported changing the law.

Another 33 per cent were opposed and 5 per cent were unsure.

The Greens in triumphalist mode have claimed more support for their cause than these figures warrant.

Translation:
The Labor Party should only listen to polling when it suits the conservatives in society.

Far more substantial polling comes from Roy Morgan's Single Source face-to-face surveys, which reach more than 50,000 people each year. His data uses proxy questions: Do you think homosexual activity is immoral and are you in favour of gays getting adoption rights?

Attitudes vary widely, of course, between the regions and the inner and outer suburbs, which is why Galaxy's 62 per cent in favour should be treated with caution.

Translation:
Like this one! It asks the REAL questions. I'm going to trust that you don't go and look for the results of the poll yourself, in case it invalidates this portion of my already weak argument by telling you that the number of people saying homosexuality is immoral is dropping.

The strongly negative territory included most of regional Queensland, traditional Labor turf comprising three western Sydney seats (Blaxland, Chifley, McMahon), three more in Sydney's southwest (Barton, Banks, Watson), some parts of suburban Melbourne (Lalor, Hotham, Bruce) and the north Tasmanian seats of Bass and Lyons.

Running the risk of alienating so much of your traditional support base, at this stage in federal Labor's history, is daylight madness. At least Gillard seems to have grasped that fact.

Translation:
Even though you've alienated much of your traditional support base anyway, they're the ones who have given the Greens so much support since your move to the right. Really, we don't want you to move back to the left! We need you demonising asylum seekers so that The Australian can still ~~buy the Liberal Party votes~~ sell papers.

*sigh*

Pearson is himself gay (and Catholic and a former Howard speechwriter). Yes, there are plenty of people in the LGBTQI community who don't want gay marriage, but does that mean they should prevent others from having that right? Just as not all heterosexual people want to get married, not all homosexuals want to either. But the fundamental difference is that straight couples have the option to marry if they change their minds, yet gay people have no such luxury.

A common argument is that homosexuals are accorded the same rights in a civil partnership as married people. Yet they aren't - they don't have the right to call it a marriage.

Society, despite the increase in understanding that de-facto relationships are a valid demonstration of commitment, still views marriage as a superior and preferable way to show that devotion to the world (and each other). To be in a de-facto relationship is a choice made by an opposite-sex couple who has the option to marry if they so desire; gay couples do not even have this option.

The term "marriage" carries with it much weight even in the 21st century. Some view it as having the sole purpose of procreating - does that make childless couples inferior? According to many, that a gay couple cannot have children the "normal" way (what is normal in this age of IVF and surrogacy?), renders their argument for marriage invalid. If we were to apply this logic to childless couples, then we would be invalidating a large number of marriages and that would, of course, be discriminatory.

People also make the "slippery slope" argument. That is, if gay marriage is legal we are on the way to making incest and bestiality lawful. Or, laughably, that we will soon be able to marry inanimate objects. Considering that the former two examples are morally reprehensible (regardless of your religious beliefs, or lack thereof) and the latter is just one of many ridiculous straw arguments, I think we can reject these as irrelevant to the discussion.

Some view homosexuality as immoral. Does someone being gay infringe on another's rights? Does it harm the people around them? No. The argument that morality plays a part in homosexuality is dated and has no basis in reality.

Historically, marriage has been regarded as between a man and a woman. Previously to only between people of the same race and, in Western society at least, it is accepted that a wife is not her husband's property and marital rape is illegal.

Laws grow and change with societal attitudes. It is the role of the law makers to see this and make decisions accordingly - not influenced by their personal preferences.

The right of reFry*

2010-11-06T11:38:00.002+10:00

As I wrote previously, Stephen Fry was under fire earlier this week for making comments regarding womens' sexuality. Subjected to condemnation, he left Twitter and nothing further was heard from him. Yesterday he published a piece on his website, explaining himself:

I suppose the keenest disappointment I feel about the past week and the almost incredible weirdnesses it has brought in its train is the idea that there are people out there who actually swallow the notion that I am so stupid as to believe that women don’t enjoy sex. That I not only believe it but that I am dense, dotty and suicidally deluded enough to make a public declaration of such a crazed belief.

Let me now come out and say before we go any further that I entertain no such notion. Much as you may wish to think me a compound of the most misogynistic, ignorant, sexist and antediluvian pig who ever trod the planet I can truly report that I know and love enough women to be quite assured of the fact the women do indeed enjoy sex. I would have to ignore evolution, precedent, personal experience and the empirical observation of vibrator sales and teenage pregnancies and all kinds of obvious and unavoidable facts in between to believe anything else.

[...]

As a gay man, female sexuality is patently a closed book to me. I had fondly imagined that in a free and open society one might be allowed to play with such ideas in a reasonable spirit of debate, but it seems not. It seems that such a conversation was offensive, ignorant, arrogant … god knows what else. Ill-judged it most certainly was.

Theoretically Fry has enough media nous to know when he should keep his mouth shut, but in reality he's demonstrated that he is as proficient as the rest of us in exercising poor judgement.

In my previous post I said regardless of its intent the comment was sexist and crossed the line. I still believe so. Fry states that he had a brief interview with Attitude in which he "took a thought for a walk" and in doing so repeated a myth that is oft believed to be unassailably correct by those who wish to establish that women are lesser than men. He never intended it to be taken as a serious opinion yet it has been reported in that manner.

It should also be noted that Fry is not apologising. Explaining himself in a terribly British way, yes, apologising, no.

I have conflicting feelings on this. On one hand I believe he should apologise as his comments, no matter how they were intended, are offensive to woman; on the other I don’t think he, or anyone for that matter, should apologise in situations like this if they don’t genuinely feel remorse. Apologies that are not legitimately felt do more harm than good to all parties.

What does strike me about his piece is the apparent shock that people from around the world take notice of what he says. Given his heightened awareness of the internet and social media, it is delusive of him to claim surprise at the impact and spread of his comments.

Given the tone of his writing I have no doubt that in his mind that is the end of the matter. It will likely be mentioned to him in future (non-print) interviews, and many people will hold it up as a reason to not interest themselves in him any further.

Fry’s non-apology will clear things up for some, but cause others to remain unconvinced.. Personally, it doesn’t restore my previous opinion of him but is demonstrable of how separate to the world he sees himself. No doubt many celebrities do this consciously so they don’t feel besieged by everything that is said about them, but Fry seems to have taken it to a level which appears to impact on his common sense.

I have one thing I'd like to add regarding my previous post. My comments about bipolar were not a diagnosis, but an idea of what might be going on in light of a seemingly sudden, pique filled, departure from twitter. Given my own experience with the illness I feel a certain empathy for emotionally charged reactions as that. But I said it for potential context given how his reaction took many by surprise, rather than to announce that that is why he dropped out of sight.

* A friend of mine read that and started laughing, declaring it “so bad it is good”. I prefer to think it’s so bad it’s bad...

This will be cross-posted over at left flank sometime today

Being intelligent does not make you wise

2010-11-03T13:45:00.007+10:00

Stephen Fry has quit twitter. Some are saying that his tweet, "So some fucking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up." and his subsequent, "Bye bye" is a "hissy fit".

Maybe. We're all entitled to bad behaviour. I also wonder if it is a reaction occurring during a manic phase (Fry is quite open about his bipolar) when feeling piled upon. The only person who would know that would be him, and his doctor, but I have to say that's how it comes across to me.

So, what was he supposedly misquoted in saying?

“I think most straight men feel they disgust women. They find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are. For good reason. If women liked sex as much as men there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.

“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.

“Of course a lot of women will deny this and say, ‘Oh, no, but I love sex, I love it!’ But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?

“Gay men are the perfect acid test. If they want to get their rocks off, they go into a park where they know they can do it.”

Pink News

I shouldn't need to tell you that Fry is incorrect in his comments about womens' sexuality. Plenty of women enjoy sex, plenty don't. Numerous women find anonymous encounters satisfying and there are those who wouldn't dream of having sex unless they were in a monogamous relationship. The point is sexuality, whatever your gender identity, is complex and cannot be classified in any specific way.

Fry has copped a hell of a lot of criticism for this and I don't think all of it is unwarranted, particularly since he has made these kinds of comments before. Even if it was intended to be taken in jest I think it missteps sufficiently for it to be considered sexist.

However.

Do I think he should be vilified like he has been? No. At most he's (allegedly) tried to make a joke and in doing so has repeated a trope that is rehashed ad nauseum by people who are ignorant of basic principles of equality.

I'm a feminist. Call me a bad feminist if you like, but I can't agree that this makes him a terrible person overall or deserving of hatred. The comments are not forgivable, but neither are comments like this from Germaine Greer:

“Stephen Fry is clearly under a delusion that he is an authority on female sexuality. Well, if he thinks that women are not interested in genital encounters with total strangers then he is absolutely right. But to conclude that we are therefore uninterested in sex is madness.

“It is true that men have an interest in a kind of sex which women find infinitely depressing, and it’s true that women really don’t want to hang around toilets hoping that someone will come along and play with their bits. That is not what passion is about for us and we would be placing ourselves in mortal danger if it was.

“Women have an idea of passion which men like Stephen can’t even begin to imagine. What women yearn for is intimacy. The fact that for women sex is an integral part of closeness doesn’t mean we are any less interested in it.’

Responding to a generalisation about womens' sexuality with another sweeping comment regarding the same, and including men for good measure is not how you fight sexism.

You fight sexism by educating, not seeing who can scream the loudest at the offender. No one is perfect, we may like to believe the people we admire are, but they're not. Stephen Fry is not excluded from that, despite the adoration many have for him.

Stephen Fry is a ridiculously intelligent man, but intelligence does not equate to wisdom or common sense. Am I disappointed that he made such comments? Hell yes. I won't write him off for it, but my admiration has been taken down a few notches. That is what happens when we place someone on a pedestal. That is when disappointment hits hardest.

Cross-posted at left flank

Don't mess with nerds

2010-11-03T12:25:00.000+10:00

Via the Courier Mail, I present a correction in full:

* There were many USS Enterprises
* Kirk didn't captain them all
* Patrick Stewart is handsome

YESTERDAY, a news.com.au article incorrectly stated that the Star Trek starship USS Enterprise-E, otherwise known as model NNC-1701-E, was the successor to Captain Kirk's original USS Enterprise.

It has since been brought to our attention that the NNC-1701-E in fact came two models after Captain Kirk retired and was under the command of Captain Jean Luc Picard.

User "Your Mum's Lunch" led the charge of those who correctly pointed out that after losing the original Enterprise to the Klingons, Captain Kirk was given the Excelsior Class Enterprise-B as a stop-gap measure until the refit of the Enterprise-A was completed.

Kirk's last ship was the Ambassador Class Enterprise-C.

Enterprise-D and Enterprise-E were in fact, the first of the Galaxy Class models and were under the command of Captain Picard.

There were also some concerns about whether the incorrect use of the term "hyperspace" in describing warp drive technology may harm the original Star Trek concept, particularly the books.

News.com.au apologises unreservedly for the error.

There was no intention whatsoever to suggest Captain Kirk may have commanded the Galaxy Class Starships Enterprise-D and Enterprise-E.

Any damage to the Star Trek brand incurred by the use of the term "hyperspace" is regretful.

No malice was intended and a correction to the original article will be made.

We also agree that Patrick Stewart is a handsome man, a sentiment expressed by several readers.

Addendum - We're also sorry for any errors in this apology.

Thanks to @jeanburgess

Don't forget to read the comments.

This.

2010-11-02T12:25:00.000+10:00

When Anger is Mistaken for Mania:

Anger and mania are not the same thing. Period. Anger is an emotional response that occurs in response to a trigger, and people are more or less able to regulate themselves in response to feelings of anger. People in a manic episode may be irritable and more easily angered, and they often struggle with regulating their angry responses. But just being angry is not a manic symptom per se. Someone may feel angry with or without mania.

Some people in my life need to understand this.

Women are not incubators

2010-11-02T08:01:00.001+10:00

With abortion in the news in QLD for obvious reasons, Fairfax's online-only Brisbane News asked QLD MPs what their personal opinions are on the topic.

Not surprisingly, there were both pro-choice and pro-life comments, as well as those who refused to say, but it was the comment of Queensland Party MP Aidan McLindon that bothered me:

"From a personal experience, my wife and I are unable to have children and are currently on the adoption list which is quite a lengthy process," Mr McLindon said.

"Last year 19 children were available for adoption yet there were around 14,000 abortions. This situation is ridiculous.

"I believe the government needs to provide avenues for those mothers considering abortion to connection into the adoption agency so the mother can find comfort in the fact that there is an avenue for her child."

I really feel for people who want children but are unable to conceive so engage in IVF or look to adopt. Yet I don't think that stopping women from having abortions is the way to go. It's obvious from his comments that McLindon believes women who choose to have abortions are selfish, which is not the case.

Women don't want children for many reasons and to not have a legal avenue in place for them to terminate pregnancies will not encourage them to adopt those children out, but will result in illegal procedures taking place.

If a person is asked to place a child for adoption because they were unable to get the abortion they wanted, who is going to foot the bill? Being pregnant costs money. Giving birth costs money. In some cases it can cost a woman her health - some health issues do not come to light until after the pregnancy - who will pay the medical costs for treatment? I can't imagine the government would be willing to do this.

Nor should they need to.

Treating women like incubators is, frankly, barbaric. It negates our right to autonomy, a very basic human right.

We are an educated nation; we celebrate the freedom to choose many things in our lives. Choosing to not have children - by whatever means - should be another.

Womens' choices should not be held hostage by the personal preferences of politicians.

Yesss!!!

2010-10-29T01:13:00.000+10:00

It's been a while since I looked on YouTube to see if anyone had uploaded this series of videos and I was inspired today to take another look.

And there they were!

15 years ago Andrew Denton interviewed Chris Isaak, Roger Daltrey, Ray Manzarek and Dick Dale all on the one show. It was hilarious. Take a look:

The email I wish I could send

2010-10-27T19:55:00.001+10:00

Dear Whosit,

Today I received your demand in which you refer to a previous request made which we never received.

If we had received it, you would have been told the following:

1) We don't provide that information. Your organisation has the authority to determine that figure based on information provided on a general level.

2) You would have been referred to the relevant area of our website and if you had any further questions, instructed to call the relevant help desk on 1234 567 890.

3) Next time you reply to an email sent by someone, take the time to actually read what they are requesting before deflecting any responsibility.

I would like to add the following, which relates directly to your email today:

4) In future, I will not respond to any emails referring to me as "Michael". If you're so fucking ignorant that you can't follow some basic courtesy by referring to someone BY THEIR ACTUAL NAME, then I will in the future refer to you as "Assbucket".

Thank you.

MICHELLE

Farewell, Ari Up

2010-10-21T20:16:00.000+10:00

Ari Up (The Slits) has died.

On the Twitters

2010-10-12T19:57:00.002+10:00

UPDATE: Cross-posted over at Left-Flank

I swore I'd never sign up to Twitter. "What's the point?" I'd ask. "It's just status updates like Facebook."

In June 2009 I found myself deciding what my Twitter username would be.

What bought about this change in attitude? Well, Grods, if you must know. Scott made the announcement that Bron had signed up. She had previously been as vocal as I had about the obvious pointless act of being part of the Twitter masses.

We were both wrong.

I hear time and again that it's an exercise in vanity. That no one wants to hear what you had for breakfast; updates are narcissistic; the tedious chatter isn't worth your time.

Yes, following celebrities* is amusing at first but with the occasional exception they are quite repetitive and dull. Most politicians aren't much better, with many leaving the updates to staffers who will only make scheduling announcements. Malcolm Turnbull is the perfect example of a politician who uses the medium well, and if you mention Tony Burke to any politics obsessive on Twitter they'll probably reminisce about #tweetlikeTonyBurke at its height.

But Twitter is more than 140-character updates or a way to find out what Trent Reznor thinks of Bono. It's a conversation between friends. We provide support for each other in small bursts of words; we share each others joy and heartbreak. We have fun. We share information and provide assistance to those in need. A few weeks ago, a much-loved twitter user was incredibly intoxicated and was tweeting as he was walking home. One of his followers took pity on him, picked him up and took him home safely. That is the kind of kinship online communities provide.

A family.

I've conversed with people who I would otherwise never have met. Twitter, the internet**, redefines friendship. I no longer refer to my offline life as IRL; Twitter is just as real. It may seem peculiar to anyone who isn't familiar with the camaraderie that evolves from social media - how can people who have never met in person be friends? Well, one of the wonderful things about human nature is that we seek out meaningful connections with those we don't know face-to-face. Our parents had pen-pals - people they'd never met in person - they'd write to each other, talking about their lives. Are the friendships that are formed via pen and ink communication superior to those we form online? I don't believe so.

I've met some of my twitter-pals in the flesh. They've been just as fantastic in person as they are when they're talking to me from another part of the country. One of the most important people in my life is someone I met on Twitter - you know him as NerdBoy but I first knew him as @thewetmale. Twitter meet-ups are quite common. Events such as BTUB help Twitter users connect on a grand scale but there are other social gatherings are less formal and are done as a shout-out to your followers.

For someone like me who is very shy, Twitter can be liberating. By the time I meet someone in person I feel I know them well enough to feel comfort in their presence that I wouldn't if we had never spoken. I feel a sense of connection to those with whom I interact on Twitter, a certain level of care.

We even watch television together. On Monday nights you'll find a gathering of nerds tweeting about Four Corners, Media Watch and, QandA. On a Sunday morning my stream is full off talk about Insiders. During the election, twitter was a heaving mass of information, and on the day of the election people were tweeting about fake how-to-vote cards (among other things).

I'm speaking purely about the social benefits of Twitter here, but people do use it for other purposes - marketing is quite common. There are also the "bots" (spambots) that might flood your replies stream with comments or re-tweets because you simply mentioned a few key words. These can be ignored or blocked. Some bots follow you - again, ignore or block, the choice is yours. There is a project currently underway, run by Jean Burgess, Axel Bruns and others, studying the use of social media such as Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

For me though, Twitter has had an impact on my life for the better. I may not be on there all the time, I may sometimes have mini-tantrums or breakdowns, or I'll rock up in time to join in the fun of the latest meme (#tweetlikeTonyBurke being one I've already mentioned), but I do feel it helps both myself and others form connections that may have positive effects well into the future***.

I think that makes it worth it.

* defined, in this instance, as people who have made a name for themselves in the field of entertainment - movies, books, television

** anyone who has a blog with regular readers and commenters will understand this. I've made some great friends from blogging - and yes, I've met some offline.

*** Although sometimes, just sometimes, it can all go horribly wrong. (NSFW - nerd nudity)

Bad Romance, Great Cover

2010-10-10T14:22:00.000+10:00

Like her or not, Lady GaGa is a popular artist in mainstream music at the moment. In all honesty, I wasn't a fan for a long time, but the songs got under my skin and now I find her enjoyable.

The popularity of her music has, as expected, generated extreme love and criticism (I will talk about Paglia's comments at a later date); but now we have the University of Oregon's On the Rocks (male acapella group) covering Bad Romance.

I didn't realise my life was incomplete until I saw this.

And here is a more produced version. I'm loving the expressions on their faces:

No need to thank me.

Rape and the media

2010-10-07T20:08:00.000+10:00

I expect by now not only have you heard about the alleged rape that occurred on the weekend but about Spida Everitt's comments on Twitter, and the subsequent loathsome comments by Kerri-Anne Kennerley.

Frankly, I'm finding it rather upsetting.

Well, my friend Elly is so disgusted by what has happened, she's taking matters into her own hands, and she's asking that you help:

So if you are reading this, I’m sure you’ve come across this [the link appears to no longer exist - Michelle] story. Pretty disgusting, but hey, he’s a fool, you wouldn’t expect much. Then came this [same issue - Michelle]. Pay particular attention to the final two paragraphs, where Channel Nine clarifies KAK’s comments by saying the responsibility “cuts both ways with this kind of thing.”

“The responsibility lies with the girls as well as with the guys when you’re talking about alcohol-fuelled situations at three o’clock in the morning.”

I’m not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why this is indescribably unacceptable, especially coming from one of the largest media companies in the country.

I read about this and felt so sick and disempowered and horrified, I just wanted to curl up and cry. Then I got my rage on and decided that I would do something. I live in a regional city; we have a local Channel Nine affiliate station. I endured half an hour of their programming tonight (ACA for anyone wondering, my response to that half hour is a whole story in its self) and made a list of local advertisers. I will be writing a letter to each of these advertisers tomorrow asking them if they endorse Channel Nine’s comments and if they would consider pulling their advertising from the local affiliate. I know this will only have a minimal impact, but at least I’m doing something.

I also made a list of national advertisers. I will post a guide letter and the contact details of these companies. If you could all get on board and send letters too that would be amazing. Please help me to restore my faith in humanity after the horror of the comments thread the second article.

Elly not only sat down and compiled a list of advertisers from Channel 9, she has found the addresses so that you may write to them. She's also written a sample letter that you may wish to use.

Please take the time to write to the advertisers. If they pull their advertising, Channel 9 will learn that the Australian public won't stand for rape apologists.

Thanks

Mx

I'm OK, You're OK

2010-10-06T22:34:00.000+10:00

Tomorrow, if anyone who normally doesn't bother to see if I'm OK asks me "R U OK?", I will probably glare at them.

In theory, the day seems like a good idea. IF it helps people.

To many, asking if someone is OK is a bit of a throw-away question. They don't expect an answer other than "fine" and if confronted with an honest response, can be left wondering what to do next.

People shouldn't be encouraged to ask someone they think might be suffering from some kind of issue if they're OK if they're not given the tools to deal with a negative response.

On another level, it makes me wonder - why only today? Why didn't you ask me the other week when I was sitting at my desk crying? Why today when I look fine and are less likely to cause you discomfort?

Every day should be "R U OK" day.

Overall, it seems disingenuous to me.

Please, encourage people to seek help if they are suffering from a mental illness or have suicidal thoughts, but they need to feel that people genuinely care for them and aren't just partaking in a token gesture of support.

It is your behaviour and understanding over the whole year that helps more, and convinces people of your sincerity, rather than a national day of concern for their wellbeing.

/cynicism

On my Facebook

2010-10-06T21:07:00.000+10:00

Did you know if you type "cancer awareness" into Google Images you get pages and pages of breast cancer awareness stuff but little else?

This month is Breast Cancer Awareness month. Why not awareness about prostate cancer? Anal cancer? Ovarian cancer? Testicular cancer? Why breast cancer? Why not just "Cancer Awareness" month?

Now, don't get me wrong, I think cancer - any cancer - is a terrible thing, but why does breast cancer get the most publicity?

Is it because we're talking about *naughty giggles* boobies? :-o

Oh that's right! Other cancers aren't sexy enough! Can't make pretty pink ribbons or pink items to sell off in the name of awareness.

Did you know that when you buy an breast cancer pink branded item, your money is virtually useless? Most companies will put a cap on how much they'll donate, and they'll pay this out upfront, then shill the items with the awareness tag. You could be buying the items months from now, thinking that money is being donated, but the company has already exceeded their donation so are keeping all the profits, not just a portion.

Then there is the Facebook campaign. Last year, people (i.e. women) were encouraging each other to update their status with the colour of the bra they were wearing. And to "keep it from the guys" so that it would be all random, mysterious and hip.

Because, you know, guys don't get breast cancer!

This year's campaign? Well, I've received this email from several women on facebook:

One of my Facebook friends has suggested that we women should do something special on facebook in order to increase awareness of October Breast Cancer Awareness month. It's so easy to do, that I'd love you to join in to make this a memorable online event.

Last year, the idea was to post the colour of the bra you were wearing on facebook...and it left men wondering for days, why women were posting colours, seemingly at random.

This year's game has to do with your handbag/purse, where we put our handbag the moment we get home; for example "I like it on the couch", "I like it on the kitchen counter", "I like it on the dresser". Well u get the idea. Just put your answer as your status (i.e. don't respond to this message, but put it on your status) - and cut n paste this message and forward to all your FB female friends to their inbox.

The bra game made it to the news. Let's get the purse in as well.

REMEMBER - DO NOT PUT YOUR ANSWER AS A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE- PUT IT IN YOUR STATUS!!! PASS THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

Sexualising a disease is not cool. It detracts from the seriousness of the illness, diminishes the importance of cancer research, and in some cases can be downright offensive to people who have suffered it themselves, or have friends and family who have been affected.

Instead, how about actually donating money directly to a charity? That way, you know exactly how much they are receiving and are directly helping research. If you pay $3 for that pretty notebook, perhaps only 5c will go to charity and you're left with an item that you probably didn't want in the first place.

I'm sorry if anyone finds my comments on this offensive - I just don't think that this campaign is effective or sensitive to those people who suffer any form of illness.

I'm not going to stop people from doing what they want to do. I just want them to be aware that many campaigns like this don't really achieve anything - and companies who encourage you to purchase their items in this manner are doing it more for themselves than for charity.

*gets off soapbox*

Politics makes me want to vomit at the moment

2010-10-04T20:37:00.000+10:00

After each election I suffer politics burn-out. Understandable given how much I immerse myself in the lead up to, and during, the campaign.

This time it's a little different.

I started suffering burn out during the campaign. This was mostly because of the behaviour of both major parties, and to a lesser degree the way the campaign was reported. The inclusion of Mark Latham as a reporter with an axe to grind was the point at which it was blatant the election had jumped the shark. Sky News reporting on Mark Latham in the press pack was just ridiculous. (I'll leave that right there - we all know what can happen to people who criticise (some) journalism, and besides, that isn't the point of this post.)

The campaign proved to me (and to others apparently, given the way it turned out) that the major parties just don't care anymore. They're more concerned with political point scoring than they are about the people who voted for them. We want politicians who actually talk and think about issues; who aren't duplicates of each other. It would also be great if they'd stop gearing pretty much every promise to people of marginal seats and thus save the rest of the country from ignored.

I am over the supercilious, childish, nonsense coming from both sides of the chamber.

I am about ready to scream the next time someone says any of the following:

"faceless men"

"Sussex St assassins"

"gang of four"

that the Government will be held to ransom by the Independents and Greens

that refugees who arrive by boat are going to destroy the country in some non-specific way and that people smugglers are the biggest evil since Mr Bad stalked and murdered people on E-Street

carbon tax will destroy life as we know it. Hell, ANY tax will destroy life as we know it.

the insulation program and the BER were complete failures

pretending that the 2PP vote has any level of importance on the outcome of the election

the electorate has delivered a message

And finally, the big one:

DEFICIT! DEFICIT! DEFICIT!!

OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!

Rather than bitch, moan and antagonize each other, how about the Government and Coalition address the issues that are important to the people of Australia? You know, the people they are supposed to represent.

I think Jonathan Green summed it up best last week:

It's a fair bet to say that as a people we are done with the political establishment's obsession with the internal contest of politics. We actually elect politicians not to bicker amongst themselves, but by way of delegating the administration of the country, it's (sic) economy, its services. We want constructive debate, clarity and vision. We want something done to begin the transformation of the economy in line with a gentler environment. We want better transport. Cleverer schools. More efficient health services. Justice and health for Indigenous Australians. A coherent approach to resources. Fairness in tax, and the knowledge that the money when raised does us all some good in return.

We don't want tired little games of opportunism dressed up in smug self importance. We don't want wrecking or gotcha. We just want you to get on with the biggest job in the land. And make a difference. Too much to ask?

Finally - stop governing via opinion poll.

The Slap

2010-10-04T19:59:00.000+10:00

**Please note that this post will contain minor spoilers.**

I detested the characters in this novel, yet I couldn't put it down.

It's fairly well-known what The Slap is about, but for those of you who aren't aware, here's the summary from the May 2009 episode of The First Tuesday Book Club:

"In a Melbourne backyard, a group of friends and relatives gather for a barbeque. They enjoy some beer, some food, a game of cricket but a man hits a child, and the boy is not his son. The slap cracks the veneer of suburban ordinariness and echoes through each of their lives. "

The book is structured so that each chapter is from the point of view of someone who was there that day. Whether it is in the lead up to the incident or the aftermath, the differing perspectives give you some insight into how and why the slap occurred.

Jelly said to me that I would "despair for humanity" when I read the novel and I'm afraid she's right. As I was reading I constantly asked myself if this was how other people thought. We all have a certain level of self-centredness; sometimes a streak of nastiness; but these characters seem to take that to the nth degree. Those who I would really have liked some insight on were Bilal and his wife, yet the only real idea you get of their thoughts is when Bilal tells Rosie that he doesn't want her near his family anymore.

I felt blatantly manipulated by Tsiolkas. When you read a novel, you do expect your emotions to be directed, but this should be subtle enough that you enjoy the experience. There was no subtlety and therefore, no beauty in the narrative. The slap, while the central aspect of the storyline, can also be interpreted as a slap to your thoughts, ideas and feelings when reading what is going on in the minds of these people. The racism, sexism, violence and cruelty was overwhelming to me. I did like that there were no moral absolutes, but in the telling I felt like I was being hit repeatedly with a sledgehammer.

The stereotypes grated on me. Working class people are seen as inferior and selfish - they are framed as poor (both financially and morally), bitter and out to get whatever they can. Career-driven single women are seen as cold and unemotional, to the point where an abortion is something that can be done in one afternoon and never thought of again. Teenage girls are vixens, driving married men to cheat on their wives, accusing these same men of rape when they don't get their way.

One theme that ran through the novel was the choice of family over friends. At what point do you forgive your family at the expense of your other relationships? How much can your friends demand of you without your family feeling they are being abandoned? What rights do both parties have to your allegiance and what do you do when you are at odds with one of them? The slap is just a catalyst to push the characters into making decisions that harm (and help) both themselves and those around them.

I was impressed with the way the teenage characters, Connie and Ritchie were written. Tsiolkas was able to capture the contradictions of adolesence; of trying to find who you are when those around you are making demands that you be a certain way. I think the scenes where Connie attends the party, and at the end when Ritchie find someone who he can care about, were touching. My heart broke for Ritchie when he encountered Hector in the dressing rooms at the swimming pool - the pain was palpable. Ultimately, the chapters focusing on Connie and Ritchie made me glad that I'm no longer a teenager.

Yet despite some worthy aspects of the novel, for me the bad outweighed the good. I didn't have a desire to throw the book across the room, indeed, I needed to know what was going to happen to these people; yet I ultimately didn't like any of them. I was left with a feeling of gloom when I finally closed the covers.

I couldn't recommend this book, I'm afraid. But I can see why it is so popular.

I almost had a Mikey Moment

2010-09-20T19:02:00.000+10:00

For those of you who are unaware of what a Mikey Moment is, I shall direct you to HarrangueMan. The lovely and hilarious Mikey write this blog and has what have been nicknamed "Mikey Moments".

MMs can be cases of foot meeting mouth or actions that leave one sort of embarrassed but able to see the funny side.

You should be reading Mikey's blog anyway, but the MMs make your visit extra special.

Anyway, today I had an almost MM. Because I caught myself just a fraction of a second before the words came out of my mouth.

Of course, this will not stop me from relating this right now.

The Colonel is what you would easily describe as anal. Keef, a co-irker who I am quite fond of, is also anal, but in some different ways.

On Friday we had a desk move and now they are sitting next to each other.

Today I pointed out that they are suited to sit next to each other. What I didn't say (thank goodness) was that they could be "anal buddies".

Yes, you read that right, "anal buddies".

I'll wait while you stop laughing.

Finished? OK then.

Keef knew that I had thought something that even I couldn't bring myself to say because he saw the look on my face. That was enough to set him off into fits of laughter. God knows what would have happened if I'd said it out loud.

Especially as, not long before, I was complaining that he was "making me do horrible things for money". That is, work.

So maybe I did have a Mikey Moment after all...

Easy A

2010-09-18T18:06:00.000+10:00

Let's get the fawning over with first shall we?

Emma Stone (lead character Olive) is fantastic in this. The facial expressions alone get me. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, whom I both adore, play her very cool parents (parents who treat their kids like mini adults? Who'd of thunk it!)

Penn Badgley is actually not as annoying as his Gossip Girl character, Dan Humphrey but that could also be because he's not on-screen as much as other people. Thomas Hayden Church (Olive's fantastic English teacher, Mr. Griffith) will always be Ned Dorsey to me and Lisa Kudrow (Mrs. Griffith, Guidance Counsellor) will always be Phoebe Buffay.

OK, on with the rest of the show.

Easy A is a movie essentially about slut-shaming, with some homophobia thrown in.

But is that all there is to it?

No.

Don't let the posters or the previews deceive you. This film actually delves a bit deeper than that.

But first, some basic plot.

Olive is a smart, together, teenage girl. In order to avoid spending the weekend camping with the family of her friend Rhiannon (Alyson Michalka), she makes up a story about having a date. On the Monday, Rhiannon gets the idea that Olive and the date (his name's George, if you must know) slept together and after a few attempts to convince her that they didn't, Olive decides to got along with it and say that they did.

This confession is overheard by the school's lead bible-thumper, Marianne (Amanda Byrnes), who then proceeds to spread the rumour around that Olive is a slut.

Cut to a few scenes later and Brandon (Dan Byrd) offers to pay Olive if she will pretend that she's slept with him. He's gay, is sick of how this makes him an outsider and just wants to "blend in". She agrees.

Not long after, one of Brandon's friends makes a similar proposition to her and it all steamrolls from there.

What became apparent to me by the end of the film was that it was sending some pretty cool messages. It wasn't perfect, of course, but it seemed to run a bit deeper than your average teen film (of late).

It tells teenagers that they will fuck up; adults fuck up. That people won't necessarily like them for who they are and believe anything negative about them, but also that there are people who do like them and don't believe everything they hear. Those people who don't believe everything they hear? They can be found in the unlikeliest places (a teacher, a guy at school, parents). It also shows that sometimes people are willing to take some hits on your behalf, just to make your life a bit easier.

Finally, it demonstrates that despite what happens when you're a teenager, you can move on and it's not the end of the world if people don't think the best of you.

The slut-shaming? Spot on. You cannot deny that if a woman is seen to sleep with a few people she is deemed a whore, but for a man to have multiple sex partners is a stud. It happens when people think Olive and Brandon have slept together, it happens in real life to teenagers and adults alike. To deny that is to have your head in the sand.

It's a contradictory little package, this film. Has some embarrassing parts, as well as stupid, childish, insightful, truthful and over-the-top parts. A bit like life, really.

And it's very funny. Tucci and Clarkson's parents are great as parents who take great joy in revealing to their children a little too much information about their lives. Many of us know how that goes. *shudder*

I really enjoyed it. Think of it as part morality tale, part 80's teen-flick mash up (hello, final scene anyone? AWESOME) sprinkled liberally with some Nathaniel Hawthorne and Can't Buy Me Love.

Is is on par with the John Hughes films that are mentioned in the script and that so many of us grew up on? Not quite, but it's the closest I've seen in quite some time.

Fat

2010-09-14T19:45:00.000+10:00

Fat.

Amazing how three letters can carry such a powerful response.

It's not something I've ever mentioned about myself on the blog - mostly because I don't think it changes the person that I am - but I am fat. Not the, "oh my god I'm soooo faaaat!" that some women whine when they've going from a size 12 to 14, I'm talking obese.

I don't really think about it too much. For the most part, it doesn't stop me from doing things I enjoy. Years of not taking care of myself physically due to distractions with my mental state have taken their toll. I know I don't eat as healthy as I should (but it may surprise people who buy into the whole "all fat people eat nothing but junk food" that I do eat healthy much of the time), I'm not perfect, no one is, and I'm less likely to be healthy at work than at home; my main issue is exercise. I hate it, always have. At school I used to make up excuses to not do physical education. Part of this was because I was very conscious of my lack of dexterity, but when I did find stuff I enjoyed, I threw myself into it (fun lunchtime games of basketball in year 10 comes to mind), however mostly it just didn't interest me. I'd rather read a book.

As I progressively got knocked around by depression, my focus moved off trying to be physically well to being mentally well. Of course, I am aware of how exercise and physical health help people mentally, but you have to have the motivation to do it.

For me, this motivation was virtually non-existent. I was struggling to keep my head above water most of the time so any additional effort to do anything just wasn't on my radar.

I'm paying for it now, of course. Over the past 18 months or so I've been up and down weight-wise but I'm slowly getting myself back into my old mind-set. It's not easy to undo over 10 years of self abuse but I'm making the effort.

And I'm doing it for myself, lest you think that I'm trying to justify myself to you. I'm not. This is about me and my life and my body.

As you would expect, I do have more than a fair share of self-esteem issues because of it. I've always been quite shy, but my weight adds to my nervousness in meeting new people. I'm also very conscious of how much space I take up on public transport and the like, going out of my way to try and choose seats that are comfortable for one person but two people (no matter their weight) would find uncomfortable. It's obvious compensation and a form of apology for being who I am, but I'm more comfortable doing this than getting the inevitable looks.

What bothers me the mose is how society thinks that just because you're overweight you're less of a person. You're not as likeable, you're stupid, you're deaf.

Imagine walking down the street and having jerks yelling abuse at you simply because you're fat.

Imagine being in a shopping centre and being apprehensive about walking past a little kid because in the past children have pointed and yelled at the top of their voice, "Look mum! That lady's really fat!" Even worse is when the adult doesn't tell the child it is rude but says, "Yes she is."

What about feeling you have to justify your grocery purchases? If you buy some ice cream because you just feel like some, an urge most people have, you feel you have to offset this by including fruit and veggies. (For the record, I've not done that, but I know the feeling. I just look at the cashier and dare them to say something to me.)

People are offended when others abuse those that are disabled or gay, even if they're merely wearing something that sets them out from the crowd (to name three possibilities). They may even be likely to tell someone they're out of line.

But that rarely happens for fat people.

I know what you're saying - it's an unfair comparison, the gay and disabled don't have any control over who they are. You do, Michelle. You're the one who caused this problem, don't try and hide behind it.

You know what? Fuck you. You're not me. You're not that other person. You don't know the circumstances surrounding why someone is the way they are unless they tell you. Yes, we all make superficial judgements but does that give you the right to be abusive or phobic? No.

But Michelle, it's just a bit of fun!

Sure. Tell that to the person woman who gets thrown dirty looks because she wears an hijab. Tell that to the person who was raped in the name of "fun".

You're overreacting!

Really? So I should allow people to make me feel like shit because of how I look? I should just sit back and let them hurl insult after insult at me because to tell them they are out of line is an "overreaction"?

When you hurt someone physically or emotionally, without their consent, it stops being fun and turns into abusive behaviour.

I've been meaning to write about this for a long time, but I keep getting distracted. Last night, however, pushed me into finally writing about this and yes, I'm about to tell you why.

Monday nights on Twitter are great fun for those of us who are, shall we say, obsessive about politics. It starts with the 7:30 Report and ends at 11 (more or less) with the end of Lateline. We tweet. Our comments are sarcastic, informative, funny, frustrated - but we have fun.

Last night Clive Palmer was on QandA. For those of you who are unaware, Palmer's one of a number of mining magnates who have taken the government to task about the RSPT (or MRRT as it is now known).

Palmer is, what is known in polite society as "corpulent". Or, if you prefer, FAT. OBESE. I actually worry about him. His breathing seems laboured and he is unable to speak whole sentences without taking a breath. Not good.

His politics are not to the taste of many people in my tweet stream, including myself. His comment to Tanya Plibersek regarding her "condition" - she's pregnant - was sexist and unnecessary. But that does not give people the right to abuse him for his weight.

But abuse him they did. Rather cruelly, I might add.

I made a general tweet about cutting out the fat "jokes". It continued. (Granted, not everyone I follow follows me so it's not necessarily going to get through.) Someone else I know told people to cut it out or she'd start unfollowing.

A few people told others to pull their heads in. But it didn't seem to work.

I ended up turning twitter off because it was bothering me that much.

By the end of the night, Clive Palmer was trending on Twitter. Basically, this means that he was being mentioned so much that he was one of the top topics being talked about. When I was in bed I made the mistake of logging back into twitter and looking at the tweets under the Clive Palmer trend.

I really wish I hadn't. I thought the people in my stream were stepping over the line. That was nothing compared to what I was reading - at that time there was nothing but nasty, vile comments about his weight. And retweets about his weight.

Frankly, I was disgusted.

What is even more disgusting is this kind of behaviour is sanctioned by society. Silence supports it. The media and health professionals get behind the "obesity epidemic" hysteria. I'm not denying that more people are obese than they have been in the past, but to make them feel bad about themselves, thereby increasing feelings of worthlessness and helplessness doesn't help.

I would say women feel this more than men. In the larger scheme of things, women in Western society are judged first by their looks and second by their abilities, intelligence and talent.

Take Beth Ditto. She's amazingly talented, gorgeous and strong. She's also obese. She embraces this, has a clothing line, poses naked on the covers of magazines. Does this make her less talented? No. Does she deserve the snark directed at her because of her weight? Hell no. But read comments and article about her and you'd think that she was making an effort to personally offend people by being herself.

Look, we all make nasty comments on occasion. I get that. I'm guilty myself. But the pure venom I have encountered from other people, that I've seen directed at others, is something we, as a society, should be ashamed of.

Next time you're tempted to make a fat "joke", think about the person behind the weight. Think about how you'd feel if someone directed such remarks to you.

Don't tell people to laugh it off. Don't tell them how they should feel about being vilified.

Do not make excuses for abusive behaviour of others.

NOTE: Any concern trolling or abusive comments will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

World Suicide Prevention Day

2010-09-11T21:31:00.000+10:00

Yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day.

Each year thousands of people take their lives, and many more attempt it. The media doesn't report on suicides as there is a positive correlation between the reporting of these deaths and attempts by others.

I'm fortunate in that a suicide has never touch my life directly, sadly this is not the case for people I know, or even those of you who are reading this.

To even consider taking your life, you have to be in a very dark place. A bottomless pit of despair from which you believe you will never emerge.

I know this because I've experienced that level of despair.

When I was 18, in the midst of my first severe depressive episode I considered suicide. I never got to the point where I determined how I would do it, but the thought did hang around for longer than I care to admit.

Whenever I experience a prolonged episode of depression, I will briefly contemplate it as a possibility of ending my pain. (Interestingly, I've never considered how I'd go about it, and I hope I never get to that stage.)

What has stopped me? Well aside from it being a fleeting consideration at most, when I was 18 it was the thought of my grandma finding me - I just couldn't do that to her (I was living with her at the time).

The other times, it was for similar reasons - I couldn't bear the thought of the pain I would cause others. As someone who experiences extreme emotional distress just by merely being herself, I couldn't deliberately inflict that on another.

One thing I've noticed happens when I do contemplate the possibility - I feel a temporary sense of calm. All the negative emotions that I am experiencing vanish, and I'm left with a stillness. I've thought about this a lot and I have a theory (at least as it applies to me) - the contemplation of no more pain gives me a moment of relief from the chaos threatening to explode from my mind. And this momentary quiet gives me the strength to not think about it any further, to not follow through on my thoughts.

This is just my experience, however. Suicide is an act of desperation for someone whose pain is so immense, so suffocating, they don't feel they can tolerate it any longer.

That pain is very, very real. Never assume that suicidal thoughts are a minor thing. Someone (even temporarily) is considering no longer living and they believe that is a very real option. Not an easy option, but another option that will help to end their anguish.

When you're experiencing that level of misery you will grasp at anything that will help assuage the agony your own body is inflicting on you.

My personal thoughts about suicide are mixed. I do believe it is a terribly selfish thing to do, but I understand 100% the reasons behind it. I do feel I must stress that I am not advocating it. Then, add to all this my belief that assisted suicide for terminally ill people should be legal and you can see that it's not a black and white issue in terms of your reasonings behind it and certainly not for those left to wonder why.

I can't even begin to relate how fortunate I am. I have friends and family who love and support me and who I know are there for me even at my lowest. I do find it difficult to ask for any kind of help, but I would like to think that if I really was seriously contemplating taking my own life over a prolonged period, I would have the strength to turn to them. It has been a little over two years since I last had so much as a brief thought about suicide as a way to stop the misery.

Suicide stems from pain and it causes more pain. Nearly all suicides can be prevented. If you think someone close to you is suicidal, or you yourself are, please seek help.

It is better to be hated by someone you love for preventing them from taking their life, than it is to hate yourself for not helping them in their time of despair.

You're just a girl

2010-09-11T19:28:00.000+10:00

Today I was sitting in the cinema foyer, waiting to go in to see Salt (much better than I thought it would be), and I happened to be sitting near one of those arcade games where you put in $2 (or however much it is now) direct a claw to try and pick up a toy and deposit it in the chute. Yeah, the one that no one ever seems to actually score anything from.

This one was for Toy Story 3. So there were toys of the, well, toys. All pretty cute, and quite large.

Anyway, this woman and (I presume) her daughter (probably about 4 years old) were standing in front of it - the mum digging around in her bag for her purse, clearly going to have a go at getting something for the little girl.

There was a guy sitting beside the machine and he asked the girl what she wanted. She pointed to the dinosaur.

His response? "You don't want a dinosaur! How about that pink piggy?!"

Yep, she's a girl and therefore doesn't really want the dinosaur, because that's a boy's toy!

I glared at him, but he didn't see me.

The mum? She smiled, put the money in, and tried to get the DINOSAUR for her daughter. Sadly, she didn't get it (of course), but I hope her daughter remembers the time that her mum tried to get her what she wanted, rather than what some douche with antiquated view of gender said she should.

Belly button proof!

2010-09-10T21:24:00.000+10:00

(click to enlarge)

The above is a picture that is doing the rounds on tumblr at the moment. It seems to be (for some people) "proof" that God does not exist*.

Now, as you are all aware, I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in God - or a Christian version of it - but even this strikes me as undeniably stupid for a meme.

It's a painting. Not a photograph. A painting cannot be held as proof of anything. Nowdays, with photoshop readily available, you can't really believe photos much of the time. Anything - a painting, a memoir, even the recollection of a conversation you had an hour ago, is tainted with the biases of the person creating/recalling it.

Which brings us to the artwork/s. The artist obviously painted what they expect human beings to look like - complete with belly button. Shock! Horror! Now a painting has Adam and Eve with belly buttons! But they were not born of women! It's unpossible!

Well, centuries ago people thought the earth was flat and painted artwork accordingly. That doesn't make it so. I'm not arguing whether or not Adam and Eve existed, I'm simply pointing out that few things, especially paintings, can be taken as proof in this day and age.

The "proof" as demonstrated is on par with that chain emails you get saying if you send it on you'll get money from Bill Gates/good luck/win the lotto/your first child will be a masculine child. Utter rubbish and not worth forwarding and only the gullible find them believable.

I'm such a grumpy old fart sometimes.

*Yes, I'm aware it is a bit of fun as well, but it is one of those "fun" things that irritates the shit out of me.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World

2010-09-04T20:17:00.000+10:00

I loved this film.

Seriously, if someone tells you you'll enjoy it, go see it. It's not necessarily a film for everyone, but for those people who are the target audience? It. Fucking. Rocks.

Directed by Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Spaced), starring Michael Cera (Arrested Development, Juno, Superbad) and based on the graphic novels, it is a semi-surreal trip down the path of Scott Pilgrim and his quest to date Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).

If he wants to date Ramona, he has to fight her seven evil exes.

See? See how obviously awesome it is?!

Nothing I could say would do it justice. If you like the preview, you'll enjoy the film.

My favourite ex? That's toss up between Brandon Routh's Todd (he has vegan powers) and Chris Evans' Lucas Lee (movie star). You see Todd at the end of the preview above - the cleaning lady comment bought to mind Zoolander, another epic film.

See it!

Inception

2010-08-28T23:25:00.000+10:00

NerdBoy said to me a few weeks ago, "I'm sick of avoiding spoilers and not knowing what the memes are going on about. We have to see it when I'm up there."

And so last Sunday we found ourselves heading off to see Inception.

I was both really wanting to see it yet dreading it. With all the raves ("mind-fuck" being the most common) I was concerned that it was over-hyped and wouldn't live up to my expectations.

I was right. And wrong.

It's true, it didn't exactly live up to my expectations - I didn't find it to be a mind-fuck, for example - but it was still very good. In fact, when we walked out of the cinema I said I liked that the ending forced me to stand back and look at it as a whole; not a reaction I would normally have to a Hollywood film.

It was far from perfect - too much exposition relating to a portion of the storyline that shit me - but on the whole I really enjoyed it.

There was one scene that I loved. It involved a hotel hallway and a fight - brilliant.

The ending ...if they wanted to make it more ambiguous, Caine should have grabbed the top. That would have been a better ending, IMO.

FX-wise, you should definitely see it in the cinema. Watching the city fold over on itself when Ariadne is working out what she can and can't do in the dream state is pretty bloody fantastic; but the cinema isn't really necessary if you're less inclined to get excited by that.

Overall, it was a good film. Not one that I would put on a list of favourites, or that I would consider an outstanding film, but it was very entertaining and left you thinking - just a tiny bit.

Well hung

2010-08-27T21:16:00.000+10:00

So. We're still in caretaker mode.

Some people seem to be freaked out at the thought of a hung parliament. The only thing that freaks me out about it is the possibility of Tony Abbott being our PM. At least until 1 July 2011 when the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate.

It's been very amusing, watching the goings-on over the past week. Particularly Abbott. As we all know, he had a hissy-fit at the thought of handing his costings over to Treasury before the election was held. This week he continued to refuse, even at the request of the independents who want to view the costings of both potential governments as part of their decision making process.

It was only today that Abbott gave in, making it out to be a win for the Coalition:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he has agreed to submit his costings to Treasury because of assurances that his policies will be safe from "political interference".

The man is a dick. He's been behaving like a petulant child.

As has Anna Bligh.

She's flat-out refusing to acknowledge that dislike of her government was part of the backlash against the federal government.

There is no doubt that Shorten and co's takedown of Rudd, and Bitar's election campaign are partially to blame; but Bligh seems determined to appear ignorant of Queensland's intense dislike of where she is leading the state. In the eyes of many voters, a Labor government is a Labor government, regardless of whether it is state or federal.

Added to this is the large informal vote. A huge 5.59%, or 654,473 votes. In my opinion, this isn't indicative of voter apathy or disinterest (although that is always a factor), but of frustration at the two major parties. Now, more than ever, they are so similar you can barely pass a piece of paper between their policies. It's not a choice of who will form the better government, it's merely a decision on who you dislike more. This would also explain the four Independent and one Greens MP that are now in the HoR. People voted for the true alternatives.

The hung parliament sends a clear message to both major players that the Australian people do not like what either party is offering. Hopefully it will be their wake up call.

Hitler reacts to the election result

2010-08-22T17:27:00.000+10:00

Downfall parody vids are a pretty old meme, but this one is both funny and horribly true...

Today's federal election.

2010-08-21T21:21:00.000+10:00

I suspect this will be me until there is a (almost certain) double dissolution election:

That is all.

Legion

2010-08-21T15:20:00.002+10:00

This film was panned when it was released however, overall it was still pretty OK.

It didn't cause me to turn off 5 minutes in like the Sandra Bullock disaster that was All About Steve (even the eye candy of Bradley Cooper couldn't save that one); but I can understand why it didn't receive the critics' nod as a great film.

It's a hell of a lot of fun nonetheless.

I'm not giving anything away when I tell you that (the highly underrated) Paul Bettany plays Michael, a former archangel who was sent to earth to destroy a child yet to be born. It seems God is sick of human "bullshit" and this unborn child could actually save humanity if it is allowed to live; so God decides Michael is the one to ensure this does not happen.

Of course, Michael arrives (in L.A. *chortles*), chops off his wings, and heads to a diner/garage/gas station out in the middle of nowhere. The name of the diner? Paradise Falls. Oh yes, there's nothing subtle about this film.

It's at this diner, run by Bob (Denis Quaid), that we discover Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) is 8 months pregnant and readying to give her child up for adoption.

As Michael has defied God's orders, he has to head to Paradise Falls to protect Charlie from the legion that will be sent to destroy her, her baby, and anyone who stands in the way, including the now mortal Michael.

There are many references to Christianity in the film The few I picked up on (aside from the ones previously mentioned) were plague, pestilence, the side of a building blowing out to reveal the symbol of the cross, someone dies while hanging on an inverted cross, possession ... I'm sure there were plenty more that in my ignorance I completely missed.

It's a horror film, you don't expect much and sit down for a fun time. Besides, angels using swords and machine guns to wage war? That's fucking cool.

Bob: You know this is crazy, right? I mean... I don't even believe in God.
Michael: Well that's just fine, Bob. He doesn't believe in you either.

Life

2010-08-18T12:17:00.002+10:00

Going offline until Saturday. Behave.

So Greek: Confessions of a conservative leftie - Niki Savva

2010-08-17T21:03:00.001+10:00

I started reading this book out of curiosity.

I wasn't all that interested in Savva's history with Peter Costello, or her experiences working for John Howard; it was her time in the press gallery that intrigued me the most.

Savva was a press gallery journo before she became Press Secretary to Peter Costello. She spent six years working for him before she quit, then went to work in John Howard's office.

Prior to turning to "the dark side", she'd worked on The Age, The Australian and The Herald-Sun and had been witness to some of the major political events of our recent history.

She was born in Cyprus* but emigrated with her mother and brother (her father had already been working in Australia for some years) as a child and grew up in Melbourne among mostly Greek families.

She was quite young when she started working as a cub reporter for the Dandenong Journal but she slowly moved through the ranks until she headed to The Australian in 1970. In 1974, when Whitlam was still PM, she moved to Canberra to work at (Old) Parliament House.

The chief characteristic I shared with most of the journalists in the gallery was my politics: left of centre. The overwhelming majority of gallery journalists were Labor supporters. Not much has changed since. The Greens have peeled off some Labor sympathisers, but in the gallery itself conservatives are few, and often reluctant to out themselves. It can be a lonely place for anyone who functions outside the pack.

No real surprises there.

Savva gives us juicy tidbits about her time working in the gallery, how she'd befriend up and coming pollies who she thought would go on to move mountains.

She doesn't sugar-coat how difficult it can be, nor does she hide the power plays within the gallery itself - the split among the journalists when Laurie Oakes broke the Cheryl Kernot/Gareth Evans affair in 2002, being one such example.

This doesn't mean that all accounts of sexual peccadilloes are newsworthy. Once, a chief of staff to a cabinet minister, while seated next to me on a plane, proceeded to tell me, unprompted, about his minister's affairs. According to the staffer, it didn't affect his boss's marriage, because his wife was having them too.

The staffer's minister had boasted to his mates that he loved being in government because power secured a better class of fuck.

[...]

The rule that details of affairs were only to be published if they interfered with the politicians' day jobs has been applied flexibly for some time now, and has been ignored when it suits. It has always depended on who was with whom where, when, and why. And its relevance usually derives from who wants to bring whom undone -- whether it's media bloodlust in a hunt to get the politician, or the politicians' own colleagues blabbing to journos as payback.

In 1997 she left The Age (where she had moved in 1996, resulting in Michelle Grattan's move to the AFR) due to the excessive absences she needed to take in order to look after her sister, Christina, who was terminally ill. She took Peter Costello up on his offer of a position should she ever need one. She needed a job (and a boss) who would allow her the time to be with Christina, and Costello was the man.

It's interesting reading what she says about Peter Costello. He was very much aware of the public's perception of him (the smirk, for example), but what seemed to irk her was his lack of courage (and groundwork) in pursuing the role of PM, despite the number of opportunities he had. (Something Keating never had any issue with, as we are well aware.)

Savva and Keating had a love-indifference relationship. Keating was (is) rather mercurial when it comes to his relationships, and Savva and he eventually had a falling out.

One story she tells is of the visit she and Costello made to Kerry Packer's house for dinner, at which Laurie Oakes and Paul Lyneham (among others)were present. Kerry, as anyone who follows Australian politics knows hated Keating with a passion, and as they were all leaving, the following occurred:

...[Kerry]Packer turned to Oakes and asked him why he had not done a story on Keating's piggery. He knew that Oakes had been given certain documents -- which came as a surprise to Oakes. Oakes did not know Packer knew he had the documents and was taken even further aback when Packer wanted to know why, exactly, he had not produced a piece based on them.

Oakes replied he had checked out the documents, and had found they didn't stand up. He had been waiting for a source to come through, but he had not delivered. James [Packer] said he thought that was fair enough, but it was not good enough for Kerry. It was apparently the one and only time Packer tried to heavy Oakes. Oakes did not budge.

At that point, Lyneham stepped forward, literally, and volunteered his services. He said he would look at the documents himself, even though as of that night he did not have them. Lyneham later somehow came by another set of the same documents, and fronted the extraordinary special 60 Minutes program on Keating's investments in March the following year.

While I was primarily interested in her experiences in the press gallery, I was curious about her thoughts about the events surrounding the 2007 election, and the standing down that never happened of John Howard.

Apparently, if the Ian McLaughlan note had not surfaced in the media, Howard would have been willing to pass leadership to Costello at the end of 2006, to give him time to build up his credentials as a viable alternative to Kevin Rudd. Of course that didn't happen, due to the stubbornness of both parties.

Interestingly, Costello dismissed any possibility of Abbott being his deputy should he become PM. He did his dash in December 2003, when Paul Kelly quoted Abbott as saying, "I have never been as excited about economics as some of my colleagues; you know, I find economics is not for nothing known as the dismal science."

And so the incumbent government headed to a sure defeat at the 2007 election.

So Greek came out not all that long after Tony Abbott became opposition leader, and Savva had something very interesting to say, which is relevant to the campaign going on at the moment.

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, I would have recoiled in horror at the prospect of Tony Abbott as leader. I would probably not agree with 90 per cent of what Abbott stands for, and some of his earthier expressions make me wince. I doubt that he would ever be elected prime minister unless he moves even further to the centre than he already has, seeks and takes advice from a much wider circle, and promises not to allow his religion to infiltrate his politics.

(My bold.)

Indeed.

But back to the book.

It's a worthwhile read, if you don't mind the name dropping (it only became a bit annoying here and there) and are interested in the behind-the-scenes of just what the hell Costello was thinking all that time (given that The Costello Memoirs didn't really give much of an insight in that respect). As I said earlier, it was the gallery stories that interested me the most.

*The "So Greek" of the title is something that Costello used to call when she'd get passionately worked up about something - like a typo. I feel her pain. ;-)

I just watched 60 Minutes

2010-08-15T20:10:00.001+10:00

photo source

I'm not proud.

But I feel really great after having a massive, stomach aching laugh.

You know when you laugh so much your face screws up all funny and you just can't stop the tears? Yeah, that was me.

The Latham piece was always going to be self-servicing of the highest order. Hell, the tone from the introduction given by whoever that dude is who is one of the regular reporters, was Channel 9 gleefully justifying why Latham was needed.

Jumping the shark doesn't even cover it.

Any valid points that Latham may have wanted to make about the election campaign were outweighed by his obvious bitterness towards the government and the people he is convinced did him wrong.

Because in LathamLand^TM, you don't take responsibility for your own actions. Oh no. You become a whore for the part of the media who wants to push an agenda. An agenda that happily coincides with your own.

You lose what minute amount of credibility you might have retained by interviewing Pauline Hanson who basically says she would like to be Vice President of LathamLand^TM.

Oh and in LathamLand^TM you actively encourage donkey voting. I shit you not.

I leave you with this thought from @sunlightandsnow:

Okay I am now full of guilt, I think we just put a mentally ill person on TV and laughed at him

Sadly, I don't think she's far off the mark. (No pun intended.)

A not very deep ramble about gay marriage.

2010-08-14T21:02:00.000+10:00

All around Australia today there were rallys in support of gay marriage.

I've been thinking about something someone asked me recently. Someone I adore, respect and admire asked me if it was OK that while they thought that men and women should be allowed to marry whomever they want, they didn't necessarily agree with gay marriage or think it was right.

That is, they don't support gay marriage per se, but they don't think there should be anything stopping two men or women from marrying if they so choose.

They asked me not to judge them too harshly, but I didn't judge them at all. Frankly, the revelation didn't surprise me, but also in their own way they are still supportive of gay marriage. They may not believe it is right, but they will not stand in the way of people who want to marry.

When I replied, I likened their comments to the lost people in the abortion debate. Those who are pro-choice but would never consider having an abortion themselves.

It's easy to get the impression that people who would not choose to have an abortion are always going to be pro-life, but if you were to question people in the pro-choice movement about whether they'd choose to abort if the option arose, I'm willing to bet that many of them would say no.

Things like abortion and gay marriage are for some people moral choices. In general the acts themselves are not immoral, but they still fly in the face of someone's personal morality. It doesn't mean they want to stop others from marrying or terminating a pregnancy, they just wouldn't do it themselves.

In short, because you personally don't choose to do something, it should not give you the right to discriminate against others who want that choice.

It's not a difficult concept, but I think it is one that many fail to remember.

Emma Thompson and human trafficking

2010-08-14T00:13:00.000+10:00

I've just been sitting here, watching an episode of The Gruen Transfer (repeat from 2008), and the following ad was shown:

*** Trigger warning for violence, sexual violence and sexual abuse ***

The description from YouTube is as follows:

Made for The Helen Bamber Foundation in conjunction with The Body Shop, Emma Thompsons portrayed experience of rough forced sex is shown from the view of her assailant as she relates two sets of memories. On one hand we have Elena, a girl with hope and optimism for the future. On the other hand we have Maria, a numbed prostitute who is often forced into as many as 40 sex acts daily. The final text: Women enslaved by sex trafficking lose more than just their names. Trafficking is torture.

The panel actually found it to be a compelling and amazing piece but said it failed at making people want to act. Rather than encouraging action, it paralyzes people.

I do and don't agree with that assessment. Ultimately I think it depends on the person and how much human cruelty they can cope with on a personal level.

Overall though, it's terribly confronting and I think it absolutely gets the message out. It's very difficult to watch the first time, let alone repeated viewings. But it's worth viewing nonetheless.

(I also discovered a blog post about the GT ep when looking for a transcript online)

Nothing tonight

2010-08-12T23:00:00.000+10:00

Distraction fail.

Extra special one tomorrow!!

Wasting my time

2010-08-11T20:29:00.000+10:00

There's been a lot of television watching around here of late.

My latest addiction is Sons of Anarchy. Made by Kurt Sutter (producer of The Shield and husband of Katey Sagal, who is one of the stars in the show), it is set in a Californian town (fictional, I believe) and looks into the lives of an outlaw motorcycle gang - Sons of Anarchy aka SAMCRO (Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original).

In the first season we're introduced to the club members and learn that one of the original nine who formed the club is now President (Clay Morrow - Ron Perlman), married to the former President's widow (Gemma Teller Morrow - Sagal) and is stepfather to our main character, Jax (Jackson Teller - Charlie Hunnam) who is also club VP.

We learn about the rival gangs and just how far Clay and Gemma are willing to go to keep the club together. In the second season, Alan Arkin and Henry Rollins are introduced as white supremacists who are trying to force the club out of the town.

I don't want to tell you any more than that; it's an awesome show and if you can get hold of it to watch, do. It's very violent (there's gang-rape, the burning off of tattoos, general violence), but you'll find yourself caring about the characters (my fave is Opie). The music is fantastic and Sagal sings a few of the songs, doing a great cover of Dusty Springfield's Son of a Preacher Man.

This afternoon I watched The Runaways, the biopic of the band that bought you the brilliant Joan Jett.

The film was better than I thought it would be (given Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame plays Jett) but as it was based on Cherie Currie's story more than that of the other band members, it was pretty good. The music was, of course, fantastic and Dakota Fanning was very good as Currie.

Yes, Dakota Fanning. I saw her in Push when it came out and was pleasantly surprised - especially since the last time I had seen her was in War of the Worlds. She's also in some of the Twilight films but don't hold that against her. If she keeps going as she is, she's going to surpass all expectations (given her previous status as a child-actor).

Some footage from when The Runaways were in Japan in 1977 - Cherry Bomb:

Finally, I'm on the last episode of the new BBC series, Sherlock. The characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson have been transplanted into present day and it is a mighty fine piece of work. There are three movie-length episodes (I expect they'll be shown on ABC1 some time in the near future) and each one is fantastic.

Martin Freeman plays Watson and Holmes is brilliantly portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. Yes, I am firmly in Team Sherlock for this one.

So they are just some of the things I've watched recently. The Good Wife pleasantly surprised me as well, and I've seen the first four episodes of Covert Affairs (currently being advertised on Channel 7) which seems to be pretty good, considering what it is.

Yep, the old tv has been sucking my brain away...

Where is my mojo?

2010-08-10T21:51:00.001+10:00

My mojo. Where is it?

I've totally lost any real ability to write a decent blog post, hence my quiet. It's rather sucky. And I don't blame everyone for thinking I've given up the blog. I've not though.

I'm wondering if anyone else has this problem and if forcing yourself to write every day helps? The consensus on Twitter appears to be "no", but I'm wondering if I should give it a try anyway.

I still owe you one final post regarding my Sydney trip, so that's a start. And I have other photos to share from other adventures so I can write about them, too.

And I have heaps of post ideas running around in my head ... I just need to focus. And write. And research. Gah.

I've not been writing about the election for a few reasons. It's uninspiring, for one. I've also hit that point in the campaign where I'm burnt out by it. I'll be fine by next week but until them am avoiding election stuff as much as possible. Although I do recommend you watch last night's Q&A.

I also think some of the problem stems from thinking of or seeing something I want to write about but then finding someone else has done it so I don't feel like there is a point. Which is daft. This is the internet after all and everyone writes about the same stuff!

Something else I've been doing is slowly making my way through blog posts, articles and so on that are in my bookmarks or read it later (or favourited on Twitter) and moving them to my delicious account. Many of these things actually need to be read first, so it's taking time. I'll put a link to the account up with the ones to my twitter and tumblr so you can check it out on occasion if you so desire.

AND I've been reading a bit more this past month. Not as much as I have in the past - I lost my reading mojo for a while as well, but it's coming back. So I need to actually compile my list of stuff I've read so far this year.

I guess this post is serving as something of a to do list. Excellent.

It's a public holiday tomorrow here in Brisbane (Ekka!) so I'll see if I can rummage up some words and/or pictures for a post then.

Fingers crossed!

HBO's finest

2010-07-31T22:20:00.000+10:00

HBO put out some awesome drama. They've been around for years, but one of the more recent series that brought them to the forefront of the public's mind was Oz.

There was 6 seasons of the show, and I've only seen 3. NerdBoy and I are currently watching the show from the beginning, and we've just finished season 1.

The show was produced by the guys who bought you Homicide: Life on the Streets, so that should give you an indication of the quality of the show.

It's violent, it's graphic; it deals with rape, drug abuse, suicide, revenge, corruption - all classic prison show themes but it does so with a fresh eye.

It's a fantastic show and I cannot recommend it enough.

I'm currently patiently waiting for season 3 and the introduction of Christopher Meloni ... and his penis. But really, Chris Meloni (Stabler on Law & Order: SVU), is brilliant in it. Hell, everyone is. There are many familiar faces but you'll see many of them as you've never seen them before.

Watch it.

Read this

2010-07-31T12:23:00.001+10:00

Fed up with the media and the way they're covering the election? So is Grog:

Here’s a note to all the news directors around the country: Do you want to save some money? Well then bring home your journalists following Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, because they are not doing anything of any worth except having a round-the-country twitter and booze tour.

It is a sad thing to say but we could lose 95 percent of the journalists following both leaders and the nation would be none the poorer for it. In fact we would probably be better off because it would leave the 5 percent who have some intelligence and are not there to run their own narrative a chance to ask some decent questions of the leaders. Some questions which might actually reveal who would be the better leader of this country.

read the rest.

I might take this opportunity to point out that I share stuff from my reader in the sidebar, but I thought this one deserved special attention. Already some journos have re-tweeted it (@leighsales) and some have had snarky comments (@alisonrehn) because they apparently don't like being told what people want.

Please take these things as fact

2010-07-18T19:53:00.000+10:00

It is not "selfish" to not want children.

People don't like it when someone else is publicly acknowledged for doing something they also did - but their efforts go ignored.

Just because you're a woman doesn't mean you will vote for another woman.

Banning the burqa will not prevent oppression. In fact, its banning is another form of oppression.

CBT does not reinforce powerlessness. It is about taking control of your emotions and reactions.

You can be pro-choice and not be a feminist, but you can't be a feminist and not be pro-choice.

No matter how popular you may be, or how much money you have, abuse is still abuse and cannot, should not, be excused.

(We're in our busiest time of the year at work at the moment, so please forgive me if my posts are even more sparse than they have been lately.)

It's all Bill Clinton's fault

2010-07-08T23:39:00.000+10:00

Catching up on The Daily Show. It is, of course, Bill Clinton's fault that I'm behind:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Blame

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

I suffer from bipolar

2010-07-07T13:11:00.001+10:00

Bartlet: CJ, I need you to do me a favor.
CJ: Yes Mr. President?
Bartlet: I need you to jump off a cliff.

- Season 6, episode 3. President Bartlett asks CJ to become Chief-of-Staff

This week I attempted to jump off a cliff. I was held back.

Part of the reasoning given was concern for my mental health. Stated in such a way that it could not be considered discriminatory so I don't have any grounds to question the decision.

Many people use a chronic illness as an excuse to stop doing things. When it is adversely affecting your life or you are not yet at the point where you can confidently say it won't, then yes, it is valid reasoning. When you and other people who know you well can see that it is no longer preventing you from moving forward, what happens when others don't believe you? When they're the ones using your illness as justification for not giving you opportunities to prove you are fit?

I make a conscious effort to distinguish between when my behaviour and emotions are normal and when they are influenced by my illness. I've only been diagnosed for a relatively short period so I sometimes don't realise that my illness has affected me until after the fact. I still have my training wheels on. But I am slowly getting there.

I am determined to never use it as an excuse for anything. I will own up to my bad behaviour, I will not hide behind my diagnosis.

Mental illness is an invisible disability. I understand that many people are unsure of the best way to deal with and comprehend a person with a mental illness. My advice - treat them as you would like to be treated. That is, treat them as though there is nothing different about them and trust that they will tell you if their needs are not being met.

It's not difficult. It's basic common sense.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am not bipolar. There is a difference. Bipolar is part of me, it is not who I am. Yes, sometimes it can overshadow my life. It can be the main focus of what is happening to me at times; but ultimately it does not define me.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am allowed to be moody and it not be a result of my illness.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am allowed to have bad days like anyone else.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am allowed to be sad just like anyone else.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am allowed to be happy just like anyone else.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am allowed to live a successful life.

I am a bipolar sufferer. I am no less a person than you.

True Blood, rape and violence - some random thoughts

2010-07-04T17:11:00.001+10:00

Trigger warning for sexualised violence and discussion of rape. (Yes, I know I don't normally do trigger warnings, but I think it is needed for this one.)

This post contains spoilers for season 3 of True Blood.

Take a look at these two clips from True Blood.

The first takes place when Sookie thinks Bill is dead in season 1:

The next is a scene from episode 3 of the current season:

There is no doubt that violence and sex go hand in hand with vampire imagery. The first scene above borders on rape, while the other is flat-out violent hate-sex.

Indeed, I was convinced the first couple of times I saw the scene with Sookie and Bill in the graveyard that it was a rape scene, not helped by the following comment from Stephen Moyer who plays Bill in the show:

“The thing about vampirism is that it taps into a female point of view – you have an old-fashioned gentleman with manners who is a fucking killer… it’s an interesting duality, because in our present society it would be an odd thing for a woman to say, ‘I want my man to be physical with me.’ How, as a modern man, can you fucking work that? It’s one thing to be polite and gentle… But when do you know it’s OK to crawl out of the mud and rape her [as Bill does in one scene]?... It’s difficult stuff for a bloke, but a vampire gets away with it…. I think that’s the attraction of the show – it’s looking back at a romantic time when men were men, but they were still charming.”

Based on that comment I would conclude that Moyer thinks it's OK for a vampire to rape because they come from a time when it was expected of a man and so Bill's actions were justified. (I also think the comment says more about Moyer and his beliefs surrounding female sexuality than it does about the scene itself.)

Further viewings of the scene led me to see that once Sookie realises it is Bill and that he is alive, she consents not only to the sex but to the violence.

The second scene, from the most recent episode of the show, hit me like a truck. It is hate-fucking to the nth degree. The head twisting just made me realise it was there for the shock value more than anything else.

It takes a lot to shock me and that did it. The head twisting thing. WTF was that about? He didn't want to look at her while he was pounding on her so he twists her head around? It's no secret that I don't like Bill - in either book or tv show form - I find him to be a controlling, misogynistic bastard at best but even this ... this I can't see happening despite his hatred of Lorena or the anger he has at himself for his entrapment by the King of Mississippi.

There is also the possibility that it is actually Lorena raping Bill. She is his maker, after all, so he must do what she compels him to do, yet I thought Lorena no longer had that kind of control over him given the events of the second season.

All I know is that I really could have done without that scene.

True Blood is a very sexy show. The theme song screams sex. Season two delights in the debauchery of orgies and continues the fetishisation of vampires (a pretty core element of the series thus far) that began in the first season; the werewolves are proving themselves to be another group of ridiculously attractive people who delight in violence and sex.

Will the sexual violence continue? Yep. Of that I have no doubt. And I don't mind that, really. I just think that scenes that are borderline-rape could be toned down just a little because they are starting to move into rape-fantasy ("consensual non-consent") territory, which is a whole different ballgame.

More on our childless, godless leader

2010-07-01T20:37:00.000+10:00

Or rather, John Birmingham says what many people think, but know it is pointless to mention:

Bottom line, politicians' family arrangements are entirely irrelevant to their performance, or at least they should be. The fact that politicians feel the need to wheel out their families at election time says more about us, or some of us, than it does about them. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about families from politicians. I'm sick of having every second issue in public life framed in terms of how it's going to affect families. And I'm guessing I'm not the only one. Here's some sour news for you Steve and Betty: the whole world doesn't revolve around families and people's choices about families.

I've been wasting my life!

2010-06-30T20:07:00.000+10:00

As long time readers know, I have great disrespect for Bettina Arndt.

What a surprise when she felt she had to impart some of her specialised "wisdom" on Julia Gillard's relationship with her partner, under the guise of discussing why she's not moving into the Lodge.

Julia Gillard doesn't want to move into the Lodge until she gets a democratic tick of approval. Or so she says. Maybe the real reason she is stalling is to test the waters about public reaction to moving her first bloke in there with her.

Maybe the real reason is because she feels that moving into the Lodge before she's actually been elected in her own right would be disrespectful of the position.

She then questions why Gillard has chosen to not marry and lives in a de facto relationship with Tim Mathieson. Apparently it is her duty as a role model to be married and pop out a few sprogs.

It's fine for Gillard - a 48-year-old woman - to live with her bloke. Yet as a popular role model for women, her lifestyle choice may influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives.

Cohabitation produces two groups of losers among women and children. Most women want to have children - Gillard is an exception - and some miss out after wasting their primary reproductive years in a succession of live-in relationships that look hopeful but go nowhere, leaving them childless and partnerless as they hit 40.

I think Bettina may be surprised at the number of women (and men, a noticeable missing gender from her insanity) who don't want children. Why don't more people say this? Because women especially have to deal with a lot of criticism for not having a maternal desire. They get told that they'll change their mind when they get older, or that if they spent time with children they'd find that they really do like them. This is why many women remain silent about their desire to not have children.

According to the good doctor, de facto relationships don't last, and if you aren't married you miss out on your prime breeding time (because women are only put on this earth to give birth and have sex on demand don't you know).

I wish someone would tell this to one of my friends at work and his wife. They've been together for over 20 years, have 3 kids and couldn't be happier. De facto relationships: they're doin' it wrong.

People often drift into living together - someone's lease runs out or they get sick of running home for fresh shirts and underwear. They slide rather than decide, and frequently fail to discuss their mutual expectations for the relationship.

People also drift into marriage so I don't see the point here other than just another reason to criticise people for their choices.

It's the women who end up stranded when they spend years in a succession of de facto relationships waiting for Mr Not Ready or Mr Maybe to make up his mind.

Because only loose women propose to their partners or don't actually want to get married. Obviously. And let's not begin talking about those veritable whores in the LGBT community! The very same community who can't get married even if they want to!

Women's tiny reproductive window means they pay a high price for wasting precious breeding time in such uncertain relationships.

*headdesk*

While the de facto lifestyle leads some women to miss out on having children, others are taking the risk of becoming parents despite these unstable relationships. A growing proportion of children is now born to de facto couples - up from less than 3 per cent in 1975 to 12 per cent in 2000, according to data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics Survey.

To be in a de facto relationship is a "lifestyle" now? Presumably the same as a "gay lifestyle"?

Oh and Bettina? Try quoting some statistics that are more recent than something put out 10 years ago when you're trying to debunk a perfectly legitimate "lifestyle".

It is often assumed these children will provide the glue to keep de facto relationships together, but sadly this is not so. David de Vaus, a sociology professor from La Trobe University, found cohabiting couples who have children are more like to break up than married parents, increasing their risk of the negative impacts of family breakdown.

It is often assumed these children will provide the glue to keep married couples together, but sadly this is not so.

If Gillard chooses to play house with Tim Mathieson in the Lodge, this choice sends a strong message to the huge numbers of women who rightly admire her and seek to follow her example. A lifestyle suited to her particular needs may be riskier for many women and their children.

Play house?! Come on! Marriage can be just as risky for women (and men). Single income families break up and the spouse who did not work finds themself in a situation in which they may struggle. I'm gonna pull a statistic out of my arse (just like much of Arndt's opinion) and say that about 75% of de facto couples have both people working. And that is a recent statistic! It's true! I made it up moments ago!

As a Labor politician, Gillard is hardly likely to spell this out. Her brand of politician is too nervous of offending natural constituents to express concern about lifestyle choices. But it wasn't always like that.

In 1972, an intriguing discussion between Germaine Greer and Margaret Whitlam was published in The National Times. Whitlam, whose husband had just become prime minister, was outspoken in her criticism of ex-nuptial births, declaring it was irresponsible to produce children outside wedlock. When Greer confessed she was considering having a child on her own, Whitlam was forthright: ''Well, I think that's just a selfish thought.''

Later in the interview, she relented a little. ''It may be all right for people who are well known and who have position and who can organise themselves . . . but it's not OK for everybody,'' she said, questioning the impact of Greer's decision on her many fans.

Forty years ago!!! About 10 years after the time when Arndt's wisdom was developed.

At the heart of this conversation was role models. People in the public eye, our influential leaders, need to think through whether others who don't share their circumstances will follow their example and get into trouble.

Role models. People in the public eye. Shouldn't there be role models for everyone and not just white Christian married straight people who like children? Just a crazy thought I'm putting out there.

Where was Bettina Arndt when a married role model (with children) was involved in a pretty shocking scandal involving gang rape?

Every day we see well-known Australians making dubious lifestyle decisions being lauded in the media - celebrities choosing to become single mothers, unwed fathers, parents dragging children through a succession of chaotic ''blended'' families.

Pat Rafter was made Australian of the Year just as he was about to become an unmarried father. What did that say to his many male fans about the importance of committed fathering?

ZOMG! Rafter's career in tennis ended because he had a child out of wedlock! If you have a child out of wedlock you'll never become a champion tennis player!!11!!!1!

Politicians today rarely question social trends, even when all the evidence is they are having negative social consequences. John Howard was the rare exception, when he went into bat for a child's rights to a father in the debate over single mothers and IVF.

John Howard was also anti-woman and believed we should stay at home and have kids. Oh. Wait. That's what you're saying, Bettina!

But the actions of our role models speak louder than any words. The well-heeled tennis hero cheerfully embracing unmarried paternity, the feminist toying with sole parenthood, the prime minister living with her boyfriend - why wouldn't their many fans not seek to walk in their shoes?

*sigh* Rafter got married; feminist have just as much right to have children as non-feminists; the Prime Minister is allowed to live with her partner in the Lodge. Frankly, it's nice to see successful public figures not fall into the married with children camp. There should be more of them.

Julia Gillard, Prime Minister

2010-06-27T12:07:00.002+10:00

Australia now has an unapologetic feminist as Prime Minister. I, for one, am very proud.

The way it came about, well I'm not so proud about that. Everyone knew Julia wanted to be PM someday, but I'm willing to bet even she isn't too happy with the way it went down. Maybe I'm being naive but personally, I believe that she only stood for the role because she knew that if she didn't, someone else would.

But, enough about that. I could do a whole other post on Kevin Rudd's downfall but I don't have the time or the energy to do so. Politics is a cut-throat, no-holds barred business and events like that of this week are par for the course.

There is no doubt that one of the most fantastic things to emerge from all this is that we have our first female Prime Minister. How awesome is that? Something I didn't see happening so soon, but I felt if anyone could do it, Gillard could.

But this not intended to be a post about what Gillard should and should not do now that she is head of the government. I want to talk about the obvious - gender and hair.

Much has already been written about what this means for women in Australia. Well aside from the knowledge that one more barrier has been broken in a move to equality, it's that girls and young women can see someone actually in a role to which they may aspire - that is the most immediate thing that may be taken away from this.

What I'm not looking forward to is the inevitable comments in the press about her dress and hairstyles. Much has been made of the fact that she is a red head. She has even pointed out that she is not only a female PM but a red head to boot. Why does she draw attention to this fact? Because she is proud of it.

It's common in the Australian (and UK) communities to make fun of people with red hair, particularly when you are kids. All kids with red hair grow up being hassled and teased about the colour of their hair, and as you know, children can be quite cruel.

I was on the receiving end of this cruelty as a child. Nicknames such as "carrot-top" can sting; being interrogated by teenage boys when you are 13 about the colour of your pubes brings a whole other level of pain.

It took me a very long time before I could like my hair colour.

Adult red heads still face a lot of teasing about their hair and much of it is good-natured and easy to embrace; but the sting of childhood still remains.

It may seem strange that Julia will draw attention to any aspect of her looks since the media will be quite pleased to do that on her behalf, but it is pretty obvious that she has red hair and it is also plain that she is proud of that fact. In some ways, by pointing to her hair she is giving the media what they want without taking anything away from herself.

Because sooner rather than later the comments about her clothing and hair style and how she isn't "better" for women will begin.

With any luck, Andrew Meares is right when he says that gender will be an issue for a short period of time, but eventually Julia will just be another PM.

In the short term we should celebrate that a woman has been elevated to the role. It's been a long time coming.

Bookfest (Day 2)

2010-06-19T10:58:00.000+10:00

Dad and I ended up only going for two days. He was having back problems on the Monday and I was feeling somewhat poorly, which I suspect was caught at the bookfest the previous day.

We were pressed for time on Sunday as well - we were meeting my sister and her partner for lunch so I didn't get to spend as much time in the High Quality area as I would have liked. But, the time I did spend there caused me to unearth a nice surprise, almost as exciting as the time I found a book signed by Gough Whitlam. But more on this later.

Once more I picked up books for NerdBoy. Fewer this time around, all highly recommended by moi.

The Lindsay is the second of the Dexter books. If you like the tv show, or even enjoy crime novels, I highly recommend the series. But with the exception of the first book/season, don't expect parallels. I actually enjoy the path the show has taken (after a questionable second season), even though it is rather different to the also brilliant way the books are going.

Jurassic Park and its sequel, The Lost World are gems. Forget what you saw in the films, these books are great. This is Crichton before he started imbuing his books with conspiracy theories and climate change denials (not to mention just outright crap). I picked them up for Mat because he's such a fan of Matthew Reilly - Reilly has frequently mentioned how he's a fan of Crichton's work (although I've not heard his opinion of his last few books).

Fiction for me.

A collection of classics (Forster, Kafka and Conrad), some crime (Cody), a trashy thriller (Meltzer) and a cosy mystery (Daniels). The final three are part of my guilty pleasure of books with witches/vampires/other supernatural creatures, as the main characters. I actually read Vicious Circle as a library book a few weeks back and thoroughly enjoyed it.

What I like about bookfest is being able to pick up fiction books of authors you've never tried before, or to indulge in purchases that you'd rather not pay full price for if you know you're only going to read them the once.

More feminist books to add to the collection. One day I'll get around to reading them all.

I've never read Dworkin and so only know what I've read about her views. By all accounts, they're not necessarily mainstream feminist and I suspect I'll mostly find myself disagreeing with her, but better to have a view based on having actually read her than that of others.

I've seen bodyjamming described as a response to Garner's The First Stone, but it's actually essays regarding the media frenzy surrounding the book and the resultant moral panic. I've yet to decide if I want to reread Garner before diving into this one.

The Cinderella Complex is subtitled "Women's hidden fear of independence". I'm trying very hard to not make judgements about it before I read it, but with the burb seeming to suggest that women are the only ones who want to feel taken care of, it's difficult not to. Still, I shall attempt to read it with an open mind although I suspect the experience will be akin to reading Bettina Arndt.

Greer. *sigh* I've said before that I'm not a fan yet I still feel compelled to read her stuff. I do agree with her however that feminism is still needed.

I must admit, The Feminist Critique of Language jumped out at me as a must-buy. While I agree that language plays an important role in changing attitudes about women and society, I do find the approach of many feminists towards it to be problematic. So this will be a very interesting read.

An eclectic little pile. I've wanted to read the Wheen, Chomsky, Gleick and Miles for quite some time while the Shatner and Weller books were happy little discoveries.

I was in the High Quality area when I picked up my first copy of Wheen. It was $8 and in pretty good condition. About 20 minutes later I spied another copy which looked to be in better shape.

I picked it up to see if it was the same price. It was $9 and while under normal circumstances I wouldn't have chosen to swap them, there was something I spied before I saw the price - it had been signed by the author.

But that wasn't all. Unless the author is someone who I particularly like or admire, a signature isn't a big deal to me. But it is when you see who the book was inscribed to:

While I may not be a particular fan of his (although I think he is better than his apprentice), I was pretty chuffed to have a book that once belonged to him (even if he may or may not have actually read it.)

And so ended our final 2010 bookfest trip.

As usual there were books there that you saw multiple copies of, to the point where it became comical. While in the past, for me this has generally been Dan Brown, this year I was really over seeing copies of The Horse Whisperer. I must have seen a few hundred, along with all the variant covers.

I wish it was January 2011.

Bookfest! (Day 1)

2010-06-12T16:36:00.000+10:00

Yes, it's that time of the year again.

Dad is down, we're a-huntin'.

Today was a mighty, mighty haul. Picked up books for me, NerdBoy, and a few others.

First, mine! ALL MINE!

I've been wanting to read the Kate Moreton since it was first released. I'll generally read anything by Stephen Fry, Marion Zimmer Bradly, Mercedes Lackey, Anne Bishop or Robert Rankin. Still Life With Woodpecker I recently borrowed from someone and thoroughly enjoyed, while I'm always up for more Tolkein and the occasional Powers book. Edward Rutherfurd I consider to be a modern Michener.

Some more for me. I already had the Watson from a few years ago when I picked up a slightly trashed hardcover version at a bookfest. This one is is much better condition. The Quarterly Essays are ones I've not read, while the Oakes/Solomon book is about Whitlam - a topic I'm always up for.

Policy and Chante: the Howard Mandate sounded rather interesting, and well I'm not sure you can have too many Keating books (much like Whitlam, really). Snatched sounded like my kind of thing and I remember wanting to read Pythagoras' Trousers many moons ago but don't recall having actually done so.

Now, for NerdBoy:

Like last time, a number of Matthew Reilly books - one can never have too many. November 1975 is one he has coveted on my shelves, while The Hawke Memoirs was a "spot and grab" job today. The Reluctant Republic (again, something I've also got) and The Battle for Bennelong - perfect for a politics nerd. Hence the Quarterly Essays as well. As for Good Omens...no bookshelf should be without it.

One thing NerdBoy asked me to look out for was any Terry Pratchett. Now in this we have a problem. See, I look for Pratchett for myself as well.

This is what I picked up:

There's gonna be a fight. I will be the bigger person (heh heh) and only claim Hogfather and Equal Rites. I've decided he can have the rest.

:-)

Anyway, tomorrow there will be more!

Random, late night thoughts.

2010-06-10T23:32:00.000+10:00

Full disclosure: I'm rather drunk while I write this. (Work function!)

Sometimes I'm filled with a massive love of humanity, other times, not so much.

At the moment, I find it difficult to watch/read/see anything related to the oil spill or the flotilla attack. I'm not completely sure why, but I think on some level it may be an act of self-preservation.

Sometimes I think I care too much. I'm guessing the same can be said for many people. Whether it be because of our personality or because of some sort of mental state, we're unable to deal with some of the more harsh aspects of life.

I've thought long and hard about this and have come to the conclusion that at our basic level, humans are full of love. (Unless, of course, you are a sociopath.)

There was a time when I believed I was a misanthrope. But in reality, I don't think that is the case. Yes, my opinion of the human race is rather negative, but ultimately I believe in the good in people.

Certainly, I am more of a loner than most people, but I don't think I fit the bill for misanthropy. Although some days I suspect I'm close!

I guess it probably doesn't help that I'm rather shy and an introvert. When I was going to meet NerdBoy's family, I told him to warn them that I would probably be rather quiet when they first met me. But, lucky for me, their warm welcome dispelled any excessive shyness that I may have felt. So much so that NerdMum made the comment that I wasn't shy at all. Heh heh.

So I guess that not only other people can surprise us, we can surprise ourselves.

What is the point of all this? Nothing really. Just sharing some thoughts that are running through my head tonight. Kinda random, but in some ways not really.

*wanders off to read articles on the intertubes*

Songs for a Saturday: 90s edition

2010-06-05T18:24:00.000+10:00

Somehow, I remember these film clips being way cooler. Nevertheless, I still like the songs.

OK, the Color Me Badd clip was always cheesy, I concede that.

Ugly Kid Joe. I think I still have a bit of a crush on Whitfield Crane:

Yep. Still love Whit. *sigh*

Not saying "no" is not an invitation

2010-06-05T00:34:00.000+10:00

Blue Milk has an excellent post about rape, inspired by this article on brisbanetimes.com.au.

...Don’t ever be unconscious for any reason whatsoever, you’ll get yourself raped. Don’t be injured either. Raped. Avoid being physically disabled. Raped. And particularly avoid being intellectually disabled. You couldn’t get yourself more raped. Don’t go out alone, that is dangerous and you could get raped. But don’t accept lifts either; that is just asking for trouble. Don’t ever be naked, it could get you raped. Don’t wear clothing in which I could imagine you naked, that could get you raped. Don’t wear short skirts, they attract rape. Don’t wear baggy clothing or pyjamas or hospital gowns or a hijab either, women get raped in all those too...

I urge you to read the entire thing.

EFA: An open letter

2010-06-02T22:25:00.000+10:00

Sky over at witty title pending has an excellent open letter to EFA in which she addresses all the criticism those of us who have voiced our opposition to the campaign have face. Go read it.

My pieces on the campaign are found here and here.