At work today I was told to Google something called Putrid Sex Object. I was warned about it beforehand so I was prepared for what I was about to see but not about what it left me feeling.
Evidently, some loser decided to put on a dress and a cheap wig and his mothers work boots, wander around inside his dead grandmothers house in the dark, get sexual gratification with what I'm told is a horses head and have the nerve to call it art.
ThistleH as he calls himself on the site, is clearly a disturbed individual. For starters, his attention to detail was so overshadowed by the thought of sticking that tiny dick into the eye socket of an alleged animal head that he couldn't even be bothered forking out for a decent frock and wig. What self respecting "artist" does such a half assed job? I should correct myself here because "self respect" and "artist" are things this clueless dipshit has no affilitation with.
Secondly, how does it occur to ANYONE to procure the head of a beast and penetrate it sexually? Did someone's West Virginian Daddy spend too many hours fucking the boy in the slaughter room at the abbatiors during his youth? Or maybe it was the Sunday drives through the country whereupon the whole family would make some incest-necrophilia-bestialty porn with fresh roadkill that piqued this dickheads curiosity.
Third...how did he manage to find anyone so equally destined for some of the same treatment reserved for rock spiders in jail who would actually film him doing this? Is there a meeting place under an oak tree somewhere in the deep south of the USA where all the freaks get together and pair up for a competition to see who can dream up the most offensive acts? Do they exchange a friendly wave and a smile for the klansmen on their way to the next lynching in the paddock next door? Do they all drop in on Bill O'Reilly for some bible bashing and kiddie sex afterwards?
This shit is no more art than the questionable (at best) installation at a Nicaraguan art gallery in October 2007 by "artist" Guillermo Vargas. Sickermo...sorry, Guillermo, decided it was a brilliant idea to tether a dog to a wall and let it starve to death over a number of days, all the while being observed by visitors to the gallery (who should all have been tethered to the back of a pick up truck and dragged down a freeway at 100mph for not intervening. Now THAT would be artistic) who knew exactly what the intent of the exhibit was.
This hillbilly motherfucker couldn't run the exhibit in his native Costa Rica because, surprise surprise, Costa Rica has animal welfare laws. Unfortunately for the dog Nicaragua doesn't. Clearly morals, integrity and animal protection are low on their list of priorities. The dog ofcourse died (being deprived of food and water will do that I guess) but the gallery curator tried to convince the world that the dog had miraculously escaped during the night. He probably gave the poor dead thing to ThistleH to practice on before he got down to business with the horse.
These two and people who are like them or who appreciate their offerings, really ought to consider a range of treatments. Electric shock therapy would probably go some way to teaching them the error of their ways but it just takes so long and they'd have too much time to conjure up some other vile acts with which to entertain themselves.
A lobotomy is probably a more logical approach but the downside is that you couldn't possibly take them down the back and beat the living shit out of them. Where's the fun if they can't feel it or even recognise what's happening to them? Boring.
More entertaining would be recruiting the aforementioned KKK lynch mob but in that even you've still got to finish the job yourself by disposing of the morons in white once they've achieved your goal for you so it while it would be amusing, it's kind of dragging it out and doubling up the workload.
My personal favourite and absolutely the most rewarding would be if they just went out and topped themselves. The main advantages is that I (and the majority of the world population who are equally appalled by these fuckers) don't have to get my hands dirty and nor does anyone else.
I'm actually hoping that's what ThistleH has done. On his profile (http://revver.com/u/thistleH/) his little description about himself was "Just interested in making more films :P" (noticably absent was "I'm a twisted fuck who really needs to be put through a mincer at the local butchers so the world doesn't ever have to be at risk of acknowledging my existence")
He posted that "film" on the 18 August 2007 and there has been no activity since. Shame. NOT.
If anyone does know what happened to him, please do let me know. If he did kill himself I'd like to see that "film". If not, I'm happy to make the film for him, starring him.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Come fly with me
What the fuck is wrong with airlines these days? Since the demise of Ansett, Qantas seems to think shitty customer service is something it doesn't have to address.
I was due to fly Sydney to Brisbane at midday today. I arrived at the T2 Sydney departures check in at 11:45 and the desk clerk told me I was in the wrong terminal. In the 3 minutes it took me to walk across to T3, the flight had closed so the clerk on that check in told me to go directly to my departure gate and see the desk staff there.
So I arrive and the desk clerk asks me (pay attention here, this is an important part of my whine) "Please wait while I announce boarding for this flight" and on the loudmouth she goes to announce the boarding for my flight. So I explain to her when she has finished that I am booked but not checked in to which she lifts her little chubby face and says "Can't help you. Flight's closed." That was it. Nothing else. Not even a trace of empathy. So I walk away shaking my head and a cleaner stops to ask me if I'm ok. I explain to him what happened and it was he who told me which counter to go to next to be put on the next flight. The dumb slut at check in couldn't be bothered offering me that information.
So, while I'm at Counter 13 getting re-scheduled, the guy at that counter tells me that despite the fact that no-one had boarded, the systems close down the flights 15 minutes prior to boarding. My question is, why couldn't they get someone with the appropriate delegation to OVERRIDE THE FUCKING SYSTEM???? Because like everything else at Qantas....that level of customer service is too much effort so you can basically go fuck yourself.
Had this been a one off occurrence I would be ok with it. However...let me tell you about VIRGIN BLUE. A couple of weeks ago I was again returning to Brisbane from Sydney on a 7am flight on a Sunday morning. As a result of my own stupidity I was lounging with a coffee at the apartment when I realised my clock still reads QLD TIME. So I run through the apartment throwing my shit into a bag while I'm on the phone ordering a cab. Get to the airport 10 mins after they close the flight and have to pay $50 to get on the next one.
Like I said, being late was my own fault and I wouldn't have worried about it had it not been for the fucked up service they offered me on the flight TO Sydney 3 days prior.
I arrived at Brisbane airport LONG before I had to be there, just to make sure I would have no trouble checking in. The flight was due to depart Brisbane at 2pm. An announcement is made at 1:50pm that the flight has been delayed by AN HOUR. Then, at 2:50pm a further announcement is made that the flight is now cancelled. So all the passengers waiting to board are shunted to check-in desk to be allocated alternate flights. They also made the HUUUUUUGE gesture of giving every passenger a ..... (wait for it).....(this is a cracker)....massive $6 lounge voucher! WOW! I could hardly believe my luck. Not only had I been sitting in the terminal for 3 hours already but I was also $30 in the red from all the coffee I had consumed whilst waiting for my flight. Ok, technically after that laughable gesture I was only $24 in the red.
But excuse me, they compensate me with a shitty $6 credit after fucking my day by 2 hours but I have to pay them $50 to get on a later flight even though they hadn't shut the fucking doors on my return flight. I only have carry on luggage so it's not like it has to go through cargo.
But the thing that grates me the most is the fact that there is not one pilot in Australia who can get a flight to its destination on time. What the fuck's up with that? Do you have to fail an intelligence test to become a pilot in this country?
I know you don't have to pass a sobriety test because when I was working the graveyard shift in the hotel industry, almost EVERY pilot who used our hotel would be on the piss until the wee hours of the morning that they had to fly out again. And I'm talking about consuming vast quantities of alcohol in the hotel bar until closing, the cleaning out the bar fridges in their rooms and THEN ordering more from room service when that ran out. I'd be delivering drinks to pilots rooms until 3am some nights and then watching them check out of the hotel at 6am for their 7:30am flights.
Bear that in mind next time you have to fly with Virgin Blue (Qantas pilots stayed at another hotel so I can't confirm the same behaviour for them).
And while I'm at it, what the fuck is up with the Brisbane Airport Corporation and it's bullshit no smoking signs all over the place? Here's a tip BAC. The rail platform for the airtrain is SOOOOO far from the actual terminal that it's not enforceable to ban smoking. So blow that out your asses next time one of your fat-ass, closet fag, toothless railway bitches tries to tell me I have to put a cigarette out on the platform.
Deciding I wasn't going to stay quiet, I decide to express my dissatisfaction on website "Not Good Enough.org" but the registration process prevents anyone from contributing if they use a web based email address such as hotmail or gmail. So I contact their admin team to ask why this is the case and the reply I receive is so patronising that I feel the need to complain about them too. Ofcourse, I understand the reasoning that web based email addresses are unacceptable to avoid individuals making multiple sledging entries against any one corporation etc but when you tell me that you "thank me for my pleasant email" (when we all know there was nothing pleasant about it) and that "We wish you well finding another service more suited to your needs and manner" you're going to get the reaction you want.
My MANNER? My manner is the way it is because you restrict people's contributions so actively. And then to hide behind the title "NGE Team" rather than using a signature block, that tells me everything I need to know about your willingness to identify yourself. Losers.
So that's the end of my bad week. I won't even talk about work or my social life. All I can say is, thank God I had a good time in Sydney or I'd probably have self combusted by now.
I was due to fly Sydney to Brisbane at midday today. I arrived at the T2 Sydney departures check in at 11:45 and the desk clerk told me I was in the wrong terminal. In the 3 minutes it took me to walk across to T3, the flight had closed so the clerk on that check in told me to go directly to my departure gate and see the desk staff there.
So I arrive and the desk clerk asks me (pay attention here, this is an important part of my whine) "Please wait while I announce boarding for this flight" and on the loudmouth she goes to announce the boarding for my flight. So I explain to her when she has finished that I am booked but not checked in to which she lifts her little chubby face and says "Can't help you. Flight's closed." That was it. Nothing else. Not even a trace of empathy. So I walk away shaking my head and a cleaner stops to ask me if I'm ok. I explain to him what happened and it was he who told me which counter to go to next to be put on the next flight. The dumb slut at check in couldn't be bothered offering me that information.
So, while I'm at Counter 13 getting re-scheduled, the guy at that counter tells me that despite the fact that no-one had boarded, the systems close down the flights 15 minutes prior to boarding. My question is, why couldn't they get someone with the appropriate delegation to OVERRIDE THE FUCKING SYSTEM???? Because like everything else at Qantas....that level of customer service is too much effort so you can basically go fuck yourself.
Had this been a one off occurrence I would be ok with it. However...let me tell you about VIRGIN BLUE. A couple of weeks ago I was again returning to Brisbane from Sydney on a 7am flight on a Sunday morning. As a result of my own stupidity I was lounging with a coffee at the apartment when I realised my clock still reads QLD TIME. So I run through the apartment throwing my shit into a bag while I'm on the phone ordering a cab. Get to the airport 10 mins after they close the flight and have to pay $50 to get on the next one.
Like I said, being late was my own fault and I wouldn't have worried about it had it not been for the fucked up service they offered me on the flight TO Sydney 3 days prior.
I arrived at Brisbane airport LONG before I had to be there, just to make sure I would have no trouble checking in. The flight was due to depart Brisbane at 2pm. An announcement is made at 1:50pm that the flight has been delayed by AN HOUR. Then, at 2:50pm a further announcement is made that the flight is now cancelled. So all the passengers waiting to board are shunted to check-in desk to be allocated alternate flights. They also made the HUUUUUUGE gesture of giving every passenger a ..... (wait for it).....(this is a cracker)....massive $6 lounge voucher! WOW! I could hardly believe my luck. Not only had I been sitting in the terminal for 3 hours already but I was also $30 in the red from all the coffee I had consumed whilst waiting for my flight. Ok, technically after that laughable gesture I was only $24 in the red.
But excuse me, they compensate me with a shitty $6 credit after fucking my day by 2 hours but I have to pay them $50 to get on a later flight even though they hadn't shut the fucking doors on my return flight. I only have carry on luggage so it's not like it has to go through cargo.
But the thing that grates me the most is the fact that there is not one pilot in Australia who can get a flight to its destination on time. What the fuck's up with that? Do you have to fail an intelligence test to become a pilot in this country?
I know you don't have to pass a sobriety test because when I was working the graveyard shift in the hotel industry, almost EVERY pilot who used our hotel would be on the piss until the wee hours of the morning that they had to fly out again. And I'm talking about consuming vast quantities of alcohol in the hotel bar until closing, the cleaning out the bar fridges in their rooms and THEN ordering more from room service when that ran out. I'd be delivering drinks to pilots rooms until 3am some nights and then watching them check out of the hotel at 6am for their 7:30am flights.
Bear that in mind next time you have to fly with Virgin Blue (Qantas pilots stayed at another hotel so I can't confirm the same behaviour for them).
And while I'm at it, what the fuck is up with the Brisbane Airport Corporation and it's bullshit no smoking signs all over the place? Here's a tip BAC. The rail platform for the airtrain is SOOOOO far from the actual terminal that it's not enforceable to ban smoking. So blow that out your asses next time one of your fat-ass, closet fag, toothless railway bitches tries to tell me I have to put a cigarette out on the platform.
Deciding I wasn't going to stay quiet, I decide to express my dissatisfaction on website "Not Good Enough.org" but the registration process prevents anyone from contributing if they use a web based email address such as hotmail or gmail. So I contact their admin team to ask why this is the case and the reply I receive is so patronising that I feel the need to complain about them too. Ofcourse, I understand the reasoning that web based email addresses are unacceptable to avoid individuals making multiple sledging entries against any one corporation etc but when you tell me that you "thank me for my pleasant email" (when we all know there was nothing pleasant about it) and that "We wish you well finding another service more suited to your needs and manner" you're going to get the reaction you want.
My MANNER? My manner is the way it is because you restrict people's contributions so actively. And then to hide behind the title "NGE Team" rather than using a signature block, that tells me everything I need to know about your willingness to identify yourself. Losers.
So that's the end of my bad week. I won't even talk about work or my social life. All I can say is, thank God I had a good time in Sydney or I'd probably have self combusted by now.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Single mothers
Did anyone watch Today Tonight? The story that's got me riled up is the single mothers (9 in total...I was too distracted by their stupidity to count them properly) WHINING about not getting enough free money from the Govt.
Excuse me for breathing, but I should have thought $1143 a fortnight before you factor in subsidised housing would be sufficient to feed one adult and one child. Or maybe it's because they're such HEIFFERS that they're spending a great majority of that money on food. And for the ones that don't have asses the size of tobacco plantations, perhaps it's the cigarettes you were sucking down during the interview (how classy) that's affecting your budget. I'm pretty sure the pension isn't set up to ensure the ongoing smoking habits of slappers who got pregnant when they were 15 or 16 years old.
As if that wasn't bad enough, after being asked who was still with their baby's father only three girls raised their hands. The slag-in-respectable-drag who interviewed them then asks "What's wrong with Australian men?" I beg your fucking pardon crack whore? Shouldn't the question have been "What's wrong with you silly little bitches who fell flat on your back with your legs in the air as an open invitation to the underage drinkers at that street party to get you knocked up?" Yes indeed.
One girl then went on to whine about how Australian boys are part-time parents who "think" they can just go on living their lives, travelling overseas, meeting new people and having new experiences that she now knows she "CAN'T HAVE". Dumb ass. When you were at that party, didn't it occur to you even once that if you got knocked up you'd have to deal with it? Didn't it occur to you in the slightest that the dud who impregnated you didn't get to make a choice about becoming a parent? YOU made that choice. There are options. You may not believe in abortion and conversely I don't believe in giving handouts to slappers with poor judgement. YOU decided to have sex without preventative measures. In so doing, YOU decided to become a parent. YOU decided to bring your child into the world knowing there was a very good chance you would be single. YOU decided to be a sole parent and rely on handouts when you had your legs in the air.
Probably so many boys have been through those girls that we need to establish a Maury Povich style show so that all Australian teen mothers can find out who their "baby daddy" is. (while I'm here, what the fuck is up with Maury Povich? Isn't there better topics to discuss? Don't you get bored watching fat whores run screaming from the stage when the DNA test comes back? And "Baby Daddy"...what the fuck is that? Did people forget to brush up on their english? "Babys' father" people!).
Sidetracked. Regain focus. Whinging teen mothers. Dumb ass journalists. So anyway, when the girls were asked what they are going to do with the thousand dollar per child bonus being issued this Christmas, one had the nerve to say "I'm going on holidays". WTF? Don't go crying to centrelink when you get back and can't afford to feed your hefty ass you slack tart.
When asked whether or not they thought they should get real jobs and support themselves and their children, one moron responded with "Why is it different for people in their 30's who decided to start a family? Why can they decide to stay home and raise their children? They don't have to miss out on watching their children grow up. Why am I expected to go out and get a job?" BECAUSE you retarded freak, those same people in their 30's have worked until they decided to start a family. They are generally secure enough financially to not have to drain the system the way you no-hoping-high-school-dropouts are.
So bitches, You may not believe in abortion and conversely I don't believe in giving handouts to slappers with poor judgement.
YOU decided to have sex without preventative measures.
In so doing, YOU decided to become a parent.
YOU decided to bring your child into the world knowing there was a very good chance you would be single.
YOU decided to be a sole parent and rely on handouts when you had your legs in the air.
So don't go around bitching about how you need more money to support your hopeless lifestyles. Get off your asses, get a job, get an education and make sure your children observe the most important thing you can teach them...RESPONSIBILITY.
Excuse me for breathing, but I should have thought $1143 a fortnight before you factor in subsidised housing would be sufficient to feed one adult and one child. Or maybe it's because they're such HEIFFERS that they're spending a great majority of that money on food. And for the ones that don't have asses the size of tobacco plantations, perhaps it's the cigarettes you were sucking down during the interview (how classy) that's affecting your budget. I'm pretty sure the pension isn't set up to ensure the ongoing smoking habits of slappers who got pregnant when they were 15 or 16 years old.
As if that wasn't bad enough, after being asked who was still with their baby's father only three girls raised their hands. The slag-in-respectable-drag who interviewed them then asks "What's wrong with Australian men?" I beg your fucking pardon crack whore? Shouldn't the question have been "What's wrong with you silly little bitches who fell flat on your back with your legs in the air as an open invitation to the underage drinkers at that street party to get you knocked up?" Yes indeed.
One girl then went on to whine about how Australian boys are part-time parents who "think" they can just go on living their lives, travelling overseas, meeting new people and having new experiences that she now knows she "CAN'T HAVE". Dumb ass. When you were at that party, didn't it occur to you even once that if you got knocked up you'd have to deal with it? Didn't it occur to you in the slightest that the dud who impregnated you didn't get to make a choice about becoming a parent? YOU made that choice. There are options. You may not believe in abortion and conversely I don't believe in giving handouts to slappers with poor judgement. YOU decided to have sex without preventative measures. In so doing, YOU decided to become a parent. YOU decided to bring your child into the world knowing there was a very good chance you would be single. YOU decided to be a sole parent and rely on handouts when you had your legs in the air.
Probably so many boys have been through those girls that we need to establish a Maury Povich style show so that all Australian teen mothers can find out who their "baby daddy" is. (while I'm here, what the fuck is up with Maury Povich? Isn't there better topics to discuss? Don't you get bored watching fat whores run screaming from the stage when the DNA test comes back? And "Baby Daddy"...what the fuck is that? Did people forget to brush up on their english? "Babys' father" people!).
Sidetracked. Regain focus. Whinging teen mothers. Dumb ass journalists. So anyway, when the girls were asked what they are going to do with the thousand dollar per child bonus being issued this Christmas, one had the nerve to say "I'm going on holidays". WTF? Don't go crying to centrelink when you get back and can't afford to feed your hefty ass you slack tart.
When asked whether or not they thought they should get real jobs and support themselves and their children, one moron responded with "Why is it different for people in their 30's who decided to start a family? Why can they decide to stay home and raise their children? They don't have to miss out on watching their children grow up. Why am I expected to go out and get a job?" BECAUSE you retarded freak, those same people in their 30's have worked until they decided to start a family. They are generally secure enough financially to not have to drain the system the way you no-hoping-high-school-dropouts are.
So bitches, You may not believe in abortion and conversely I don't believe in giving handouts to slappers with poor judgement.
YOU decided to have sex without preventative measures.
In so doing, YOU decided to become a parent.
YOU decided to bring your child into the world knowing there was a very good chance you would be single.
YOU decided to be a sole parent and rely on handouts when you had your legs in the air.
So don't go around bitching about how you need more money to support your hopeless lifestyles. Get off your asses, get a job, get an education and make sure your children observe the most important thing you can teach them...RESPONSIBILITY.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Human roadkill
If anyone watches ANTM (Amrecia's Next Top Model. Come on...catch up!), please explain to me WHAT THE FUCK???? Did I change channels to "Skank hour with Gay, Gayer and Gayest??
Tyra - Gay. She's not just gay, she's a bloody drag queen. Some women can pull off "Ghetto Fabulous" but Tyra makes it look like she's constantly posing and mincing for ANTM (this time it's America's Next Transsexual Male). Come to think of it, who the hell is Tyra to be judging models and whining about personality deficiencies and the difficulty that creates for capturing great shots? I don't think I've ever seen her face change from that wide-eyed, mouth slightly open, slightly raised right eye-brow statue.
Jay - not just big gay Jay, biggER, gayER Jay. Silver hair? Silver....serisously? I mean really, he's pretty, very pretty. I can see him with a mouth full on gay porn. Several in fact. He is so hot, he reminds me of a cross between Madonna a-la "Who's that girl?" and Jessica Alba a-la anything, Ru Paul in general. If he wasn't so camp he'd be perfect.
J. Alexander - HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCKSHIT! Who broke that fart? I don't get it, what the hell is that? Silver eye-brows. SILVER...FUCKING...EYEBROWS. Coloured glitter eyebrows? And it's probably not even the most ridiculous thing I've seen him trying to wear. Dude, get a clue. It's never going to work. There is no such thing as Jay chic. Somebody has a lot to answer for there. I reckon he's the sort of queen that says "man-pussy" or some such shit. He is the love child of Oprah and Chris Rock in Fifth Element.
What the hell is my point now? Why do people have to be so camp? It was bad enough in the old days trying to pick a queen in a crowd without this lot making me think EVERYONE is gay.
Tyra - Gay. She's not just gay, she's a bloody drag queen. Some women can pull off "Ghetto Fabulous" but Tyra makes it look like she's constantly posing and mincing for ANTM (this time it's America's Next Transsexual Male). Come to think of it, who the hell is Tyra to be judging models and whining about personality deficiencies and the difficulty that creates for capturing great shots? I don't think I've ever seen her face change from that wide-eyed, mouth slightly open, slightly raised right eye-brow statue.
Jay - not just big gay Jay, biggER, gayER Jay. Silver hair? Silver....serisously? I mean really, he's pretty, very pretty. I can see him with a mouth full on gay porn. Several in fact. He is so hot, he reminds me of a cross between Madonna a-la "Who's that girl?" and Jessica Alba a-la anything, Ru Paul in general. If he wasn't so camp he'd be perfect.
J. Alexander - HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCKSHIT! Who broke that fart? I don't get it, what the hell is that? Silver eye-brows. SILVER...FUCKING...EYEBROWS. Coloured glitter eyebrows? And it's probably not even the most ridiculous thing I've seen him trying to wear. Dude, get a clue. It's never going to work. There is no such thing as Jay chic. Somebody has a lot to answer for there. I reckon he's the sort of queen that says "man-pussy" or some such shit. He is the love child of Oprah and Chris Rock in Fifth Element.
What the hell is my point now? Why do people have to be so camp? It was bad enough in the old days trying to pick a queen in a crowd without this lot making me think EVERYONE is gay.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Burn baby, burn
We all know the dangers of tanning either by way of natural UV light or use of solariums. We all know the inherent risks of exposing ourselves to rays in the pursuit of vanity. Whether or not we choose to heed those warnings is entirely an individual choice. Not only is it an individual choice, but it's a yet another choice that certain organisations would like our government to take away from us.
The Queensland Institute of Medical Research have ESTIMATED the number of cancer diagnoses that they SUSPECT are caused by the use of solariums. Evidently the research they've conducted is "based on a British mathematical model" (whatever the hell that means). What is this model? A model of what? Why use a British anything to run statistics in Australia? Logic would define that if this "model" is at all accurate in Britain it won't be accurate for Australia's purposes given the difference in climate. Have they used this model because it resulted in the most terrifying statistics? Why not use a NZ model, a Canadian model, an American model or like everything else in Australia an Indian model? Until I know what the hell the model actually is, I can only assume it's scare-mongering.
So the QIMR has proposed changes in the Federal Govt regulations with the preference to completely ban the use of solariums. Pretty bloody rude I reckon. But how keen will the government be to implement such changes? I reckon they'll be fanging for the opportunity because it means less government money going to the public health system to treat skin cancers. It's exactly the same reason (or half of it) that they increase the price of cigarettes every five minutes.
As much as they hate treating the problems associated with smoking, they LOVE collecting the billions of dollars in tobacco tax generated each year from tobacco sales. So my guess is that one of two things will happen:
1) the proposals will be given serious consideration because unlike cigarettes, skin cancer treatment costs the govt money but they can't collect any skim from tanning unless...
2) they impose a tax on solariums which is probably the way it will actually go. They'll see another opportunity to collect from the people, ten times more so than the amount they will fund (approx $3M according to Dr Louisa Gordons' contribution to the Medical Journal of Australia) towards treating the problems coming from it.
I'm actually really surprised that the Howard Government never spotted that opportunity given their penchant from sticking their grubby hands in our pockets.
Back to my point. Professor Simon Chapman, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health is pushing for a complete ban on solarium use and cites the death of Claire Oliver in 2007 resulting from excessive tanning. I've said before that I absolutely empathise with the plight of Claire Oliver but by the same token, she made EDUCATED choices as to her tanning habits. She was a woman who, by her own admission, spent countless hours laying in the sun OR at the solarium. Claire started tanning at 19 and died at 26. Again, very sad but she ignored the warnings that were issued even back then in the pursuit of narcissistic satisfaction that we all indulge from time to time. I'm as guilty as anybody, I know the risks and I make my choices.
And that's the bottom line. Choices. I make choices and I know what the consequences are. Why then, should my choice be made for me? If people who develop conditions from risky behaviour and the treatment for those conditions is a strain on the public health system, why do we not have waivers included in memberships to solariums making an individual seriously consider the choice they're about to make?
And what's next? Will we have the cancer council suggesting the criminalisation of women having sex (yay...more man on man action) to decrease the risk of cervical cancer or avoiding exercise to decrease the risk of breast cancer? Telling men to avoid ageing so as to decrease the risk of developing breast cancer?
Such things may be a stretch of the imagination, but nothing would suprise me from successive governments whose agenda to extract more money from it's constituents is evidenced by it's contradictions of it's own public health "commitments". When you take into account the alleged bribery and corruption that surrounds the state governments contracts and "investigations" of companies like X-Strata who now face a class action lawsuit from residents of Mt Isa following the exposure of the companies disregard for public health and subsequently high levels of pollution.
The governments who presume to be able to make better choices for us are the same entities who know which companies are poisoning us and our children for the sake of the kickbacks that we have long suspected they are in receipt of. So no, we as the general public don't have the right to make choices. With each new day there is a new idea being formulated and presented to government that will take some rights away from somebody somewhere in the country.
Anarchy anyone?
The Queensland Institute of Medical Research have ESTIMATED the number of cancer diagnoses that they SUSPECT are caused by the use of solariums. Evidently the research they've conducted is "based on a British mathematical model" (whatever the hell that means). What is this model? A model of what? Why use a British anything to run statistics in Australia? Logic would define that if this "model" is at all accurate in Britain it won't be accurate for Australia's purposes given the difference in climate. Have they used this model because it resulted in the most terrifying statistics? Why not use a NZ model, a Canadian model, an American model or like everything else in Australia an Indian model? Until I know what the hell the model actually is, I can only assume it's scare-mongering.
So the QIMR has proposed changes in the Federal Govt regulations with the preference to completely ban the use of solariums. Pretty bloody rude I reckon. But how keen will the government be to implement such changes? I reckon they'll be fanging for the opportunity because it means less government money going to the public health system to treat skin cancers. It's exactly the same reason (or half of it) that they increase the price of cigarettes every five minutes.
As much as they hate treating the problems associated with smoking, they LOVE collecting the billions of dollars in tobacco tax generated each year from tobacco sales. So my guess is that one of two things will happen:
1) the proposals will be given serious consideration because unlike cigarettes, skin cancer treatment costs the govt money but they can't collect any skim from tanning unless...
2) they impose a tax on solariums which is probably the way it will actually go. They'll see another opportunity to collect from the people, ten times more so than the amount they will fund (approx $3M according to Dr Louisa Gordons' contribution to the Medical Journal of Australia) towards treating the problems coming from it.
I'm actually really surprised that the Howard Government never spotted that opportunity given their penchant from sticking their grubby hands in our pockets.
Back to my point. Professor Simon Chapman, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health is pushing for a complete ban on solarium use and cites the death of Claire Oliver in 2007 resulting from excessive tanning. I've said before that I absolutely empathise with the plight of Claire Oliver but by the same token, she made EDUCATED choices as to her tanning habits. She was a woman who, by her own admission, spent countless hours laying in the sun OR at the solarium. Claire started tanning at 19 and died at 26. Again, very sad but she ignored the warnings that were issued even back then in the pursuit of narcissistic satisfaction that we all indulge from time to time. I'm as guilty as anybody, I know the risks and I make my choices.
And that's the bottom line. Choices. I make choices and I know what the consequences are. Why then, should my choice be made for me? If people who develop conditions from risky behaviour and the treatment for those conditions is a strain on the public health system, why do we not have waivers included in memberships to solariums making an individual seriously consider the choice they're about to make?
And what's next? Will we have the cancer council suggesting the criminalisation of women having sex (yay...more man on man action) to decrease the risk of cervical cancer or avoiding exercise to decrease the risk of breast cancer? Telling men to avoid ageing so as to decrease the risk of developing breast cancer?
Such things may be a stretch of the imagination, but nothing would suprise me from successive governments whose agenda to extract more money from it's constituents is evidenced by it's contradictions of it's own public health "commitments". When you take into account the alleged bribery and corruption that surrounds the state governments contracts and "investigations" of companies like X-Strata who now face a class action lawsuit from residents of Mt Isa following the exposure of the companies disregard for public health and subsequently high levels of pollution.
The governments who presume to be able to make better choices for us are the same entities who know which companies are poisoning us and our children for the sake of the kickbacks that we have long suspected they are in receipt of. So no, we as the general public don't have the right to make choices. With each new day there is a new idea being formulated and presented to government that will take some rights away from somebody somewhere in the country.
Anarchy anyone?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Cute vs.Sexy vs. just plain wrong
Has anybody seen the new "novelty" baby stilettos being manufactured by some US company?
Seems now you can not only treat your baby like a doll, but you can also give them hooker shoes aswell. Some skank in Sydney is a re-seller for the shoes and says that "it's just a bit of fun. I'm sure all little girls want to look pretty." which while it may be true, is a justification for people to sexualise their children.
This woman was holding her high-heeled baby in the story I saw and let me tell you, there was nothing pretty about it. Here's a kid wearing a cute little dress with a cute little head band with a cute little bow on it. Then the hideous fire engine red baby stilettos. WRONG.
It's bad enough that you can't see a baby picture in a magazine or on the internet without knowing that some paedophile somewhere in the world has probably choked his chicken over that or similar images. Far worse is the sexualisation of babies by use of adult attire. If an innocent picture of a baby can get a pervert going, what the fuck do you think a picture of a baby in heels is going to do? This shit sends a statement to those deviants that there is some level of acceptibility to sexualising children which in their twisted minds could potentially justify the abuses they may commit against children or the stimluation they get from seeing these images.
For those who choose to put such trash accessories on their kids, you are exposing your child to dangers that no child should volunteered for by parents who think it's "cute". What you call cute, paedophiles call "sexy".
Do you want a child that your family and friends know is CUTE, or do you want a child who is also considered SEXY?
For a look at what some morons are putting their kids in, check this out http://www.heelarious.com/index.php I don't think it's HEELARIOUS at all. I think it's a blight on any person who should know it's their job to protect the vulnerable, not sexualise them.
Seems now you can not only treat your baby like a doll, but you can also give them hooker shoes aswell. Some skank in Sydney is a re-seller for the shoes and says that "it's just a bit of fun. I'm sure all little girls want to look pretty." which while it may be true, is a justification for people to sexualise their children.
This woman was holding her high-heeled baby in the story I saw and let me tell you, there was nothing pretty about it. Here's a kid wearing a cute little dress with a cute little head band with a cute little bow on it. Then the hideous fire engine red baby stilettos. WRONG.
It's bad enough that you can't see a baby picture in a magazine or on the internet without knowing that some paedophile somewhere in the world has probably choked his chicken over that or similar images. Far worse is the sexualisation of babies by use of adult attire. If an innocent picture of a baby can get a pervert going, what the fuck do you think a picture of a baby in heels is going to do? This shit sends a statement to those deviants that there is some level of acceptibility to sexualising children which in their twisted minds could potentially justify the abuses they may commit against children or the stimluation they get from seeing these images.
For those who choose to put such trash accessories on their kids, you are exposing your child to dangers that no child should volunteered for by parents who think it's "cute". What you call cute, paedophiles call "sexy".
Do you want a child that your family and friends know is CUTE, or do you want a child who is also considered SEXY?
For a look at what some morons are putting their kids in, check this out http://www.heelarious.com/index.php I don't think it's HEELARIOUS at all. I think it's a blight on any person who should know it's their job to protect the vulnerable, not sexualise them.
Unequal opportunities
I'm watching the news on the weekend and saw a report about new changes being proposed for maternity leave. I'm going to start by saying I'm not completely ignorant, despite how I am going to come across. Nor am I chauvanistic, far from it.
What I am though, is astounded by how far some groups will go to make things more unfair in an already unfair world. What started out as equal opportunity practices has now become more fair for some people over others.
I'm all for mothers spending those important first months bonding with new born babies and I believe the need to do so should be encouraged by employers and family alike. What I think is a LOAD OF ABSOLUTE SHIT however, is some wanker suggesting that maternity leave should now be 14 weeks and the empployer should be responsible for that leave financially.
Why does this piss me off? For a start, we have an unequal provision for paid parental leave. Currently maternity leave is (I think) 9 or 12 weeks but paid paternity leave is 2 weeks. How does it make sense in a world where men are getting their asses kicked all over family court, in the media and by child welfare groups for being removed from their children or indeed being a dead beat parent but nobody sees the importance of making the same leave provisions for fathers as mothers receive?
I don't care what argument could be used to challenge my position. Mothers' have the advantage. They spend the gestational period bonding with an unborn child and then have up to three months of paid leave to continue that bonding process. Fair enough, but what about the father?
I know for my self if I want additional leave other than that provided in the standard conditions of employment, I need to consider purchased leave (where I would sacrifice x amount of my weekly salary to "bank" for additional leave time) or leave without pay. So, if in January I decided I am going to take a three month vacation starting in October, I have to allocate some of my pay to my leave "bank". I have 9 months to ensure I will have enough money on my leave to support my needs for that vacation. That then dictates that I have to cut certain luxuries out of my budget in the 9 months up to October to make sure I have enough to support myself until January. And there is no way I'm collecting $5000 for my three months off, as opposed to parents who receive the same payment for procreation.
So, I figure then that if maternity leave didn't exist any couple who (whether by intention or oversight) find themselves expecting a child have, depending on when they find out up to nine months to adjust their expenditure and ensure their financial stability for the maternity leave period. Why is that so bad? Whatever happened to the days when a man would take on a second job or do loads of overtime until and most often after the babys arrival?
Green Left Weekly have produced statistics that say things like workforce participation by women in the 25-44 age group is low and goes on to say that it's probably because of the lack of maternity leave provisions and that the sorts of maternity leave provisions being proposed by places like Myer who are offering 6 weeks paid maternity leave after continuous employment of 18 months or Woolworths who offer 8wks after 2 years give employers too much control over a WOMAN's decision to have a family and when they choose to do so.
Again, whatever happened to the days when a couple would consider their priorities when they discovered they're expecting? These days when someone discovers they're pregnant the only decision they have to make is what date they stop working because they know (depending on which of the MANY Australian companies that do offer paid maternity leave) they will be financially supported.
The whole point of the baby bonus was to encourage people to have more children. A ridiculous idea by a ridiculous representative of a ridiculous Government. They said it was to offset the non-existence of mandatory maternity leave provisions. I don't know even ONE working woman who's had a baby in the last five years who DIDN'T receive paid maternity leave in some form so how the Green Left Weekly can make their statements is beyond me because they certainly haven't quoted the sources of their statistics in their article.
Back to my point. If you want to start a family maybe you should consider your financial position as part of the overall picture. Your parents likely had to do the same thing raising their own family and certainly the generations before them. Don't get knocked up and then expect the rest of the country to support you financially while you take for granted the ability to actually bear a child and raise a family. If I decide to raise a family I have to think about the process and costs of adoption and the fact that adoption leave doesn't exist for most companies unlike paid parental leave.
Again, before anyone bitches and whines about the fact that paid parental leave is not mandatory, you should first sit down and think about how lucky you are to be able to have your own children. There's a lot of us who can't and we would happily forfeit financial support just for the gift of being able to have children without having our entire life scrutinised by government departments who have the power to dictate our suitability as parents. Especially considering nobody is doing a door knock to determine just how many losers can spit out a kid who will be raised in daycare with very little parental guidance just so Mum and Dad can go back to work and prioritise financial wealth over family health.
And yes, the Green Left Weekly article was written by a woman.
What I am though, is astounded by how far some groups will go to make things more unfair in an already unfair world. What started out as equal opportunity practices has now become more fair for some people over others.
I'm all for mothers spending those important first months bonding with new born babies and I believe the need to do so should be encouraged by employers and family alike. What I think is a LOAD OF ABSOLUTE SHIT however, is some wanker suggesting that maternity leave should now be 14 weeks and the empployer should be responsible for that leave financially.
Why does this piss me off? For a start, we have an unequal provision for paid parental leave. Currently maternity leave is (I think) 9 or 12 weeks but paid paternity leave is 2 weeks. How does it make sense in a world where men are getting their asses kicked all over family court, in the media and by child welfare groups for being removed from their children or indeed being a dead beat parent but nobody sees the importance of making the same leave provisions for fathers as mothers receive?
I don't care what argument could be used to challenge my position. Mothers' have the advantage. They spend the gestational period bonding with an unborn child and then have up to three months of paid leave to continue that bonding process. Fair enough, but what about the father?
I know for my self if I want additional leave other than that provided in the standard conditions of employment, I need to consider purchased leave (where I would sacrifice x amount of my weekly salary to "bank" for additional leave time) or leave without pay. So, if in January I decided I am going to take a three month vacation starting in October, I have to allocate some of my pay to my leave "bank". I have 9 months to ensure I will have enough money on my leave to support my needs for that vacation. That then dictates that I have to cut certain luxuries out of my budget in the 9 months up to October to make sure I have enough to support myself until January. And there is no way I'm collecting $5000 for my three months off, as opposed to parents who receive the same payment for procreation.
So, I figure then that if maternity leave didn't exist any couple who (whether by intention or oversight) find themselves expecting a child have, depending on when they find out up to nine months to adjust their expenditure and ensure their financial stability for the maternity leave period. Why is that so bad? Whatever happened to the days when a man would take on a second job or do loads of overtime until and most often after the babys arrival?
Green Left Weekly have produced statistics that say things like workforce participation by women in the 25-44 age group is low and goes on to say that it's probably because of the lack of maternity leave provisions and that the sorts of maternity leave provisions being proposed by places like Myer who are offering 6 weeks paid maternity leave after continuous employment of 18 months or Woolworths who offer 8wks after 2 years give employers too much control over a WOMAN's decision to have a family and when they choose to do so.
Again, whatever happened to the days when a couple would consider their priorities when they discovered they're expecting? These days when someone discovers they're pregnant the only decision they have to make is what date they stop working because they know (depending on which of the MANY Australian companies that do offer paid maternity leave) they will be financially supported.
The whole point of the baby bonus was to encourage people to have more children. A ridiculous idea by a ridiculous representative of a ridiculous Government. They said it was to offset the non-existence of mandatory maternity leave provisions. I don't know even ONE working woman who's had a baby in the last five years who DIDN'T receive paid maternity leave in some form so how the Green Left Weekly can make their statements is beyond me because they certainly haven't quoted the sources of their statistics in their article.
Back to my point. If you want to start a family maybe you should consider your financial position as part of the overall picture. Your parents likely had to do the same thing raising their own family and certainly the generations before them. Don't get knocked up and then expect the rest of the country to support you financially while you take for granted the ability to actually bear a child and raise a family. If I decide to raise a family I have to think about the process and costs of adoption and the fact that adoption leave doesn't exist for most companies unlike paid parental leave.
Again, before anyone bitches and whines about the fact that paid parental leave is not mandatory, you should first sit down and think about how lucky you are to be able to have your own children. There's a lot of us who can't and we would happily forfeit financial support just for the gift of being able to have children without having our entire life scrutinised by government departments who have the power to dictate our suitability as parents. Especially considering nobody is doing a door knock to determine just how many losers can spit out a kid who will be raised in daycare with very little parental guidance just so Mum and Dad can go back to work and prioritise financial wealth over family health.
And yes, the Green Left Weekly article was written by a woman.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Bill O'reilly - loser extraordinaire
I've just been exposed to what is possibly the oldest infant in the world. You know how it is when a kid decides to argue you with you and throw a tantrum because you refuse to concede defeat to it's screaming and shouting over you? Try observing that in the form of a 70 year old man.
Bill O'Reilly, who I'd never previously heard of hosts his own lunchbox on some cable channel called "The O'Reilly Factor". They should change the name to "Wind Factor" because that's what he gave me by polluting my world with his redneck opinions. And I do mean REDNECK. Here is a man who will without shame, yet without openly saying the words, give the unmistakable impression that he's a racist with a heart of....scratch that. Seriously, you have to check this guy out. He is losing his mind progressively in the international media. So bad is he that even 50 Cent had something to say. I can't tell you what it was though, let's face it, who can understand anything 50 says?
O'Reilly is crawling so far up the Bush Administrations ass that he's lost in a void only equalled by his own ignorance. Anyone would think he's trying to ingratiate himself into a position as Bush's left testicle. Now, far be it for me to criticise the US invasion (sorry...PRESENCE) in Iraq but I would think that Bush in his current position where he really should be trying to win the support of the constituents should really have this dickhead O'Reilly silenced because he does more harm for the cause than good. So much harm in fact that if ignorance, stupidity and childishness were ammunition he could level Iraq and still have some leftover to make the US Army run for cover.
Here's how it went.
First, he took on Phil Donoghue, talk show host and advocate for pulling troops out of Iraq. Phil makes some very good points during the argument but it's Bills reaction that really makes you sit up and take notice. Remember that temper tantrum I mentioned? Phil asked Bill "Would you send your child to die in a war (that's unconsitutional)?" Bill replied "My nephew just enlisted..." to which Phil replied "Well, that's not your kid." Well didn't Bill spit the dummy. Honestly, it was like watching a drag queen lose his mind when someone calls him "he". The finger pointing started, the raised voice, the talking over his opponent, the reach for the reinforced stiletto....no hang on...(that didn't happen but it might as well have).
Next, it was Jeremy Glick whose father had died in the attacks of September 11. Jeremy is an advocate for removing troops from Iraq and Bill went on to shout his criticisms on Jeremy's position. Jeremy pointed out that it wasn't the Iraqi's who killed his father, it was Al-Qaeda to which Bill almost jumped out of his chair, excitement getting the better of him because here was yet another opportunity for him to rant his racist preachings "what do you mean Iraqi's didn't kill your father? They are Al-Qaeda".
To apply that theory on a global and historical scale, you would have to believe that all white Australians are responsible for the genocidal practices of their forebears trying to eliminate the indigenous population. Same would apply to white americans for the disintegration of the native american population and on it goes. In fact, you'd have to believe that every white man everywhere is responsible for the decline of indigenous populations globally if you follow O'Reilly's train of thought. O'Reilly, showing gay abandon with his contempt and disrespect for anyone who disagrees with his militant position on .....everything...then goes to the most childish extreme I have ever seen of any talk show host. Directed at the sound technician and referring to Jeremy he says "Cut his mic(rophone). Cut his mic."
Two words O'Reilly...GROW UP. If you can't take the heat bitch, don't open the kitchen.
As if this wasn't embarassing enough, there's the episode where he has to use the same approach to defend himself against the piss funny and very valid criticisms directed at him from a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT who wasn't going to take O'Reilly's hypocrisy without a fight. On the topic of why the school administration allowed guests to lecture to students about the perils of drugs, drinking and indiscriminate sexual activity, student Jesse challenged the big O's mis-quote of one of the guests comments by saying "Bill, in your book - 'The O'Reilly Factor For Kids' you describe being a uni student with a joint" or words of a smiliar nature. Again, poor Bill got the shits and cut the kid off. First question should be: Who the hell would let their kid read this bastards books????
Yet another guest on BO's show was challenged on his beliefs that army officers educate young adults about the realities of army life, including what it's like to see active duty, suffer war injuries and PTS disorder. Seems BO is all for the army going on a recruitment campaign in american schools. As "Career Day" as it sounds, the reality is that the very act of "recruiting" youth to enlist is as bad as the appoach adopted by the Iraqi's and every other culture that furnishes their youngsters with weapons ie: when they're born you stick a bottle in their mouth and a gun in their hands. The difference is you can't legally shoot people on behalf of the US Army or the Allied forces until you're 18 years old. You can't legally drink in the states until you're 21 but if you want to go out and blow someones head off you can do so with the blessings of the nation long before you are old enough to die a "man".
There are so many ridiculous Bill O'Reilly clips on YouTube that you are really spoilt for choice in the "Stupid things said and done by stupid people" stakes.
As many times I've thought, heard and typed the name "Bill O'Reilly" I still don't know where "KKK" fits into the name.
For some brief info about the loser, check out this Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O
Happy cross-burning Bill! I'm sure you'd make your clansmen Grandaddys proud!
P.S. COMPLETELY accidental that this post was created Sept 11
Bill O'Reilly, who I'd never previously heard of hosts his own lunchbox on some cable channel called "The O'Reilly Factor". They should change the name to "Wind Factor" because that's what he gave me by polluting my world with his redneck opinions. And I do mean REDNECK. Here is a man who will without shame, yet without openly saying the words, give the unmistakable impression that he's a racist with a heart of....scratch that. Seriously, you have to check this guy out. He is losing his mind progressively in the international media. So bad is he that even 50 Cent had something to say. I can't tell you what it was though, let's face it, who can understand anything 50 says?
O'Reilly is crawling so far up the Bush Administrations ass that he's lost in a void only equalled by his own ignorance. Anyone would think he's trying to ingratiate himself into a position as Bush's left testicle. Now, far be it for me to criticise the US invasion (sorry...PRESENCE) in Iraq but I would think that Bush in his current position where he really should be trying to win the support of the constituents should really have this dickhead O'Reilly silenced because he does more harm for the cause than good. So much harm in fact that if ignorance, stupidity and childishness were ammunition he could level Iraq and still have some leftover to make the US Army run for cover.
Here's how it went.
First, he took on Phil Donoghue, talk show host and advocate for pulling troops out of Iraq. Phil makes some very good points during the argument but it's Bills reaction that really makes you sit up and take notice. Remember that temper tantrum I mentioned? Phil asked Bill "Would you send your child to die in a war (that's unconsitutional)?" Bill replied "My nephew just enlisted..." to which Phil replied "Well, that's not your kid." Well didn't Bill spit the dummy. Honestly, it was like watching a drag queen lose his mind when someone calls him "he". The finger pointing started, the raised voice, the talking over his opponent, the reach for the reinforced stiletto....no hang on...(that didn't happen but it might as well have).
Next, it was Jeremy Glick whose father had died in the attacks of September 11. Jeremy is an advocate for removing troops from Iraq and Bill went on to shout his criticisms on Jeremy's position. Jeremy pointed out that it wasn't the Iraqi's who killed his father, it was Al-Qaeda to which Bill almost jumped out of his chair, excitement getting the better of him because here was yet another opportunity for him to rant his racist preachings "what do you mean Iraqi's didn't kill your father? They are Al-Qaeda".
To apply that theory on a global and historical scale, you would have to believe that all white Australians are responsible for the genocidal practices of their forebears trying to eliminate the indigenous population. Same would apply to white americans for the disintegration of the native american population and on it goes. In fact, you'd have to believe that every white man everywhere is responsible for the decline of indigenous populations globally if you follow O'Reilly's train of thought. O'Reilly, showing gay abandon with his contempt and disrespect for anyone who disagrees with his militant position on .....everything...then goes to the most childish extreme I have ever seen of any talk show host. Directed at the sound technician and referring to Jeremy he says "Cut his mic(rophone). Cut his mic."
Two words O'Reilly...GROW UP. If you can't take the heat bitch, don't open the kitchen.
As if this wasn't embarassing enough, there's the episode where he has to use the same approach to defend himself against the piss funny and very valid criticisms directed at him from a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT who wasn't going to take O'Reilly's hypocrisy without a fight. On the topic of why the school administration allowed guests to lecture to students about the perils of drugs, drinking and indiscriminate sexual activity, student Jesse challenged the big O's mis-quote of one of the guests comments by saying "Bill, in your book - 'The O'Reilly Factor For Kids' you describe being a uni student with a joint" or words of a smiliar nature. Again, poor Bill got the shits and cut the kid off. First question should be: Who the hell would let their kid read this bastards books????
Yet another guest on BO's show was challenged on his beliefs that army officers educate young adults about the realities of army life, including what it's like to see active duty, suffer war injuries and PTS disorder. Seems BO is all for the army going on a recruitment campaign in american schools. As "Career Day" as it sounds, the reality is that the very act of "recruiting" youth to enlist is as bad as the appoach adopted by the Iraqi's and every other culture that furnishes their youngsters with weapons ie: when they're born you stick a bottle in their mouth and a gun in their hands. The difference is you can't legally shoot people on behalf of the US Army or the Allied forces until you're 18 years old. You can't legally drink in the states until you're 21 but if you want to go out and blow someones head off you can do so with the blessings of the nation long before you are old enough to die a "man".
There are so many ridiculous Bill O'Reilly clips on YouTube that you are really spoilt for choice in the "Stupid things said and done by stupid people" stakes.
As many times I've thought, heard and typed the name "Bill O'Reilly" I still don't know where "KKK" fits into the name.
For some brief info about the loser, check out this Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O
Happy cross-burning Bill! I'm sure you'd make your clansmen Grandaddys proud!
P.S. COMPLETELY accidental that this post was created Sept 11
Friday, September 5, 2008
After birth
We came across the strangest thing today at work. It may not seem so strange to a lot of people but I learnt far more from it than I ever wanted to.
Placenta. Until now I thought it was really only good for throwing in a ditch and growing plants on top. Or milking it for all it's disease treating value. As it turns out, not only is it good for keeping a fetus alive, but it's damn good eating too!
My manager is leaving to have a baby and somehow we ended up using Google to find out what other uses there are for placentas. Lo and behold I stumbled upon a website that not only gives you a recent history of the uses of the placenta but....wait for it....it gives you.....it's coming...
RECIPES!
I know, right? Who'd have thought. I must be further behind the 8-ball than I thought. Seriously, Placenta lasagne? Placenta meatball spaghetti? Placenta Pizza???
Forgive my astonishment and forgive me if I sound like I'm criticising, but I just never realised the placenta could be so versatile. When I first heard about the planting thing, I thought that was ok. You know, a nice little garden with a specific tree marking a place to reflect the miracle of birth and the trials and tribulations of having a child. Watching that tree grow year to year and bathing in the memories the tree ignites, celebrating birthdays with the family under the tree. Beautiful.
HOWEVER... sitting down to your 21st birthday party for a meal of Roast Placenta and eggplant. Aha.
So, in order to avoid sounding more offended by the possibilities than I actually am I thought I'd include the link to the website containing the recipes. The owner of the site has done a great job in explaining the uses of placenta and including a lot of other information (including the use of dried placenta in capsule form to alleviate post natal depression) that can certainly clarify the misunderstandings people like me have.
Happy reading.....
http://www.geocities.com/virtualbirth/placenta.html
Placenta. Until now I thought it was really only good for throwing in a ditch and growing plants on top. Or milking it for all it's disease treating value. As it turns out, not only is it good for keeping a fetus alive, but it's damn good eating too!
My manager is leaving to have a baby and somehow we ended up using Google to find out what other uses there are for placentas. Lo and behold I stumbled upon a website that not only gives you a recent history of the uses of the placenta but....wait for it....it gives you.....it's coming...
RECIPES!
I know, right? Who'd have thought. I must be further behind the 8-ball than I thought. Seriously, Placenta lasagne? Placenta meatball spaghetti? Placenta Pizza???
Forgive my astonishment and forgive me if I sound like I'm criticising, but I just never realised the placenta could be so versatile. When I first heard about the planting thing, I thought that was ok. You know, a nice little garden with a specific tree marking a place to reflect the miracle of birth and the trials and tribulations of having a child. Watching that tree grow year to year and bathing in the memories the tree ignites, celebrating birthdays with the family under the tree. Beautiful.
HOWEVER... sitting down to your 21st birthday party for a meal of Roast Placenta and eggplant. Aha.
So, in order to avoid sounding more offended by the possibilities than I actually am I thought I'd include the link to the website containing the recipes. The owner of the site has done a great job in explaining the uses of placenta and including a lot of other information (including the use of dried placenta in capsule form to alleviate post natal depression) that can certainly clarify the misunderstandings people like me have.
Happy reading.....
http://www.geocities.com/virtualbirth/placenta.html
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Iguanagate
So, belinda Neal and John Della Bosca escape criminal charges for their beautiful display of a power-tripping couple hell bent on flexing their muscle and intimidating people to get what they want. Beautiful.
The NSW Department of Police has decided (not without some persuasion I'd guess) that there isn't enough evidence to convict the pair of ferals. Funny that, partly because "the statements provided by the couples' dinner companions conflicts with the statements provided by the alleged victims" D'UH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ofcourse it conflicted. Their dinner companions were FRIENDS of the couple.
The background of this story is that Labor MP's Belinda Neal and her crotch...I mean husband, John Della Bosca verbally harassed and physically threatened staff at a restaurant because they couldn't have everything their own way. After refusals from staff to cave in to their demands, the couple apparently went on a verbal rampage and tried physical intimidation to get their way. Police were called and an "investigation" was undertaken. Now the police have obviously decided to sweep it under the carpet.
Belinda Neal stated today that she has "been vindicated". Vindicated? Vindication occurs ONLY when it is PROVEN that you are innocent of an accusation, not because the police couldn't be bothered looking for more evidence to prove your guilt. What a scrubber (and seriously, if you've seen her you'll know she really is....rough life obviously).
So the only thing that has come out of the whole thing is that Ms Neal was ordered to undergo counselling to address a "pattern of unacceptable behaviour" which I find interesting. If a politician is repeatedly engaging in unacceptable behaviour, wouldn't you just dismiss them? Counselling wasn't going to get Bill Clinton any grace. Larry Craig didn't get the option of counselling to save his career. But I guess that's one of the things that makes Australia a lucky country. Y ou can be in a position of power, abuse that power by carrying on llike a complete dickhead and not only keep your job, but probably get a salary increase too. In fact, PM Rudd will probably give all his staff a raise just to celebrate another successful screwing over of the voting public who rightly expect Neal's dismissal.
Not that we can be surprised at all by the way the police actually do anything. Take Qld Police for example. They are led by a woman who, as a high school teacher, engaged in acts of assault on students. I should know, I was on the receiving end of one of her backhanders. Deputy-Principal (and the day I complained he had obviously consumed a few of those....or maybe it was the rum I saw him shovelling back into the drawer when I walked in to make my complaint) ofcourse was too much of a pussy to act on my complaint but told me later the "situation had been dealt with", possibly counselling for a pattern of unacceptable behaviour? Rest assured, I remember every second of that event, every word that came out of it's twisted, wrinkled mouth and the look in it's eye when it smacked me upside the head.
But the point is, that's the sort of person this country's government chooses to have leading it's people and directing it's services. The same woman, who years later was accused of using her position as Minister for Police to bully and intimidate tenants (apparently several police officers turned up at the property to intimidate the tenant) from her rental property after they had lodged complaints about her breaching her responsibilities as a landlord. That was another investigation that resulted in the complaint being dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Which was the real abuse of power? Sending her minions to threaten the enemy or ensuring that an investigation into the allegation revealed nothing incriminating?
Obviously this is not the first time a politician's shady behaviour has been taken lightly and it sure as shit won't be the last. But thanks Rudd. Thanks for proving yet again what a spineless pussy you really are. Just once, I'd like to see a Prime Minister who thinks it's better to lead the country than it is to bend us over a barrel and act out some homo-erotic fantasy.
The NSW Department of Police has decided (not without some persuasion I'd guess) that there isn't enough evidence to convict the pair of ferals. Funny that, partly because "the statements provided by the couples' dinner companions conflicts with the statements provided by the alleged victims" D'UH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ofcourse it conflicted. Their dinner companions were FRIENDS of the couple.
The background of this story is that Labor MP's Belinda Neal and her crotch...I mean husband, John Della Bosca verbally harassed and physically threatened staff at a restaurant because they couldn't have everything their own way. After refusals from staff to cave in to their demands, the couple apparently went on a verbal rampage and tried physical intimidation to get their way. Police were called and an "investigation" was undertaken. Now the police have obviously decided to sweep it under the carpet.
Belinda Neal stated today that she has "been vindicated". Vindicated? Vindication occurs ONLY when it is PROVEN that you are innocent of an accusation, not because the police couldn't be bothered looking for more evidence to prove your guilt. What a scrubber (and seriously, if you've seen her you'll know she really is....rough life obviously).
So the only thing that has come out of the whole thing is that Ms Neal was ordered to undergo counselling to address a "pattern of unacceptable behaviour" which I find interesting. If a politician is repeatedly engaging in unacceptable behaviour, wouldn't you just dismiss them? Counselling wasn't going to get Bill Clinton any grace. Larry Craig didn't get the option of counselling to save his career. But I guess that's one of the things that makes Australia a lucky country. Y ou can be in a position of power, abuse that power by carrying on llike a complete dickhead and not only keep your job, but probably get a salary increase too. In fact, PM Rudd will probably give all his staff a raise just to celebrate another successful screwing over of the voting public who rightly expect Neal's dismissal.
Not that we can be surprised at all by the way the police actually do anything. Take Qld Police for example. They are led by a woman who, as a high school teacher, engaged in acts of assault on students. I should know, I was on the receiving end of one of her backhanders. Deputy-Principal (and the day I complained he had obviously consumed a few of those....or maybe it was the rum I saw him shovelling back into the drawer when I walked in to make my complaint) ofcourse was too much of a pussy to act on my complaint but told me later the "situation had been dealt with", possibly counselling for a pattern of unacceptable behaviour? Rest assured, I remember every second of that event, every word that came out of it's twisted, wrinkled mouth and the look in it's eye when it smacked me upside the head.
But the point is, that's the sort of person this country's government chooses to have leading it's people and directing it's services. The same woman, who years later was accused of using her position as Minister for Police to bully and intimidate tenants (apparently several police officers turned up at the property to intimidate the tenant) from her rental property after they had lodged complaints about her breaching her responsibilities as a landlord. That was another investigation that resulted in the complaint being dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Which was the real abuse of power? Sending her minions to threaten the enemy or ensuring that an investigation into the allegation revealed nothing incriminating?
Obviously this is not the first time a politician's shady behaviour has been taken lightly and it sure as shit won't be the last. But thanks Rudd. Thanks for proving yet again what a spineless pussy you really are. Just once, I'd like to see a Prime Minister who thinks it's better to lead the country than it is to bend us over a barrel and act out some homo-erotic fantasy.
Sized up
This blog is going to sound brutal so I'll start by saying I'm not a fat hater. On the contrary, with my interest to work in the area of Health I am quite sympathetic and supportive, though I sound more boot camp than I intend to.
Size acceptance and fat acceptance groups. Hmmm. I just think it's a lot easier to ask for acceptance than it is to change yourself.
As far as being fat goes, I fully understand that a lot of people do have medical conditions that prevent them from losing weight or being a manageable size. I take issue however with people who are too lazy and susceptible to temptation to actually do anything about it. If you're happy being fat, go for your life. Don't, however, bitch and whine because people stare at you or make fun of you. Don't complain when someone criticises you. And sure as shit don't get on public transport if you can't fit in the seats.
Again, I'm not a fat hater but when I catch the bus I expect for my $3.20 to be able to sit in a seat and not have to share it with the left cheek of someone whose right cheek is in the aisle and the seat itself only supports the gaping chasm between the two. It's bad enough to be sharing space in that situation and maintaining a polite demeanour every time the bus hits a pothole and I suffer the ripple effect from the lard ass next to me but add to it the smell that more often than not eminates from the folds of skin and you'd better have a very thick skin or be in a hurry to get off at the next stop because with that combination I'm likely to develop a sudden allergy to diplomacy.
It's true, I don't always understand why a person's fat or how they can live that way, but you know, there's ways to deal with it and screaming at the rest of us to understand you is not one of those ways. For me to understand your situation and allow you to make excuses would make me an enabler to your problem which then leaves me to deal with my conscience when in five years your heart gives out on you or a blood clot takes your life or your lungs collapse in your sleep or your stomach ulcer bursts.
As harsh as I am sounding, I do understand one thing. And that is the amount of work and patience required to overcome the problem the worse it gets or the longer it's been left unaddressed. I still struggle on occasion to get exercise or walk the dogs or whatever. But the beauty oif having started an exercise routine is that now I rely on it. That exercise took the place of other things I NEEDED every day.
It's hard to get started but it's easy to stay motivated. I've included some links below for anyone who wants to get started. I've not used them myself but I thought it might help.
http://www.google.com/Top/Health/Weight_Loss/Support_Groups/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Weight_Issues/Weight_Loss/Support_Groups/
http://mydietbuddy.com/
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-ghdiet
http://www.obesitydiscussion.com/forums/weight-loss-support-groups/
Size acceptance and fat acceptance groups. Hmmm. I just think it's a lot easier to ask for acceptance than it is to change yourself.
As far as being fat goes, I fully understand that a lot of people do have medical conditions that prevent them from losing weight or being a manageable size. I take issue however with people who are too lazy and susceptible to temptation to actually do anything about it. If you're happy being fat, go for your life. Don't, however, bitch and whine because people stare at you or make fun of you. Don't complain when someone criticises you. And sure as shit don't get on public transport if you can't fit in the seats.
Again, I'm not a fat hater but when I catch the bus I expect for my $3.20 to be able to sit in a seat and not have to share it with the left cheek of someone whose right cheek is in the aisle and the seat itself only supports the gaping chasm between the two. It's bad enough to be sharing space in that situation and maintaining a polite demeanour every time the bus hits a pothole and I suffer the ripple effect from the lard ass next to me but add to it the smell that more often than not eminates from the folds of skin and you'd better have a very thick skin or be in a hurry to get off at the next stop because with that combination I'm likely to develop a sudden allergy to diplomacy.
It's true, I don't always understand why a person's fat or how they can live that way, but you know, there's ways to deal with it and screaming at the rest of us to understand you is not one of those ways. For me to understand your situation and allow you to make excuses would make me an enabler to your problem which then leaves me to deal with my conscience when in five years your heart gives out on you or a blood clot takes your life or your lungs collapse in your sleep or your stomach ulcer bursts.
As harsh as I am sounding, I do understand one thing. And that is the amount of work and patience required to overcome the problem the worse it gets or the longer it's been left unaddressed. I still struggle on occasion to get exercise or walk the dogs or whatever. But the beauty oif having started an exercise routine is that now I rely on it. That exercise took the place of other things I NEEDED every day.
It's hard to get started but it's easy to stay motivated. I've included some links below for anyone who wants to get started. I've not used them myself but I thought it might help.
http://www.google.com/Top/Health/Weight_Loss/Support_Groups/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Weight_Issues/Weight_Loss/Support_Groups/
http://mydietbuddy.com/
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-ghdiet
http://www.obesitydiscussion.com/forums/weight-loss-support-groups/
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Gordon Ramsay
So I'm in line at the servo (gas station) last night waiting to pay for my fuel and I spot the magazine stand. It's bad enough that there are so many publications catering to the bored housewfie contingent but seriously, how smart a move was it to put Gordon Ramsay on the cover? FFS, it's a chef with a foul mouth. Hasn't everyone eaten at a restaurant where the chef peppers his language as much as we pepper his crap food?
Yes, I say crap food. Gordon, like every chef, is of the opinion that the food he bashes together in such a way that it looks better than it tastes, tastes better than it looks and that apparently is better than every other chef's work.
Gordon....master dipshit.... you may never read this but it's my only chance to publicly state what I'd like you to know. You're a cock head. I'd throw further insults but at the end of the day, what more needs to be said?
Back to my point. There's bigger things going on in the world than whatever the hell that story was about. could he really be so interesting as to grace the cover of a tabloid? Apparently, if you believe that his existence is somehow far more important than real issues. Don't we live in a world where poverty, starvation and disease affects more than a third of the world population? Whatever the statistics, apparently it's more important to report on some demi-celebrity's stereo-typical mid-life-crisis relationship or purchase of an extravagent weekender mansion or a Paris Hilton style life of indulgent excess.
Why we give people like Moron Ramsay a platform for his ridiculous existence is beyond me.
Yes, I say crap food. Gordon, like every chef, is of the opinion that the food he bashes together in such a way that it looks better than it tastes, tastes better than it looks and that apparently is better than every other chef's work.
Gordon....master dipshit.... you may never read this but it's my only chance to publicly state what I'd like you to know. You're a cock head. I'd throw further insults but at the end of the day, what more needs to be said?
Back to my point. There's bigger things going on in the world than whatever the hell that story was about. could he really be so interesting as to grace the cover of a tabloid? Apparently, if you believe that his existence is somehow far more important than real issues. Don't we live in a world where poverty, starvation and disease affects more than a third of the world population? Whatever the statistics, apparently it's more important to report on some demi-celebrity's stereo-typical mid-life-crisis relationship or purchase of an extravagent weekender mansion or a Paris Hilton style life of indulgent excess.
Why we give people like Moron Ramsay a platform for his ridiculous existence is beyond me.
Telstra
We all know telecommunications giants are assholes but I have to vent about Telstra.
When I paid the bulk of my last bill, Telstra duly sent out a reminder for the balance and the date by which it should be paid. So off I go and pay the outstanding balance and like a good soldier I ring Telstra to report the payment, thus ensuring my service would continue.
Two days later, arriving home from work, I switch on the TV looking to catch the afternoon episode of my girlfriend Buffy in all her ball busting glory only to find someone has busted my balls! "This smartcard is not authorised". WTF??? I can't believe it. So I figure I should ring them and find out why they have disconnected my Foxtel. "The number you are calling from is currently disconnected" the scragg recorded voice teases down the line like a spoilt brat in the schoolyard taking the piss out of the kid whose parents send him to school with a packed lunch because they can't afford canteen poison every day.
As is that wasn't bad enough, I seized upon my pre-paid mobile phone to call the "customer service" centre 13 22 double-Ho. The friendly automated voice directed me over the course of several minutes to the correct queue, only to tell me at the end that OOPS! Our customer service centre is only manned between 8am and 6pm and to call again during those hours.
So, the weekend was spent with three very bored kids in the house who had been looking forward to the usual ordering of a movie on a Friday night and staying up late. It also meant that if anything put them at risk of danger, my options for making contact with any emergency services were at the mercy of the temperamental reception on my mobile phone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making the full payment should then eliminate the need to disconnect a service, should it not? Apparently that logic is lost on Telstra. Although I suspect it has more to do with the amount of profit which is generated by the subsequent application of a reconnection fee every time they do that to a customer. This profit lines the pockets of the shareholders, who then vote to keep assholes like Sol Trujillo as the overpaid corporate prostitute who gets to bend me over the barrell and screw me royally while my back's turned.
Thanks Telstra, thanks Sol and thanks shareholders. Your self serving greed may be lining your pockets now, but wait until more people jump ship and transfer their services to Optus, AAPT and any other welcome competitors. I'm looking forward to your share prices falling out of your asses. I'm looking forward to the competition being so aggressive that your call and service charges are reduced to the absolute minimum and affect the returns due your shareholders. I'm REALLY looking forward to the sort of recession that sees Telstra shareholders and corporate cockheads seeking counselling because all their assets exist within Telstra shares.
I actually considered approaching the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to lodge a formal complaint but I think it's pretty safe to assume that the ACCC is on Telstra's payroll given their recent track record in protecting the rights of consumers.
When I paid the bulk of my last bill, Telstra duly sent out a reminder for the balance and the date by which it should be paid. So off I go and pay the outstanding balance and like a good soldier I ring Telstra to report the payment, thus ensuring my service would continue.
Two days later, arriving home from work, I switch on the TV looking to catch the afternoon episode of my girlfriend Buffy in all her ball busting glory only to find someone has busted my balls! "This smartcard is not authorised". WTF??? I can't believe it. So I figure I should ring them and find out why they have disconnected my Foxtel. "The number you are calling from is currently disconnected" the scragg recorded voice teases down the line like a spoilt brat in the schoolyard taking the piss out of the kid whose parents send him to school with a packed lunch because they can't afford canteen poison every day.
As is that wasn't bad enough, I seized upon my pre-paid mobile phone to call the "customer service" centre 13 22 double-Ho. The friendly automated voice directed me over the course of several minutes to the correct queue, only to tell me at the end that OOPS! Our customer service centre is only manned between 8am and 6pm and to call again during those hours.
So, the weekend was spent with three very bored kids in the house who had been looking forward to the usual ordering of a movie on a Friday night and staying up late. It also meant that if anything put them at risk of danger, my options for making contact with any emergency services were at the mercy of the temperamental reception on my mobile phone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but making the full payment should then eliminate the need to disconnect a service, should it not? Apparently that logic is lost on Telstra. Although I suspect it has more to do with the amount of profit which is generated by the subsequent application of a reconnection fee every time they do that to a customer. This profit lines the pockets of the shareholders, who then vote to keep assholes like Sol Trujillo as the overpaid corporate prostitute who gets to bend me over the barrell and screw me royally while my back's turned.
Thanks Telstra, thanks Sol and thanks shareholders. Your self serving greed may be lining your pockets now, but wait until more people jump ship and transfer their services to Optus, AAPT and any other welcome competitors. I'm looking forward to your share prices falling out of your asses. I'm looking forward to the competition being so aggressive that your call and service charges are reduced to the absolute minimum and affect the returns due your shareholders. I'm REALLY looking forward to the sort of recession that sees Telstra shareholders and corporate cockheads seeking counselling because all their assets exist within Telstra shares.
I actually considered approaching the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to lodge a formal complaint but I think it's pretty safe to assume that the ACCC is on Telstra's payroll given their recent track record in protecting the rights of consumers.
F*** you
Many might have heard by now of the 5 year old New South Wales student who, after swearing at school, was made to write a note whilst in "time out" to his parents about why he was in trouble.
His mother appeared on current affairs program "Today Tonight" to talk about the events. Among other things, she is of the opinion that 25 minutes in time out is "too much", her child is apparently now experiencing increased insecurity and the school hasn't bothered to offer counselling. As if that isn't bad enough, the father has stated to other media outlets that the boy is now traumatised and suffering nightmares.
WHAT THE FUCK?? (Sorry Mum, I should put myself in time out for saying FUCK on the internet).
Counselling? Sweetheart, if you think your inability to teach your child right from wrong entitles you to state funded counselling, it's easy to see why your kid is on the path to trailer-trash-heaven. I can also see him hitting puberty with a massive chip on his shoulder as carved by your ridiculous excuses that any emotional issues he has are a result of his teacher making him only too aware that his behaviour is unacceptable. And as for his insecurities, if he had any susceptibility to insecurity he wouldn't be blatantly throwing the F word around in the first place.
What you need to do, is stop expecting everybody else to raise your child. If you want him to be sheltered from that sort of attention maybe you should spend more time as a hands on parent. Teachers are there to TEACH. While any kid is within the educational facilities operational hours and environment, a teachers role extends beyond the academic. It's a profession that requires it's army to be teacher, parent, counsellor, guardian and all things responsible. Clearly, if you think your brat doesn't need someone to monitor his behaviour you're not paying enough attention to him at home otherwise you'd have known he likes a little pepper in his vocabulary.
What the hell is wrong with parents? We've got people like Hetty Johnston and the Bravehearts foundation to thank for the fact that parents can no longer raise and discipline their children in such a manner that ensures the development of productive members of society. For too long we've had these children's rights "campaigners" (ie: shit stirrers) bleeting about the protection of children, so much in fact that they are now protected from their own parents. Once upon a time the general community had the reasonable expectation that most kids would be raised to be productive and respectful.
Instead, what we have (thanks to Hetty and her gaggle of politically correct hyper sensitive sooky-la-la's) is a generation of kids who will say FUCK YOU in the face of discipline. They will say FUCK YOU to the aged pensioner trying to live a peaceful existence next door because they can't differentiate between being contributing members to society and being just plain dickheads. We have children who launch pack attacks on complete strangers minding their own business, gangs of kids roaming train stations, bus shelters and all manner of public space terrorising passers-by, muggin defenceless citizens, bashing people so relentlessly that a coma and a steel plate in the head is a common outcome.
Children's RIGHTS have over-taken the right of the community to expect to be treated with the same sort of respect we were taught to deliver before Hetty and Co. decided to go public and espouse the importance of "children's rights" which have been miscommunicated to such an extent that those rights supersede said community expectations.
When I was a kid and I actually wrote a series of expletives about an annoying baby brother, not only was I shamed beyond my imagination but that look my mother could give, but I was also given a bloody good hiding in a day and age when neighbours hearing my mother say in a no bullshit way "Wait until your father gets home" would laugh as opposed to the current penchant for picking up the phone and calling the police and the Department of Children's Services upon hearing the same words.
Discipline, people, does not mean a child is about to have his ass covered in welts from a probably well deserved flogging. It also does not mean a child is about to be molested, raped, murdered or neglected. DISCIPLINE means a capable adult, parent or guardian is trying to instill a moral code in a child by way of cause and effect that can't be achieved by talking to that child like he's a 40 year old man being lectured about profanities in church not being acceptable behaviour.
Children can't distinguish between right and wrong purely by hearing what the potential consequences are. Sometimes, they just need to feel the consequences.
So come on Hetty, come bend over my knee so I can show you the consequences of your actions which have deprived the rights of parents to, well.....PARENT.
His mother appeared on current affairs program "Today Tonight" to talk about the events. Among other things, she is of the opinion that 25 minutes in time out is "too much", her child is apparently now experiencing increased insecurity and the school hasn't bothered to offer counselling. As if that isn't bad enough, the father has stated to other media outlets that the boy is now traumatised and suffering nightmares.
WHAT THE FUCK?? (Sorry Mum, I should put myself in time out for saying FUCK on the internet).
Counselling? Sweetheart, if you think your inability to teach your child right from wrong entitles you to state funded counselling, it's easy to see why your kid is on the path to trailer-trash-heaven. I can also see him hitting puberty with a massive chip on his shoulder as carved by your ridiculous excuses that any emotional issues he has are a result of his teacher making him only too aware that his behaviour is unacceptable. And as for his insecurities, if he had any susceptibility to insecurity he wouldn't be blatantly throwing the F word around in the first place.
What you need to do, is stop expecting everybody else to raise your child. If you want him to be sheltered from that sort of attention maybe you should spend more time as a hands on parent. Teachers are there to TEACH. While any kid is within the educational facilities operational hours and environment, a teachers role extends beyond the academic. It's a profession that requires it's army to be teacher, parent, counsellor, guardian and all things responsible. Clearly, if you think your brat doesn't need someone to monitor his behaviour you're not paying enough attention to him at home otherwise you'd have known he likes a little pepper in his vocabulary.
What the hell is wrong with parents? We've got people like Hetty Johnston and the Bravehearts foundation to thank for the fact that parents can no longer raise and discipline their children in such a manner that ensures the development of productive members of society. For too long we've had these children's rights "campaigners" (ie: shit stirrers) bleeting about the protection of children, so much in fact that they are now protected from their own parents. Once upon a time the general community had the reasonable expectation that most kids would be raised to be productive and respectful.
Instead, what we have (thanks to Hetty and her gaggle of politically correct hyper sensitive sooky-la-la's) is a generation of kids who will say FUCK YOU in the face of discipline. They will say FUCK YOU to the aged pensioner trying to live a peaceful existence next door because they can't differentiate between being contributing members to society and being just plain dickheads. We have children who launch pack attacks on complete strangers minding their own business, gangs of kids roaming train stations, bus shelters and all manner of public space terrorising passers-by, muggin defenceless citizens, bashing people so relentlessly that a coma and a steel plate in the head is a common outcome.
Children's RIGHTS have over-taken the right of the community to expect to be treated with the same sort of respect we were taught to deliver before Hetty and Co. decided to go public and espouse the importance of "children's rights" which have been miscommunicated to such an extent that those rights supersede said community expectations.
When I was a kid and I actually wrote a series of expletives about an annoying baby brother, not only was I shamed beyond my imagination but that look my mother could give, but I was also given a bloody good hiding in a day and age when neighbours hearing my mother say in a no bullshit way "Wait until your father gets home" would laugh as opposed to the current penchant for picking up the phone and calling the police and the Department of Children's Services upon hearing the same words.
Discipline, people, does not mean a child is about to have his ass covered in welts from a probably well deserved flogging. It also does not mean a child is about to be molested, raped, murdered or neglected. DISCIPLINE means a capable adult, parent or guardian is trying to instill a moral code in a child by way of cause and effect that can't be achieved by talking to that child like he's a 40 year old man being lectured about profanities in church not being acceptable behaviour.
Children can't distinguish between right and wrong purely by hearing what the potential consequences are. Sometimes, they just need to feel the consequences.
So come on Hetty, come bend over my knee so I can show you the consequences of your actions which have deprived the rights of parents to, well.....PARENT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
