Thursday, September 30, 2004

damn... that little bugger is everywhere now

ever feel 'the need'? need to discourage the feel and need something that feels like a discouragement?

meet the "baby jesus thong".

no-one is going to go down there while you wear this bad boy (or girl).

vote this asshole off the island

you've got to admit that peters is a survivor. but you also have to assume that anyone with this degree of bile has to be caught out and removed as a danger to everyone. his latest call to scrap the waitangi tribunal is yet another pauline hanson-style use of ethnicity to wedge the electorate and bolster his redneck vote.
in political science these people are called "ethnic outbidders". another example is speight in fiji. what this means is that they use ethnicity as a bargaining chip and makes outrageous claims that can only be countered with even stronger claims. hence the outbidding. the problem with this type of divisive politics is that it is expressly intended to inflame emotions. emotions that cannot be easily wound down.
once again, the statements he makes are simply ridiculous. sure, some claims to the tribunal are without any real merit and lodged by fools or the just plain greedy. but the tribunal has also delivered some of the most important advances in new zealand society made since 1975.
the problem is that 'luigi' peters has this view of new zealand where people like him don't have to pretend to be different ethnicities to escape detraction from mainstream rednecks. by making everyone mainstream you can avoid this problem.
what he doesn't seem to realise though is that by putting down maori he's effectively making things worse for them. essentially, peters prefers 1957 to 1975. he wants a homogenised, plain country without diversity, and doesn't care if that means maori society and culture fall by the wayside.
look, someone has to get rid of this guy. any suggestions to have him not returned in tauranga next election? i'm from there and would love to hear it. maybe we can rally the troops.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

civilisational clash

i've been thinking more and more about this civlisation clash thing, and i reckon it could be the 'next big thing to avoid'. no really. the last thing we need as a group of nation-states is to be trying to kick each other asses just because xenophobia dictates that we do and don't like each other.
i mean, it's a bit school-yard don't you think? "today we won't like mustapha because his dad wears a dress". i always thought those kids who called the asian guy 'chingee-chongee china-man' were assholes.
so what's the difference between those kids and some office-bound retard like huntingdon who considers the next big thing to be having to kick some muslim ass? probably that the kids have a social circle.
the thing about the huntingdon thesis, and the reason so many contemporary academics reacted so strongly against it were two-fold. firstly, he was getting real famous, and jealously is one of the most powerful emotions. secondly, it has a kind of 'pop-theory' feel about that made it all too simple to explain and understand. really good theory is almost impossible to get to grips with, a bit like postmodernism.
i remember reading somewhere once that at one time there were only two people in the world who understood, and i mean really understood, the theory of relativity. now just about everyone knows that if you take a clock, and shoot it off at the speed of light, when you're about a billion it'll only have advanced an hour (or something). thats what good theory should be like.
i mean, that postmodernism thing is really, really fucking hard to get to grips with. unless you're a genius like yours truly. in which case you'll never get it because you think you're too smart to be lowered to anything as intellectually gauche as po-mo theory. (and that means you damian fenton).
what the civilisation clash was all about was the need to identify some targets for the military industrial complex to get all wound up about. so, for most of the 90s "China" was the next big thing to freak out about, and the south china sea was where all the action was. but, fortunately for the taiwanese, mr bin laden came along and screwed that little wargame up.
for example, back in 97 i was volunteering my time for the new zealand asia institute, a group working in the univesity of auckland. so, while i was there they organised a little roundtable sit-down with a bunch of academic about the taiwan issue. i was amazed. here i was, a lowly photocopy/'fetch me a glass of water' bitch and was watching academics from mainland china and taiwan attempting something like dialogue. the significance certainly wasn't lost on me, even if what in the hell i was doing there was.
the reason i mention this is because there was one american guy there called douglas paal, if i remember the name right. if your name is paal and it wasn't you, apologies. to make a long story short, and because for the life of me i can't remember the name of his book, paal spent much of the roundtable trying to stir up trouble about how much of a threat china continued to be.
now, sure, china is a constant threat to taiwan. there is no disputing or denying that fact. but spending the greater part of your time looking for opportunities to point that out in a circumstance where dialogue is the theme just makes you look like an asshole.
the "civilisational clash" is just this sort of way to look at things. if we spend too much time convincing ourselves that there are threats then the paranoia takes over and threats become a reality. a very dangerous reality.
so call me a damn hippy, but i sincerely think that relationship building is more important that kicking ass. especially if you the sort of asshole who needs to learn how things like 'society' and 'community' work.
strange isn't it. the people who spend the most time identifying threats are probably the one's who need to spend more time taking their kids to a footy match.
ok, i should state for the record that this in no way means that there are no threats out there. al qaeda and any other type of fundamentalist is a dangerous thing. but there the danger isn't the civilisation, it's the way these lunatics put their ideas together. maybe the key is to try and defuse the troublemakers, and not bomb the be-jesus out of people who happen to be near them at any particular point in time,

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

fahrenheit 451

the housemate pointed out 'fahrenheit 451' to me in the dvd store a couple of days back, and i've been itching to finish watching it and get back to you all.
the really fascinating thing about the story is the way its a comment on totalitarianism, but of a sort unlike that of 1984. whereas 1984 is that all encompassing domination of the individual in favour of the state, Fahrenheit is about a state in which thought itself is suppressed through the burning of all books, large-scale drugging of the citizenry, and the use of tv as the only medium of information transfer.
to be honest, its the kind of future hell we all have to look forward to if the lead-up to iraq is anything to go by.
the huge volume of information meant that the man in the street was required to listen to the opinions of their 'leaders', who quite simply mislead them about the truth of the situation.
so, the situation of a sedated and rich society being mislead by misguided leaders depicted in fahrenheit 451 may not be so far from the reality we now enjoy.

Monday, September 27, 2004


please let me draw your attention to this site.

club politique

feel free to read the product of the rants on this site over there.

sweet jesus.... again...

if you ever needed final proof that 'neighbours' is the last bastion of conservative white-bread denial, then this story about says it all. now, considering the number of teenage boys who watch this shyte, and the number of teenage girls who think that faux lesbianism is no big deal, having two girls pash on national tv would be a ratings boost. yes?
but, the fundies are out in force on this one. no pun intended. (although a christian youth group call 'salt shakers' is a strange little double entendre. i thought they discouraged that kind of thing).
one again it goes to show, white australia always had its last gasp right there on ramsey street, and now it's definitely not the end of the rainbow either.

oh, and Jonathan Freedland is still making his case for world participation in US elections. John, there's a place where the US is supposed to be limited by world opinion. its called the UN. how about arguing that the US tow the line and participate in a little consensus building there?

Sunday, September 26, 2004


one of the things that concerns me about liberalism is the tendency for it to assume something of a religious air for its adherents. this isn't to say that it assumes the pitfalls of religion, but more that it tends towards the prosetylizing nature of the early modern religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism).
i'm sure its only natural for concerned people to want to extend their way of life to others, especially if it does deliver the kinds of positive benefits we know political liberalism does. but the concern has to be that in prosetylizing this system we don't get bogged down in liberal fundamentalism of the fukuyama/huntingdon kind.
all too often people seem to forget that places like new zealand and australia were, till the 1980s, essentially social democracies, not liberal democracies. and the standard of rights was not substantially different to what it is now (certainly it was less liberal, but not by comparison to the many totalitarian states in contemporary extistence). i remember for example reading a 'government' textbook when i was on exchange to texas, and it described new zealand as 'one of several socialist western countries'. at the time i was gobsmacked, the book only just drew short of labelled new zealand 'communist' in its tone, but we considered ourself part of the free world.
this sort of relativity is important if the ideology, and liberalism is nothing more than an ideology, is to remain adaptive. what non-liberal countries around the globe need to do is consider firstly if liberalism is applicable to their cultural systems. liberalism being what it is, there's a good chance it will be applicable to all cultures, at least to some extent that is. secondly, liberalism needs to be adapted, not adopted by these same countries.
the trouble with ideologies is their tendency to become dogmatised and thereby enforceable. which would fly in the face of the freedoms liberalism espouses.

oh, and go the power... they certainly gave the lions a pasting.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

why..... why..... why....

could someone please remind me again why in the hell trevor mallard is the minister for race relations? what in the hell is this geezer on?
if there's one word to describe what is needed in a portfolio like 'race relations' it is 'finesse', or maybe 'diplomacy'. and mallard has all the finesse of his namesake.
ok, everybody knows there's a degree of sexism in maori society, but it's ridiculous to criticise maori when there's wide acknowledgement from women that new zealand society is generally sexist. women not being able to speak on marae is an old axe that's been ground by detractors of maori society for a long time. but, whether this is inequitable depends on firstly on your ability to conflate "sameness" with "equality". and secondly on whether you think that maori themselves aren't working to address the issue, which by all indications they are.
mallard popping his head up and making headline grabbing comments like this really only interferes with the progress being made within maori society, of which he is not party to. sure, comment on sexism, but for christs sake try to do it with a little diplomacy, instead of fueling redneck criticism of minority self-determination.
all too often things like women's rights on marae are seized upon by detractors to undermine self-determination, i.e. because the minority culture is defunct/illiberal and should therefore be abandoned in favour of the 'superior' majority culture.
its called neo-colonialism (i think...)

think tanks

i read a blog or article somewhere recently about the need for a good liberal think tank to produce some quality thought in reply to the conservative lunacy that's being espoused these days.
i have reservations about the idea though.
one major concern to me would be the possibility of such a group really only producing thought in response to conservative initiatives. with the general shift of the political spectrum to the right (one of the reasons i dislike the labels 'left and right', they're only indications of the position of a speaker relative to their audience, not the actual political position of the speaker. howard is, or more precisely was, a leftie compared to hanson), political and social discourse is all too often dominated by headline-grabbing issues like terrorism and taxation.
IMHO, what a 'good' liberal think tank would have to do is work to produce answers to issues of larger, and longer-term importance. sure, terrorism is the most pressing concern of this decade, but finding ways to undermine its spread into a wider 'civilisational' war is perhaps a bigger issue?
another example is the new morality that is overtaking liberal societies. if we don't address the problem of fundamentalism within our own nation-states, how can we expect to not be hypocritical about the fundamentalism of other nations? isn't that just xenophobia and parochialism masquerading as a 'civilising mission'? the US' actions in regard to iraq being an all too frightening example.
a 'liberal' think tank would have to make an assault on the position of conservatives as the 'rational' and level-headed speakers for the nation in which the tank resides. whereas during the cold war it was the left who were the hysterical ones, today it is the right who all too often follow doctrinaire positions that help no one in the long-term (communism was a farce).
'reason' and 'understanding' (not just tolerance, which is a term that implies 'patience without liking'), have to be the watch-words in such a group.

Friday, September 24, 2004

husting fever 2.

well, the election is sitting fairly squarely in the middle of 'boring' on the political freakoutometer. howard has been trying to land a punch on latham, but to no real avail. probably the best punches were all landed by the Chaser News Network last night on aunty. the shot of latham slugging a satirist with a foam bat in 2001 was hilarious (that's what they get for provoking him about breaking a taxi drivers arm).
otherwise? it wasn't CNNNN, without doubt the funniest thing on tv over here last year.
but, them trying to get a ballot box and two ballot forms into the US embassy for habib/hicks was humorous. though security dickheads take their jobs very, very seriously. and the look on howards face when they tried to press him on the issue was much the same, even though the SMH apparently sent the pair forms the very next day.
likewise decribing the 'baghdad' electorate as facing the big issues of security (no surprises there), and immigration (thousands of americans) raised a chuckle.

Thursday, September 23, 2004


over the past few days i've noticed a number of blogs and columns that suggest, i'm hoping only a little seriously, that everyone should have a say in the US elections. here's one from jonathan freedland, who while admiting that the idea is wacky, still tries to make the point. i'd normally read this guy, but this is bizarre.
then there's no right turn, whom i respect, posted a similar though brief blog yesterday.
frankly, the argument that the world should have a say in the US federal elections, while cute, is clearly ignoring political science 101. sure, the premise is sound, democracy requires that people have a say in their own governance. and maybe, just maybe you could make the general argument stick in regard to the american constitution and democratic values.
this overlooks two very, very important factors.
#1. democracy is not for the benefit of "the people", it is for the benefit of a specific and limited community. i'm not entirely sure where in the hell this idea that its for 'the people' comes from. probably a limited reading of the constitution.
#2. american democracy, though classic, is more about representation, not the will of the people. there's lots of huff and puff about democracy being about 'the people', but this is a smokescreen. real american democracy is about representatives and debating the issues. not the will of the people.

so, the idea of 'no taxation without representation' is more important than being effected by the decisions of a government. because the vast majority of the worlds citizens don't directly contribute to the american political system, they have absolutely no right to have a say in the selection of american political representatives.
as an example, its hard enough in a system like the US, or australia for that matter, to have the people who do contribute to the state to be represented effectively. a lot of political ink has been split over trying to expand the boundaries of inclusion to people who already live in a particular political community, let alone a bunch of people who live outside it.
what this means is that while say, 20million people may populate a state, only the majority of those individuals are citizens, the prime unit of democracy, while a substantial minority are metics, partially franchised residents. plus, in many countries there are 'citizens' with limited rights, mostly because they don't fall into the subjective boundaries of nationality. in the australian case aboriginal people fell in this category for about two centuries.

so yeah, nice idea, but we'd all have to actually participate in the american system to vote in it. being dominated by them doesn't mean we get a say, it just means we either get to like it, or resist and undermine it in favour of another, more difficult hegemon.
and frankly, washington may be populated by dangerous megalomanics, but i can think of at least two worse nationaloptions.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004


if you have any chance whatsoever to watch john safran's "john safran vs. god". watch it. it may well be the funniest tv i've ever seen. his rants are genius, his experiences bizarre, and the filming comical.
the look on the face of the ku klux klan member when safran (a jew) tried to join was a piece of comic genius. safran vomiting up peyote classic ("this shit has stolen my imagination" was the comment). safran giving away his israeli citizenship to the palestinian who does the best imitation of him good (though a little boring).
and safran looking on in horror as a vodoo priest bites off a goats balls the most horrifying thing i've seen in years.

if you're part of a nzl tv station and reading this. buy the series. it might translate with a little difficulty, but its worth every cent. you can bet that as soon at its out on dvd, i'll have a copy.

public spheres.....

i'm still having trouble demonstrating that indigenous people exhibit what nancy fraser calls subaltern counterpublics. because there is only a limited aboriginal public sphere, there is little material available to indicate that aboriginal people are societally organised.
in large part this will be due to the sublimation of aboriginal societies by now-defunct colonial structures like mission stations and reserves. meaning that aboriginal society itself has been assimilated into the mainstream and largely dependent on mainstream support/methods. 'real' aboriginality is therefore left in the private sphere, because aboriginality itself has become largely subjective and a matter of personal choice (a person who has been brought up within the structures of the australian nation-state decides to be first and foremost aboriginal or australian). Consequently it's only a westernised (essentialised) aboriginality permitted in public.
the potential to undermine indigeneity in this way is a very real concern when you have a group like aboriginal people who have not the societal resources to limit majority relegation of their minority culture to irrelevance. maori simply don't put up with this kind of shit. if they say something is maori, then the majority usually listens, even if they deem the claim contestable.
aboriginal people though continue to be marginalised, with supporters and people who listen to aboriginal demands labelled 'PC'.
until aboriginal society is able to force some kind of inroad to forming an immutable counterpublic, and recognised as a viable 'audience' (i'll talk about 'audience' another time), they will continue to be relegated to irrelevancy.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

please let me explain

in case your wondering about that photo from yesterday, there's a few things i should explain about australian policy towards aboriginal people.

back in the 1960s there was a lot of kafuffle about how to best assimilate all the migrants who had settled in the country after the refugee crisis of WW2. it was decided by the policy-making community after much rather angry debate from all parties that a new policy called (by theorists) 'cultural pluralism' would be introduced. the pollies just called it 'multiculturalism', but what it was was a system wherein the majority, the British majority that is, got to continue to call the shots in the political and social arena, but accepted that they had to let all the 'ethnics' make up their own minds about how, why and when they'd assimilate.
its actually not a bad system that accords well with the old 'melting pot' model. cultural groups get to do whatever the hell they want, and are protected in a liberal way from vilification and the like by laws that restrict obviously prejudicial behaviour/speech. in return, they were forced to accept that they would eventually assimilate into the majority and become essentially indistinguishable from British Australians except in their (sometime obvious) ethnic backgrounds.

for aboriginal people though policy has never really been so clear-cut. instead, it has kind of swung between the ideas of self-determination, evident in the 1970s homeland movements and ATSIC, and assimilation/integration, evident in One Nation and now the Coalitions policies.
the latter is really little different to cultural pluralism, because it also focusses on depicting aboriginal people as merely one cultural element of australia, and trying to get them to conform as closely as possible to majority expectations and policy leadership. the last big theorist and advocate of this idea was Paul Hasluck and if you need to know more read some of the well-meaning but patronising books he has written.
but, aboriginal people are not happy with this arrangement, because it is directly responsible for the continuing decline of aboriginal langauges and culture. consequently, and without any real support (the strongest supporters of aboriginal self-determination were a bureaucrat called 'nugget' coombs and, suprisingly to many, the communist party. both of whom have passed). the labor party these days is more interested in securing power than helping aboriginal people.

consequently, aboriginal people are often left to fight the fight themselves, and this is especially the case under than nasty piece of work vandstone. she tries to come across as well-intentioned. but she hasn't fooled me.

Monday, September 20, 2004

just keep fighting

i love this picture. it sums vandstone, and the coalition up brilliantly. in the age itself there's another one of this same aboriginal woman giving vandstone the evils from being the big cracker.


i noticed today that i have a link from no right turn. if you've come across from that blog then welcome. if you've read anything i've posted on publicaddress and would like to read more of the same, many apologies, i use this site to have little rants about things before i draw together the more rational strands and knock them into something legible. hence "the other che".
but, if you like to read ideas in the raw and/or some personal notes about my wonderful and exciting life in melbourne (not), then again, welcome.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

to be a man

i've finally cracked the angle i want on the family history i've been trying to open for years now. or at least i think i have. i think i'm going to use a two-column page, with one short story per page, much like the shorts i used to write in wellington and auckland.
what this will allow me to do is mix the individual histories into a narrative style that gradually unfolds before a reader, like unfolding an origami crane. each page is another crease that has made the thing what it is, until the thing in its entirety is laid bare.
i want to start with something like a reappraisal of manhood. its a difficult subject. how do we consider the way that masculinity has changed since the liberal revolution? its as if the revolution freed men from much of their responsibility was it simultaneously freed woman from their servile status.
its a tricky one. how do you reappraise the role of men in society, men who still feel the need to be 'strong', as is written into our very genetic make-up? it isn't enough to stand defending the borders of our culture or civilisation as so many are opting to do these days, this will only bring harm to others.
so where do we go to meet that need?

Saturday, September 18, 2004

damn corporate wankers

if anyone from hotmail is reading this (yeah.. right), where in the hell is my email account?
how in the hell they expect people to pay for a 2nd rate service is beyond me. you'll never catch yours truly paying for all that extra webspace when there's absolutely no way to reach anyone to complain when something goes wrong.
like loosing email for days at a time.

Friday, September 17, 2004


i think i agree with no right turn on how to handle that wanker david irving. just let him into whereever the hell he wants, then discredit his ideas, making him look like a fool and a maniac.
that or take the approach they did in that iain banks book, and beat the piss out of him in public, then deny it ever happened.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

tellie time

its strange that the best documentaries i've seen about the current US administration are all european. sure there's your mike moore's but those are really shocumentaries.
last night i saw the 2nd part of a great docco called "with god on our side: the real deal" about the impact of the evangelist movement on dubya and his conversion in the 80s. and a few weeks ago there was "the world according to bush" that portrayed his perception of how the world works.
both left me with a sense of foreboding though. all these freaks talking about the 'end times' and that sort of thing are basically lunatics. they had footage of jerry falwell, evangelist preacher on 13 september 2001 blaming the attacks on feminists, gays, abortionists and anyone else who didn't follow the fundamentalist movement, and stated that 911 was a punishment from god.
and, there's a palpable air of the need to bring jesus to anyone who doesn't believe. these people are nothing less than C21st crusaders, and they're a danger to all of us. blaming the 'relative morality' brought about by 'post-modernism' won't answer the problem of nut-bars trying to force other people to believe their version of the truth....
like i say. lunatics.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004


there's two things people always forget. don't forget history because it always repeats itself, and that hitler was the elected representative of the german people.
the thing is, the wee loon gathered his power after he was elected, during depression era reparations to the western powers that had crushed germany in 1918. (sorry, dumbing this down a little).
so this leads me to be a little worried. people are busy getting hysterical about terrorism, and not looking at the big picture of what all this fear and concern is doing to the freedoms and democracy we're all so concerned to protect.
lets look at events in russia for example. will it return to something like totalitarianism in response to the terror threat?

Tuesday, September 14, 2004


the haters will always want to destroy, to identify enemies and vent their anger towards them. it seems like it has been that way forever.
but, quietly, quietly the thinkers and builders have been working behind the scenes, beneath the feet of angry giants, finding new ways and means to end hate, anger, death.

maybe that's part of the answer? to be part of those who do not destroy, but instead always build despite the destruction around them? to keep on advancing the knowledge of humanity itself, while these fools strike out at one another and rain misery on innocents and combatants alike?

is the answer to be only one human among so many insane haters who would burn the world to ash?

Monday, September 13, 2004

the worm

my concern about last nites televised 'debate' between howard and latham is that it will be the impetus howard needs to really drag some fear out of his bag of electoral tricks.
latham really nailed him in my estimation, but howard has been around long enough, and discredited enough opponents to still be a force. what worries me is another tampa-type incident causing mayhem among the voters and howard exploiting it to his advantage.
nasty little rat-man that he is.

Sunday, September 12, 2004


jeheeezus...... i am soooooo bored its almost bordering on depression. fucking marco, what a wanker letting me down like that. i gear up to hang out and the fucker rain checks me! and they wonder why i don't cruise with them half the time.
i need a night out as soon as possible, and some money to do that.....


what really knocked communism on its head wasn't the economic issue, although being bankrupted by the USA was a major contributing factor. instead, it was demand for social change within communist societies that ended it, and maybe that's the way to handle fundamentalism. by forming alliances with moderates across the world, maybe we can manage the insanity of fundamentalists.
i wonder if its time for the liberal revolution to be followed up with the extension of these ideas o freedom wider into the global community. but won't that make us "missionaries" of liberalism?

Saturday, September 11, 2004


i'm thinking that maybe the best way to handle this sceptre of islamic fundamentalism is to combat fundies here at home. perhaps what frightens me the most is the idea that the lunatic fringe, feeling frightened and vulnerable to terrorism, will try to impose all too rigorous standards on us here to prevent the carnage of places like beslan.
its an old libertarian fear, but i think it's of very real concern to people in the 'free' west.
in large part, the idea that islam has replaced communism as the main bugbear of the right wing is true, but maybe what we free-minded individuals should do is ensure that these fools feel safe at home. we can't stop them from extending their wrath across the muslim world, but at least maybe we can sheild ourselves from the hypocrisy of being subjected to privations and loss of rights by launching attacks on all forms of fundamentalism within our own sovereign borders.
by continuously exposing our own fundamentalists for what they are, perhaps we can undermine their attacks on persons in other countries? thereby saving us all?
by this i mean that we limit domestic support for the wholesale destruction of other countries and cultures by our own fundies. sure, the war with islam has been joined, it will not stop during our lifetime, but we need to be able to minimise the destruction this other civilisation by the gun-toting lunatics in our midst, and we need to be abel to reach out to good-thinkning people in that other civilisation to do the same.

Friday, September 10, 2004


if this damn terrorist bombing gives us four more years of the coalition, i'll hunt the bastards down myself.
but seriously, if howard makes milage out of this it'll look bad for him. i sure as hell hope he doesn't then use another incident of any kind to whip up the fear he did last time round.
initially i was suspicious about the timing, but then remembered that marriot and bali were also around this time of year, neither of which coincided with the election.
we shall have to see.

Thursday, September 09, 2004


i like to draw your attention to this woman. i went to a lecture at RMIT last night and heard her speak on the general subject of Aboriginal rights and especially Aboriginal women.
while she didn't have the fire of Richard Franklin from a few weeks back, it was still impressive if not only because she can't be much older than me (35), and is eminent. me jealous? a tiny bit, but you can tell that she hasn't had it handed to her, you can't get a scholarship to harvard easily.
made me think that what i should be doing is getting my act together and finishing this work.
so, larissa, thank you for being an inspiration to your own people, and thanks for reminding me that people get what they deserve.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

funky 70s sci-fi

i have decided beyond all reasonable doubt that 70s sci-fi may well be the greatest televsion in the world.
having recently watched series one of Blakes7 on dvd (and owning it), i've moved onto such greats as 'the prisoner', and Space1999. all i need now is my copies of sapphire and steel to turn up and i'll pee my pants.
dr. who? yeah, good, but who in the hell wants a billion episodes of that when you can have jemma running around in those 70s high heels?

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

sweet jesus....

this might be the funniest site i've ever seen...

blogger fever

i'm in two minds about what to call my blog on publicaddress (if it actually happens). maybe 'blinker'? i like the sound of it because it's what they do to horses to keep them on the straight and narrow. it's also a car reference, not enough people use them (and 'indicator' sounds naff).
or maybe not so naff.
otherwise i could always rename this mostly useless blog and transfer the name to there.
mind you, this blog will be useful again should i ever get myself into any kind of relationship drama again.

Monday, September 06, 2004


i'm in the middle of writing a journal article about the gradual transformation of australian society from the redneck white australia policy of the 1960s and before, to the relatively enlightened multicultural policies of the 1970s and beyond. its an interesting little exercise for me, and relates specifically to information i dredged up during the course of the thesis.
what occurred to me during this writing was how many great films you can see that isolate the australian anglo into one specific type of character. it makes a great contrast to the other types of films that have been made in recent years, such as the god-awful 'loves brother' or the terrific 'la spagnola'.
so, if you want to see a great ocker film, complete with disappointed housewives, drunk blokes and general randy-ness, see 'dons party'. hilarious.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

self-imposed limit

i realised that in a few days i'll only have 8 weeks to get a huge amount of work done in order to finish this thesis.
in other words i'm going to have to seriously knuckle down and get moving.
the only problem is that i don't think i have the puff to be able to go thru that 6.30am starts and work till midday routine, read all afternoon routine again.
but, on the other hand, if this column thingo works out, at least i'l be out of the house one day a week, and now there's no chickie distracting me i can focus heavily.
all the same. i think we're looking at weeks of hard yakka.

Friday, September 03, 2004

i call this thinking ahead

lest hear it for these folk. not only have they found a way to get their town some virtually free income, it's guaranteed to help the rest of us as well.
i'd like to officially thank them on behalf of all of us.
wind farms and solar/tidal energy are the only way to go IMHO.

and, i'll say emailing this information out till it actually happens, but i was offered a permanent spot on today.


Thursday, September 02, 2004

the trust thing

i'm glad the issue of trust seems to be gaining purchase on howard, the lying little rodent.
the one thing that seems to have characterised the entire term of howards government is this issue of constantly bending the truth and evading criticism. in fact, its the one thing that will, with any luck be what he's remembered for.
plus, this gives me the opportunity to watch how the issue plays itself out, it having been something i've written about for publicaddress for example. in particular, how will howard try and deflect this criticism. isn't it like the old adage of the person who admits to being a liar? if they're telling the truth, then they're not lying etc.
we'll have to see.