Blog Storm

A couple of hairs near the centre of my right eyebrow have started growing slightly longer and curling up towards my forehead, indicating the possible presence of a dominant Sir Robert Menzies eyebrow gene. I’m wondering whether to tweeze, snip or let nature take its course. Perhaps I’ll let it go when I hit 50 and let it give me an air of sophistication, but when I start to look like David Hemmings, I’ll have to start taking some drastic action.

Sir Peter Ustinov, actor, director, producer, playwright, raconteur and a host of other things, died in Switzerland at the weekend at the age of 82. He was one of the most extraordinary theatrical figures of the 20th century.

This multi-lingual genius needed no prompting on television or on the platform. He would plunge effortlessly into a stream of often hilarious anecdotes, in half a dozen different languages, suitably embellished with bizarre mimicry, both physical and verbal.

“Not a monster”? In our current society where genetics is vaguely understood by even the biggest dunderheads (OK, I’m being kind), why does that comment need to be made, even in the light-hearted sense? Do people honestly have the impression a four-eared kitten is some demonic perversion of nature which could counteract the power of the horseshoe above your door and bring plague to your crops? Who are these people?

Just call it off Athens, ya massive dog’s breakfast. You can’t top Sydney, so why even try?

I think I need a break from books for a while. I’d rather watch The Bashin’ than read another fucking word of Proust.

If you are after William Shakespeare works you are going to be disapointed, so try the Classic Literature Library’s William Shakespeare section.

Apparently stating the bleeding obvious is only permissable if it follows the official government line. Even if you’re a politically neutral public servant allegedly protected by the separation of power. Following a comment by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on television the other day, Howard and his cronies fell over themselves to decry and discredit him. The PM questioned his credibility. His personal lapdog, Australian Killbot Factory chief General Peter Cosgrove, was wheeled out in front of the media to express his disappointment. Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock admonished him for lacking the evidence to reach such conclusions. Perpetual political featherweight and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer even implied he was peddling al-Qaeda propaganda. The quote?

Apparently, all I need to do is supply my bank account details, thereby permitting them to transfer $65,000,000 of a rich family’s account out of the country, and they’ll let me keep 30%!!!

Seriously, does anyone actually fall for this shit? If so, they deserve to be screwed for everything they have, because they’re too stupid to breathe, let alone handle money. Yes, I’m one of those people who watches moralising current affairs expose shows just to cheer on the fraudsters and laugh at the slack-jawed breeders who get sucked in. Give it a try sometime, but be prepared for pangs of alarm and depression behind all the mirth. The depth and breadth of idiocy in our society is fairly frightening.

>>>Rubbish. By that logic the existence of married couples unwilling or unable to have children means that this “negation” of the essential “purposes” of marriage already exist in society. Conversely, many heterosexual couples have children without ever getting married. From an evolutionary perspective, the use of contraceptives is as “unnatural” as homosexual sex.

Edo, you’ve hit the nail on the head: contraception does negate one of the essential purposes of marriage… I completely agree! In fact, I think it’s fair to say that a large part of the acceptance of homosexuality in the culture at large flows from this misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of sex. Now, before your eyes roll back into your head — — I’d like you to at least consider my position before dismissing it. So appealing to contraception doesn’t do anything to rebut my argument, does it?

Not only should gay couples be allowed to adopt, they should be ENCOURAGED to adopt. As if there aren’t thousands of unwanted, abandoned kids living in orphanages and foster homes in need of a loving family (and it’s preferable, in my opinion, to all that messy, complicated, third-party, surrogate womb IVF stuff). I fucking hate this slimy, self-righteous, bigoted, divisive, lying, corporate whore, Bush-puppet arsehole so much right now.

*ahem* that when you woke up you were clinically depressed for the rest of the day over the fact it wasn’t real?

OK, no more Scarlett-based entries, I swear. *wipes lower lip*

As someone not content to merely hurl rocks from a distance, in my efforts to understand the “negative” side of the gay marriage debate, I posted some comments on Chris’ blog, and he agreed to let me reply to his points here. He’s a Catholic, but seems reasonable enough and above the kooky “GOD HATES FAGS!!1!!11″ stuff. I do this not to be perverse or argumentative, and there is no malice or presumption of bigotry on my part, but because I seriously CANNOT fathom his position, try as I might. I’m hoping he can give me something to chew on.

OK, I’ve squeezed a lot into the past week or so, and this blog has remained near the bottom. And will remain that way for at least another day. Suffice to say much of it involved pre-university, drug-fuelled midnight road-trips and perpetual sleep-deprivation and first-week zombified lecture-attendance and complex, stress-inducing Gordion knots of computer issues and psychologically-strained father-handling. I’ll post something on the weekend when I have more than 5 minutes to spare.