BEAZLEY! You useless fucking idiot.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said he would ask his Labor colleagues to back the proposed laws, even if planned ALP safeguards were rejected by the government.

Why would you do this? You complete waste of space. Coalition backbenchers are putting up more of a fight than you. And you're the OPPOSITION LEADER. And there IS a lot of community and legal opposition to how fucked these laws are. And you're not even going to forcefully challenge them! When there are urgent and fundamental reasons to! What the hell is the matter with you? Go away. YOU ARE NO GOOD.

Followed Sills Bend to this hilarious counterpoint to the Time list of the 100 best English language novels since 1923. They're one-star reviews from Amazon.com, and these are some that I loved:

The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)

Author: C.S. Lewis

“I bought these books to have something nice to read to my grandkids. I had to stop, however, because the books are nothing more than advertisements for “Turkish Delight,” a candy popular in the U.K. The whole point of buying books for my grandkids was to give them a break from advertising, and here (throughout) are ads for this “Turkish Delight”! How much money is this Mr. Lewis getting from the Cadbury’s chocolate company anyway? This man must be laughing to the bank.”

Lolita (1955)

Author: Vladimir Nabokov

“1) I’m bored. 2) He uses too many allusions to other novels, so that if you’re not well read, this book makes no sense. 3) Most American readers are not fluent in French, so to have conversations or interjections in French with no translation is plain dumb. 4) Did I mention I was bored? 5) As with another reviewer, I agree, he uses a lot of huge words that just slow a person down. And it’s not for theatrics either, it’s just huge words mid-sentence when describing something simple. Nothing in the sense of imagery is gained. 6) Also, to sum it up, it’s a story about a pedophile.”

Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)

Author: Kurt Vonnegut

“In the novel, they often speak of a planet called Tralfamadore, where he was displayed in a zoo with a former movie star by the name of Montana Wildhack. I thought that the very concept of a man who was kidnapped by aliens was truly unbelievable and a tad ludicrous. I did not find the idea of aliens kidnapping a human and putting them in a zoo very plausible. While some of the Tralfamadorians’ concept of death and living in a moment would be comforting for a war veteran, I found it relatively odd. I do not believe that an alien can kidnap someone and house them in a zoo for years at a time, while it is only a microsecond on earth. I also do not believe that a person has seven parents.”

Lord of the Flies (1955)

Author: William Golding

“I am obsessed with Survivor, so I thought it would be fun. WRONG!!! It is incredibly boring and disgusting. I was very much disturbed when I found young children killing each other. I think that anyone with a conscience would agree with me.”

1984 (1948)

Author: George Orwell

“Don’t listen to anyone who tries to distinguish between “serious” works of literature like this one and allegedly “lesser” novels. The distinction is entirely illusory, because no novels are “better” than any others, and the concept of a “great novel” is an intellectual hoax. This book isn’t as good as Harry Potter in MY opinion, and no one can refute me. Tastes are relative!”

HA HA HA. Let's relive the hits, shall we? For example, "to have conversations or interjections in French with no translation is plain dumb", and "I do not believe that an alien can kidnap someone and house them in a zoo for years at a time, while it is only a microsecond on earth." Such GOLD. And I am so tickled that a review of Lord of the Flies exists which begins, “I am obsessed with Survivor, so I thought it would be fun.” TASTES ARE RELATIVE!

It's crude and obvious,
and rhymes in a forced way.
So no wonder I can't shake this
Thought For The Day:

Wilson Tuckey, go suck a fuck-y.

Just a quick note to alert you to upcoming movie hotness, with photo as supporting evidence:

".........."

Also, Guy, you're right. We should see Flightplan at some point (if you'll remember, we discussed this about three months ago, or something. But I've made my decision now). Initially this was the perfect movie for us to see because you love Jodie and I love Sarsgaard, but I watched the original Freaky Friday on the weekend and LOVED it. It kicked Lohan's crappy remake balls. So I now love Jodie Foster too, (and everyone associated with that movie, including the mother, the little brother, and also Disney and 70s America in general).

1. You are freaking me out:

'Gallup research has indicated that about 45 per cent of Americans believe God created human beings "pretty much in their present form" within the past 10,000 years.'

2. You are freaking me out and pissing me off:

'The government will force an immediate debate on the legislation, giving the opposition only 10 minutes to examine the bill rather than the usual fortnight.'

3. Who here loves lawyers? I DO. Truly. Lawyers rock. Yes they do. I love interviewing them, I love hearing them talk on Lateline. I just love them right down to the bone. Here, read some hot legal.

And cop an eyeful of this guy. PHWOAR! Everyone has a massive crush on George Williams' brains, don't they? Yes? Because if you don't, you really really should.

Have just been to the bookshop appearance of Ariel Levy, so I now have my signed copy of this,
and a recording of what she said to edit together for Women on the Line. I liked her. It's quite an accomplishment, I think, to wade into subject matter that's in an hysterical bullshit minefield and, by treating it thoughtfully and intelligently and being a liberal-minded sort, to come out with an exploration of 'raunch culture' that doesn't play into the hysterical bullshit - that is, 'aye me, look at where postfeminism has got us, isn't it terrible. It was obviously pointless and dangerous/ has gone too far!!'. The basic point of Levy's book, I believe [though I may update when I've read it], is that this stripper look that has become a dominant female aesthetic may have reached the point where it's no longer simply an option for many women, but an obligation. And women's anxieties about conforming to this aesthetic create a market for looking/behaving sexed up and smooth and raunchy in this one particular way, even if the look/behaviour is not matched by authentic desire, pleasure, etc. And what Levy's advocating is not a movement to desexed seriousness or what have you [because it's kinda insane to a) prescribe behaviour, and b) limit the options to two extremes], but simply a realisation - reflected in culture - that women's sexualties and ways of being empowered are as diverse and individual as are women. So basically, she's not really saying that women who embrace raunch are deluded faux sluts, rather, that it is impossible for this one aesthetic to comply with the personalities and preferences of everyone, so it shouldn't be sponsored in any opressive way. And, when she is saying that women who embrace raunch are deluded faux sluts, it's only for consciousness-raising purposes, as in, "Let's examine this phenomenon. Is it working for you? Is it good for you? Because, if it's actually damaging for you, you'd be wise to reject it. And further, there should be room for you to reject it without the risk of being labelled humourless and uncool and sexually un-liberated, and without casting any aspersions on women who do embrace it..." You see? Reasonable. Anyways, the bearded one from Vulture was there.

I love this album. A lot. Deep Cuts by The Knife. Swedes rule.

Oh yeah. Went to see Me And You And Everyone We Know again on Saturday. It remains fantastically good. Jesus, I love it. And I'm not being peculiar. Guy loved it also. Go see it. It is the movie to see. Everyone should be conversant in its things. And not just the poop, but also the "This is my mug. No it isn't. I made that" exchange. And , "Email wouldn't even exist without AIDS. I need a break." Let's make it happen, people.

MOST IDIOTIC POLL/RESULT EVER.

Firstly, to the idiocy of the poll. You can't be asking people which royal they'd prefer as monarch for any other reason than a wank. Because, WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE. It's a frickin MONARCHY. That's the point. Privilege based on heredity rather than merit or an accountable process. Please realise that. Because it's not innocuous. It's insane!

Secondly, to the idiocy of the response. Just because you like Our Mary doesn't make her any less of a DANISH royal, ie. not a British royal. Our head-of-state is the British monarch, as a basic rule of thumb. If the incestuous bloodlines bring the Danes in on the succession, it's so way down the line as to be an almost certain impossibility. And no, you don't get to swap the nationalities of the royalty of Europe to arrange them so they suit your preferences better, because YOU HAVE NO POWER OVER THEM. And the fact that some of them have even theoretical power over you is something to be alarmed about.

The only possible reason for a poll like this is to induce people to make tits of themselves and to embarrass me severely. LAME.

I don’t want to get all parochial or anything, but I feel the question needs to be asked…Why are we importing pigeons? We HAVE pigeons. We even had some pigeon expert come out last year to educate us about reducing our pigeon numbers (his basic advice: don’t feed them, you batty old dears). Now, I am not a pigeon-hater, nor am I a pigeon-fancier. Thus, I am the best and most qualified person to lead this discussion in an objective and disinterested way. And this is where I’m directing it: What’s wrong with our fair dinkum true blue Aussie pigeons? What have Canadian pigeons got that ours don’t (other than avian influenza antibodies)? Yes, perhaps this is an idiotic and jingoistic line to take, but it’s based on sound evidentiary research and thorough consideration of observed phenomena. You see, I’ve seen our pigeons. In the streets and in the sky and what have you. And they look pretty damn pigeon-y to me. Yep, I declare them to be decidedly pigeon-y in a universal, perhaps even ‘world class’, way. So what gives? Anyway, let us just sit back now and appreciate this book...


Now, to another thing. And although I am very pleased that the state premiers seem to be putting up what some might recall as ‘a fight’ regarding the shoot-to-kill part of the federal government’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation, I’m also experiencing the sinking sensation that Howard is sitting back in an "all exactly as I planned" fashion. Because, the debate seems to have become not

"JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! You want to make WHAT legal? And you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that this unprecedented derogation of civil liberties, which opens HUGE opportunities for abuses, will in ANY way make people SAFER? Get lost, idiot. We are SO not won over, nor are we even CONSIDERING your fucked up plan as a distant possibility. BECAUSE IT IS SO PATENTLY ABSURD AND DANGEROUS AND AGAINST BASIC AND STRONGLY HELD - FOR GOOD REASON – PRINCIPLES RE: HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY. SO GET BENT, NUTTER!"

No, that is not the tenor of the debate we are having. Rather, it’s become all

STATES: "Oh yes, we’ll sign off on these insanities. Absolutely. We have no problem with anything you’ve suggested based on the scanty detail you’ve supplied about control orders, preventative detention, etc. 14 days without charge, you say? Sign me up. It’s only for suspected terrorists, right? Good show. Suspected terrorists are bad (and almost definitely guilty. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, we say. And we completely trust the people you have put in charge of identifying smoke. They’re not called ‘competent authorities’ for nothing). And of course, this is the best and wisest and only way to be anti-terrorist. Truly, we have no problem with this AT ALL. But, hang on a second. What’s this bit here? WE DID NOT AGREE TO THIS! We will NOT support it. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will we support it! Who do you think you’re dealing with here?!"

FEDERAL: "But everything else is okay, right?"

STATES: "Oh yes. Everything else is fine. As long as you get rid of this shoot-to-kill part, we support you all the way."

FEDERAL: "So, can we make a deal on that?"

STATES: "Oh yes. Absolutely. You get rid of this shoot-to-kill bit and everything's A-OK."

FEDERAL: "Excellent."

STATES: "Why thank you. Yes, we really are excellent chaps, aren’t we? We definitely showed you a thing or two. And we MOST definitely gave the impression to the public at large that we had reigned in and/or expunged any excesses you had in the works. Yesiree. You’ll think twice before trying to dictate terms to US again. Because WE are a very difficult and demanding bunch who vehemently STAND OUR GROUND, however incidental that ground may be. Sweet sweet victory. Did you SEE how masterfully and righteously we positioned ourselves to reduce the parameters of the debate?! Hey..."

FEDERAL: "SUCKED IN!"

This is not good.

I want to read this book. The writer, Ariel Levy, doesn't seem like an idiot who wants to screw us [especially as she’s “childless and unmarried”. I don’t want to harp on this, but what IS THAT ABOUT? Is the similar status of a male author something that would be highlighted for us, etc? Call me a hackneyed old shrew if you will, but it’s only a clichéd retort because nothing changes.] Anyways, I think I'm going to have to read the book with a mindset divorced from any concerns about how it might be used against women in a multiplying set of newspaper opinion pieces, eg. They admit it. Post-feminist ideas about empowerment are bunk and are bad for teenage girls, by Douchebag Wanker/ess. Yes, I’m going to ignore those thoughts. Because it looks like there are interesting ideas in this book, and I believe I'll be able to consider them, up to the point where Levy writes, "It no longer makes sense to blame men." Because, that's just crazy talk, obviously. It ALWAYS makes sense to blame men, heh heh etc… However, it really truly feels wholly unnatural to me to blame women for any demeaning state of affairs. As a starting point anyway. So I'm surmising that in the book Levy encounters a lot of stuff that lead her to that point of holding women responsible, and I'm interested to see what that stuff is. And also to see if her arguments about what that stuff means hold up.

Anyone want to come to see her on Tuesday 25th October at Dymocks [234 Collins St] at 6pm? I’m thinking I might see about recording it for Women on the Line.

Anyways, to something unrelated. Was reading yesterday’s paper and was thinking, firstly, how brave that doctor is to be named and photographed for the front page of a newspaper as someone who performs late-term abortions [considering it’s something people get all psycho and murderous about] and how fucking cool he is about why he does it, ie. women should not suffer “simply because they find themselves in a situation that very few people want to help them with.” Masterful.

Secondly, I was thinking, JESUS, Abbott isn’t even trying to hide it:

“Mr Abbott said he believed it would help cut the number of late-term abortions by giving women more time to think about the consequences.”

I suppose it’s good that we have open admissions that this whole move towards informed consent and counselling and ‘cooling-off’ periods is not actually intended to help women, it’s intended to prevent abortion. Which underlines a point Leslie Cannold made about how superficial this new 'women-friendly' language around anti-abortion is. This statement also retains that lovely insulting aspect of assuming that if women take the time to think about abortion, they won’t do it. And it hints at the sinister consequences of enforcing this extra time, which I agree could lead to a reduction in the number of late-term abortions because there is that handy possibility of trapping women into continuing with a pregnancy when getting an abortion performed is made too impractical. Time is critical with late-term abortions. So let’s make them wait a bit longer and the baby might just pop out. YAY!

Went to see Joanna Newsom tonight. And Smog. I saw them both, but what I mean is, I didn't go to see Smog. Smog was just going to be there. Because I had no idea what Smog was. I was like, "What is Smog?" Oh. Okay then, "Who is Smog?"... Hmmm, you don't say. Thinks he's good enough for Joanna Newsom, does he? Boyfriend-wise. Well, we shall see... So I guess it eventually turned out that I did in fact end up partially going in order to see Smog. So this whole bit has been pointless. Anyways, before Smog came on, Sympathetic Dave warned me about the Smog charisma. And man, he had it. Largely in his legs. He was all handsome sexy cool with his handsome sexy cool comedic legs. Yes, he was also funny. But not in any wanky way. In a really dry yummy way. So, to conclude, WORTHY.

And then Joanna Newsom. We were at the very back of the top level of the Athaneum, which meant that a bit before she came on stage, we were treated to an exchange between Woody the Wunderkind Promoter and the Lights Guy which went-

Woody: "Sorry, I just wanted to come up here and let you know that Joanna doesn't want any red lights."

Lights guy: "..." [inaudible. Probably something like, "Okay, sure."]

And I had a moment of doubt, thinking, "What's wrong with red lights? What decent person has a problem with red? And to such an extent as to have it banned from sharing the stage?" I thought it was a weird request, but didn't think any further on it*, because Joanna came on stage and sang Yarn and Glue without any accompaniment, her hands clasped in front of her like a choir girl. Which was, obviously, fantastic. And then she got behind the harp, and moved the mics around a bit, and then started playing the harp in an intricate fashion while singing at the same time. I know I should have expected this, but it was still damn cool. And she played epic songs too [Dave timed one that went for 15 minutes], which had diverse sections and lyrics and vocal tones. Fantastic. I couldn't believe she could remember it all. Which made it all sweet and aw shucks that she had managed to get through these long complex epics without concern but later blanked in the middle of Sadie [which is not about her dead dog, by the way. It's that high-falutin metaphor stuff], endearing herself to all, obviously. So, yeah. Excellent gig.

* Bec figured out that red lights are a no-no because some of the harp strings are red, which we think is done to differentiate between areas of the harp. So, having red lights on stage would pretty much mess that up. KNOWLEDGE. [Well, we're pretty sure, anyway. We haven't looked it up or anything.]

Um, HOW did I not know about the Tom and Katie baby until just a few minutes ago - that is, an ENTIRE WEEK after the news was supplied by Lee Anne Devette? What the hell is going on with me? I was just watching ET and they were talking about baby names and I yelled with alarm to my brother, but he was like, "Yeah, I know. I've known for a while now." So, WHY DID HE NOT TELL ME?! Troubling on so many levels.

In other news, thank fuck. For now.

Hey, if you're listening to the radio tomorrow morning at 8:30, and you feel like hearing about medical abortion and Australian women's lack of access to mifepristone, well, that's what I did my Women on the Line show about this week (3CR, 855AM). Yeah, kick the week off right, I say. I spoke to Dr Leslie Cannold, Senator Lyn Allison, and Dr Caroline de Costa. They say it better than me, but in short, it's INSANE that we don't have access to this drug. And the people who believe that this situation is okay are basically arguing, "Yes, we DO believe in blocking people from having safer, more accessible MEDICAL PROCEDURES. We actually prefer it this way." Which is, you know, SICK.

"The Prime Minister has made his views clear on this … he doesn't believe ministers should be held responsible for things they clearly have no knowledge of."

Things Amanda Vanstone clearly has no knowledge of:

1. How to run a department that doesn’t make assessments based on racist assumptions which fit all too neatly with the government’s own prejudices [or, with the prejudices they cynically fuel and exploit. Whichevs].

2. The fact that she actually should have knowledge of - even detailed knowledge of - what is happening in her department, for instance, what her department does and is doing. That is kinda almost precisely, um, her JOB. Otherwise, what is she FOR?

3. Comedy timing.

WHOO-HOO times TWO!

1. No more defence of provocation! Take THAT, bastard men who kill your women and then say, “But she said she was going to leave me!” And the only person who can contradict your bastard version of events CAN’T, because you killed her. And anyone else saying, “Hey! That’s not true. She never planned to do that at all!” CAN’T, because it’s hearsay. BUT NOT ANY MORE. Now the whole “Who gives a fuck if she WAS going to leave you, you fucking bastard. She’s allowed to leave you if she wants to!” argument, is all like, legal and shit.

Also, take THAT, bastard men who kill men and then say, “But he was coming on to me! I JUST HAD TO KILL HIM! CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?”

[Man, shit has been so fucked up. BUT NOT ANYMORE.]

2. Big Day Out line-up!

Iggy & The Stooges [OH MY GOD! YES!]
The White Stripes [YES!]
Kings of Leon [YES!]
Franz Ferdinand [YES!]
Sleater-Kinney [YES!]
Cut Copy [YES!]
The Grates [YES!]
Wolf & Cub [YES!]
The Magic Numbers [probably]
Youth Group [perhaps]
The Living End [doubtful]
Gerling [doubtful]
Soulwax [??]
2 Many DJs [??]
Dei Hamo [??]
The Mars Volta [NO!]
AFI [NO!]
Magic Dirt [NO WAY!]
End of Fashion [NO WAY!]
Faker [NO! FUCKING! WAY!]

So excited! I know it's a mixed bag, with some hideousness, but AS IF there'll be any time to be forced to sit through the shit stuff... Jesus, they better not screw me on the timetable.