The new University of you.
In light of the newly elected QLD government’s post-election cost-cutting rampage (and far too much wine for a Sunday afternoon, or just the right amount as the case may be) I thought I’d chip in a few budgetary ideas of my own. At first these proposals might seem to have just a little bit too much ‘Edward De Bono lateralism’ about them but given that the very first policy announcement by our new LNP team was the axing of the Premier’s literary awards, so as to slash our state debt by a whopping 0.00028%, I’m confident that these ideas will be treated with the merit that they deserve:
1. Lease the great barrier reef to a skin exfoliant company
There’s money in them thar’ reefs. Of course, this is just a slight variation on Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s visionary attempt to turn the GBR into concrete powder, but we need to think more laterally about creating industries that befit our status as ‘da smart state, hyuk.’ Inspired by proposals from Read more…
- Obviously sourced from Disney for copyright purposes. Obviously.
Today, finally, someone with credibility (i.e. not me) has released a report (if you have time it’s well worth reading) commissioned and funded by a reputable organisation making a point that has long needed to be made.
Australians are not struggling.
That may well be a little callous, but the nuanced take doesn’t make for as good a catch phrase. If you can’t beat the Australian media’s propensity for misleading headlines, then join them. Of course, some Australians are genuinely struggling, and of course some effects of our current economic climate (the historically high terms of trade and the un-competitiveness of our trade exposed industries) are hurting a portion of our population. But by and large, when compared to almost any standard, Australians are straight-up, flat-out, just simply, rich. Read more…
Why we should use a generic name for mass murderers or, at the very least, name them after bacterial infections:
His name is John Doe.
A few years ago I was invited to a screening of “I killed John Lennon”, an art-house documentary dedicated to ██████████ that Penile Abscess who blew the Beatles’ frontman apart in 1980. I venomously rejected the invite: the prospect of forking out hard-earned cash so I could sit in a darkened room and listen to ██████████ P. Abscess explain how he killed one of the 20th century’s greatest musical geniuses in order to “become somebody” seemed, to me, to be an act of near-complicity in Lennon’s tragic murder.
Operating on a whole other level of freaky attention-seeking psychopathy was ██████████ that Septic Hookworm in the 1960s and his ‘family’ of Satanist minions, who performed several horrific stabbings and took extra special care to slice up Sharon Tate and her eight and a half month old unborn baby. Hookworm revelled in his infamy, laughing and joking his way through his subsequent trial and, thanks to the media frenzy surrounding his grisly tale, gained a global fanbase of soft-brained sickos and bloodthirsty maniacs who, to this day, send fistfuls of dollars for autographs (making him one of the richest inmates Read more…
Reflecting and re-reading yesterday’s piece, I feel the need to add to those observations and bring out the crystal ball.
Shepard Fairey ain't got nothing on my photoshop skills.
What I attempted to do yesterday was to set out two propositions:
1) The Republican party, and those who represent it at this moment are more extreme, more devoid of seriousness and more willing to do anything for a cheer at a rally or a caucus vote, than any other time in recent history. That is not a mere assertion, but something that seems generally agreed upon by reporters and writers not employed by News Corp.
2) Jon Huntsman is a good leader, by all accounts a good person, and would generally be a fine choice for President, if you were of a conservative viewpoint. I attempted to make the point that, no matter how you slice it, Jon Huntsman is firmly conservative.
I should have made a third point.
3) Barack Obama will be re-elected as President. I understand the arguments made against this, I have read the articles telling me why this time its different. I buy none of it. Not because Obama has done a great job (though I think, largely, he has) or because the Republicans feel the need to take back their country (though apparently they do). It is simply because Mitt Romney cannot beat Barack Obama in a general election. His record is too liberal for the Republican base, particularly in 2012, and in attempting to address that he has proved himself too inconsistent to win genuine independents.
But what does this have to do with Jon Huntsman? Read more…
Auditioning for the role of "President" on NBC's new series "Who Let the Dogs Out?"
The pool of prospective Republican nominees for President got crazier, and then less so, in the space of 24 hours. While Rick Santorum (I’ll tell you to Google his last name because I still find it hilarious) gaining 24.5% of the vote in the Iowa caucus upped the insanity meter to ‘considering scientology’, the withdrawal of Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann from the race serves to lower said meter to, ‘dabbles in the occult’.
And yes, you’re absolutely right, nothing about Iowa matters to the other 49 states except corn. (On an interesting side note, this NPR report explains how the the ethanol subsidy for which Iowa’s political ‘clout’ is largely responsible has not been extended which is a win for economic sensibility).
Other than a slight thinning in the ranks, nothing has changed about the squabble for the White House; Santorum is the flavour of the week for Republicans (sorry I couldn’t resist) at the right time but will fizzle in New Hampshire; words still can’t quite describe Rick Perry and his political skills except “Texan”; and despite John McCain giving his best effort to die on stage while endorsing Mitt Romney, the latter will be the one who contests the general election.
Nothing has changed. Read more…
Havel looks wearily in my direction, presumably indicating my photo was less than welcome.
Your humble dunce, rube and all-round intellectual peon writes on being influenced by the recently deceased former Czech President Vaclav Havel and essayist Christopher Hitchens.
‘To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness’ – Lady Bracknell in Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest.
Before taking on the (extremely) unsolicited task of writing about the deaths of both Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens, one must enter a heightened state of authorial self-delusion. Without the appropriate psychological armor, the act of placing words on a page, the very art form in which these two individuals rank among recent history’s more brilliant exponents, is liable to result in the kind of existential crisis experienced by a small puddle upon the realisation it is composed of the same essential ingredients as the Pacific Ocean.
