australia, who do you think you are?

over the past few weeks i have given a lot of thought to tomorrows national holiday. australia day, synonymous with bbqs, beers, fake/real flag tattoos and the wife beater. sad really, i have no real inclination for celebration. why? i mean, it's our nations day of celebrating uuuummmm yeah we commemorate the...., well that is to say, there is triple j's hottest 100 and yeah.... ok so i had no idea what the day was meant to be about and i assume not many others do either so i researched. the day is in an effort to pay tribute to the arrival of the first fleet in sydney cove in 1788, when the british hoisted the union jack and claimed the land under their sovereignty. wooooohhh!

this act is the reason why various aboriginal people declared the day, 'invasion day'. seems fair enough really but, my problem isn't with history so much as it is with the present. the day is seen as nothing more than a bank holiday in the sun and an excuse to get completely trashed and bitch about angus and julia stone's song 'jet plane' reaching the number 1 position of the hottest 100 (yest that's my ominous prediction btw). not that there is anything wrong with such past times, especially the last, but it does indicate how this country is missing something. a sense of national identity.

another criticism of the indifference that occurs on australia day is the fact that it falls during the school holidays. some teachers believe that due to this children are not as engaged as they are with other national holidays, like anzac day, and have no real concept of the importance of such an event. this lack of engagement in my mind has cemented the one dimensional hedonistic self image of australians. we like sport, having a laugh with a drink our hand and chilling on the beach. surely, there is more to us than that?

be it a result of our countrys short history, or our connection to britain and the united states, we haven't been given a chance to really branch out on our own. no civil wars or wars of independence, we haven't had the opportunity to grow as a nation by ourselves. not that wars are good things, but they do see change and a rallying of people behind a cause. we are still a member of the commonwealth because we seemingly can't be bothered or want to become independent knowing if we do, we can't win gold medals in sport at the commonwealth games. sad really.

getting back to my original gripe. australian tattoos have become a bogan trait. either through un-originality or a lack of understanding many aussies will proudly show off their 'patriotic' ink whilst subtly trying to say they have gone through pain for their noble homeland. now THAT pisses me off! mostly because i'm quite convinced that they have no idea what it means to be an australian. i know this, because i'm not even sure what it means anymore. but, having 'australia' or the apparently 'un-british' part of the flag (the southern cross) tattooed with abandon across your ass is about as offensive to me as burning the flag right in front of my eyes.

ok alright so, maybe it isn't all that bad, but it no longer posses the ideals it once encompassed. a symbol of perceived patriotism and egalitarianism was hijacked by racist thugs and well, the brand seems to have been irreparably damaged. blogger henry stones described the average southern cross tattoo holder in a smh article as possessing many traits, including: "you call rum and cokes 'rumbos' and you drink a minimum of two cartons a month"; "you have started a conversation regarding matty johns' innocence" and "you have a rat's tail".

perhaps a bit harsh, still it is concerning. this is how we show we care for our country? widespread apathy i fear will be the theme for tomorrow and whilst being wholly depressing is also scares the bejesus out of me. what's going to happen when the day comes we have to stand up for what we as a nation believe in, and can't think of a single thing worth fighting for?

seriously, who cares?

answer, the governator!

as i put of studying for a psychology quiz, i began having a look around the new yorker online site for blog post inspiration. i forgot how much i really enjoy writing on this thing. what i expected to find was not what has me angry today. i thought, i would uncover some cool new book, movie, play or music review to pique my interest but instead, i found this.

last wednesday in california a lot of people thought that they would be getting married. not a big deal, people get married every day. except this day all wedding parties were disappointed. the 18th of august, 2010 was set to mark the day when preventing same sex couples from marrying would be deemed unconstitutional. a federal judge thought that this would be a great day to appeal the decision of 'perry v. schwarzenegger'. hence gay marriage is still illegal in the state until at the very earliest the 17th of september or the latest after a supreme court decision in 2011.

ok so what is in a month? it's surely isn't that long, and what is one more year? the answer is, a lot! i have a few friends who are planning weddings and really excited about starting a new chapter of their lives with the person they love. i can't imagine the heart ache they would all go through if, on their wedding day, they were told, 'sorry not today, maybe sometime in september. though, i wouldn't start re-organising'.

my problem with this decision is obvious. but, i guess i don't understand why there is such a fuss over same sex marriage. how can we live in a society that openly allows gay people all other opportunities, but legally binding themselves together is for some reason offensive to the publics moral sensibilities? i'm not going to speak for the christian right who oppose such a union, but i will ask them this. gay people don't choose to be gay, they were born that way, there is nothing wrong with that. it isn't a disease that they caught and the gay men and women i know are good people who deserve to be afforded the same rights as any straight person. moreover, how does it at all affect you?

the answer is, it really doesn't. one line, in a deeply disturbing historical text (i'm speaking of the bible, of course) is all it takes for religious people to oppose gay marriage. god said, "sorry boys if you like streisand and eachother 'like that' you can't get married". ok so that might not have been his exact words, but the sentiment is there. and lets face it, gay people are not the only people to be excluded by doctrine. the catholic church, continues to receive its tax exempt status from the government when its institutional sexism runs rampant. they don't allow women to become priests and openly gay men are disallowed from entering seminal school under the very vague excuse, god said no.

but, most people who aren't religious, and this is a large chunck of the australian population according to the latest census data, don't really mind. and why should they? gay marriage affords couples with legal rights regarding their children, spousal privilege and tax incentives that are made available to all straight married citizens.

seems fair to me. gay couples are just asking for what is given to straight people without question. vermont had the right idea, 10 years ago. come on australia, catch up!

so this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.

apologies all for my unplanned sabbatical, but my uni and work load is kicking my butt. still, after the disappointment of the recent election i feel the need to vent.

now, i vote labor/greens and as a result have a certain level of moral egotism that goes with such a decision. not that all left of centre voters are this way, but considering that gillard may loose this election because 3 ex national party independents get to decide for 14 million people i think my piety is somewhat warranted.

firstly, vote for whoever you want. this is how democracy (usually) works. but, it is a decision that should be taken seriously and requires a citizen to actively pick one side or the other in the two party preferred system, for a reason beyond disliking a ministers hair cut. if this is the case then you are who i'm angry with.

my parents vote conservatively. this is a problem on so many levels for me but they are both small business owners and need a stronger economy for the immediate future and also as they near (not too near) retirement age. many a conservative (abbott nlp) voter has pitched this argument to me under the reasoning, that rich people know how to deal with their own money and as a result know how to look after yours, the tax payer. all fine. still, my wondering continues, are we so bad off now? australia is doing the best out of the entire worlds advanced economies, in unemployment levels, inflation and interest rates.... krudd did us a solid with stimulus. maybe, the labor party aren't so working class anymore. i heard gillard even went to university.

still, i realised this week as i drove home from sydney (passing cars and thinking 1 out of 2 people voted stupidly for abbott) that, maybe the reason conservative voters are able to look past the partys racism, religious fear mongering, wacky science climate change denying proposed policy is because they vote for themselves and their own backpockets. there is something very wrong with this. when i voted on saturday my mind wasn't on how this act of civil duty would benefit me, but rather how it would enrich the entire nation. how a national broadband network (without internet censorship) could benefit rural and poorer communities, how mining companies could be held accountable for environmental problems and how conflicts engaged in by our armed forced could be helped with more aid to the defence department.

maybe, i'm just less pragmatic because i have the luxury of being young and idealistic. i love australia. i'm a patriot. voting is something that not everyone has the right to in this world and here people don't take part fully in the process. we call the system, 'broken' and refuse to immerse ourselves in information and make a decision, but rather rely on trends and catchy slogans to make the decision for us.

if nothing else this election has shown that people are scared. the gfc, climate change and pesky non-white immigrants are invading our small isolated corner of the world. instead of hope and a 'yes we can!' attitude australia's 5.8% swing to a howard henchman shows we would rather turn back the clock 4 years and undo the mistake of 2007.

it's depressing, i never thought i would see the day when the american public is smarter than 14 million free australians. this is the country that voted for george bush.... twice.

looking forward to the rapture!

21st of august = judgement day! or in laymans terms, 2010 election day.... yay it's so soon. oh, i do love a good federal election esspecially, when the debates decline into name calling or in this years case a round of barely veiled angry flirting.

and on a related note there is a nice new drinking game going around related to the impending prime minister showdown. the rules are very simple, every time gillard or abbott use the specific phrase, 'moving forward' you do a shot. it really does have a simple eloquence that, the way this election is going, is sure to get you hammered all the way through this month and the next. i predict many drunk days at uni because, we all know that's were the labour party hangs out and liberal party follows hide and pretend they aren't in agreeance with casually racist political policy.

not that i'm bias or anything.... lets get our drink on! ANYONE BUT ABBOTT!

sorry america, i don't think we should be friends.

it has been pointed out to me recently that, in the past, here on my blog, i have done a lot of america(n) bashing. i feel the need to reiterate that i'm always right about these things but still, not entirely the point.

the reason that i have been waving the 'america is screwed up' or the 'some american people are really stupid' flags that always gets be angry is because as an australian, they are our biggest international allies and more importantly, our protector. this is the country that we negotiate with and give stuff to (like free-trade agreements and soldiers for their wars) and in return expect them to do stuff for us.

this is a country that can't even sort out their own problems and we trust them with the most important of things. i don't think it is too must to ask that they try harder. maybe, i'm too idealistic or naive about how the world works and even if i am, i don't think that that is a bad thing. i suppose, i'm worried that we put far too much trust in a nation that ignored their own people when a cyclone struck new orleans. ignored! as in, pretended it didn't happen. the white house's reaction to the incident was putting their fingers in their ears and going, 'la la la la la'. the national guard didn't go and aid the people of the city you know, because they had green day tickets and/or more likely were busy fighting in iraq. another rant for another day. i just have a serious fear that if this country is unable to aid their own citizens then i doubt they will help us out when north korea comes calling with bazookas and surface-to-air missiles.

we should be scared. i know i am. eek! still, this is a country that with a rich and noble history full of men and women who not only knew what the right thing actually was but, fought hard for what they believed in. i hold out hope that they will pull their shit together, then i watch a joan and melissa rivers special and despair!

news corp. trying a new scam for cash? no?

edmund burke once said, 'all that it necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'. fair enough but, what is the result when evil men do something good? this conundrum has sprung from the recent decision, of news corporation head honcho rupert murdoch, to force our hands to our wallets in his latest new untested model for profit. the 'paywall' has, since the start of this month, started charging readers £1 per day for the online news pages of 'the times' and 'the sunday times'.

now, it is a fiercely held belief amongst liberal thinking people, that old rupert is a unscrupulous right-wing evil profit hungry bastard, i think this too, and that his latest scheme for profits is another example of his abject greed. morover that it also, won't work. why are people in the uk going to fork out money for something they have always been able to view, for free, when they can get equal if not better news journalism elsewhere? the answer is they won't. the guardian actually welcomed times readers the day the paywall was enacted.

here is my point, surely the guardian is shooting themselves in the foot. the day they realise that people aren't buying actual tangible newspapers anymore and they need some cash to you know, pay their employees. but also, maybe we should have to pay. rupert murdoch is most definitely evil but, that doesn't necessarily mean everything he does is evil. like most things television, books, movies, music, clothes, food (sex....ha nah just kidding), the things we spend our hard earned money on are treasured more. we enjoy them more due to the fact, we have sacrificed money and feel the need to savour the experience. maybe, because it is actually costing us something. news could be the same.

my other weird pro-rupert point (ok now i'm starting to scare myself), is that print media is a dying art form. yes, i do believe it is art and the publics willingness to go and view day-to-day events in an online environment has seen cut backs that directly affect the quality of the printed form. for example, the sydney morning herald last year was forced to sack all their sub-editors in an effort to cut costs. this has lead to a severe drop in the quality of the paper. typos and/or spelling errors on the front page of the oldest continuously published broadsheet newspaper in australia. disgusting! moreover, after these cut backs the paper has been accused of 'dumbing down' content and becoming far to akin to a tabloid magazine. as opposed to its previous status as a reputable port of call for serious news readers.

the internet is full of crap. lets be honest even my blog, that i love, is full of grammatical miss steps, spelling errors and unsubstantiated claims. we need experienced professional news sites to outweigh the amateur. still, i think we need both. but, if we aren't going to or even just open to the idea of paying for online content then we are to blame when the 4th estate can't afford to operate and there is no one on the front line of news, reporting to us as it's happening.

without real news reporting, who can we trust to tell us the truth? politicians? ha, yea ok.

murdoch's play for the british publics pounds sterling will probably crash and burn. his uk online newspaper sites are going to take a serious hit. not only because they don't want to pay for news content but, also because they are going to dismiss the idea out of hand as sheers profiteering on news corp.'s part then go read something else. this is not to say the idea is a bad one, it isn't, its quite a practical. to be honest, i don't think it's too much to ask for this service to be a paid one. we have got far too used to everything in the internet world being free.....

well kids, nothing worth having is free. maybe, its time we began to accept that in the online world as well.

another example of combo love!

movies and politics.... two loves rolled into one amazing youtube video. this is a recent entry into the q&a competition called 'get enrolled'. the spoof video parodies the two contenders for prime minister in the upcoming australian federal election.

check it. it's giggle worthy.

the cut.

new york magazine's online fashion blog the cut is one that i follow fairly religiously. it's not for just the obvious superficial 'oooh so pretty' reasons, they actually have something to say. the cut heavily critiques fashion lines, questions ethics of the fashion industry, and opens up debate on topics ranging from elle mcpherson eating powdered rhino horns to michelle obama's obvious love for all things metallic to australia's push for more realistic looking plus sized models. still, to date the weirdest thing i have come across on this site is regarding the power of the mullet.

everyone, who owns a mirror and lives in a community that would mock you mercilessly if you sported the dreaded hairstyle understands the 'yuck' factor when you see someone sporting a mullet. business in the front, party in the back, is terribly outdated but more than that has a very unattractive socio-economic connection that can't be ignored.

still, like most things the iranian government has taken the eradication of the ghastly hairstyle way too far. earlier this week, the telegraph (which i don't usually go anywhere near) reported that, "in an attempt to rid the country of 'decadent western cuts', iran's culture ministry has produced a catalogue of haircuts that meet government approval. the list of banned styles includes ponytails, mullets and elaborate spikes. however, quiffs appear to be acceptable as are fashioning one's hair in the style of simon cowell or cultivating a 1980s-style floppy fringe."

and yes, if you are caught sporting one of the banned styles you will be arrested. these new laws have been enacted under the guise of strict islamic law and coincide with iran police who carry out regular morality checks. ok, fine. it's only a mullet it probably should be stopped but come on, where does this stop?

i am very lucky, like all of you, to live in a country that although it is heavily regulated by governing officials, have not (yet) gone to such extremes as to prevent this form of personal expression. the mullet might be hideous but it is just that. a choice.

julia gillard, will you be my prime minister?

the lovely kathryn said that yesterday and i think it perfectly sums up how i, as a card carrying labour party member, feel about the massive shift within the federal party that took place last night and then today. two days is all it took for mr. kevin rudd to get shived and replaced by his deputy.

i do have two concerns. one, that my blog post not two days ago might have had a hand in bringing down krudd. ha! just kidding but, in the span of 12 hours australia has been witness to a seminal event in our political and cultural history. today we have our first female prime minister in julia gillard, an atheist one at that. 'hooray!', i say. feels like all my dreams have been answered. still, a lady prime minister? australia has been, compared to the rest of the world, conservative on the subject. what were we all so worried about? that if we elected (or not, in this case) a female pm that one day, in the future, she will snap because she is having a bad hair day? she lives with a hairdresser people! don't worry about it.

this leads me to my second point. as far as i'm concerned, concentrating on gillard as the first female prime minister is a good thing. this is a good day for feminists and people who believe in equality within the workplace and in this case, the political arena. what i DO have a problem with is all the unnecessary crap that the media has begun to bring up because she is a woman. so she isn't married, doesn't have children, favours a nice pants suit and has red hair.... exactly how are these things essential when crafting policy and/or communicating with the public?

it shows a desperate opposition leader, when his point of attack is that the new pm can't relate to families because she isn't a mother. conveniently forgetting, that she is a daughter, sister and aunt. as far as the media's impending attack on her looks well, lets all remember the women that have previously walked in their sensible heels as leaders of their country, before the new australian pm. though, not thatcher. i'm still pretty sure she is actually a man in drag. isabel peron, golda meir, sirimavo bandaranaike, gro harlem brundtland, benazir bhutto, kim campbell, edith cresson, luisa diogo, helen clark, michelle bachelet, cristina fernandez de kirchner.... the list goes on and on. these are names of women who were either prime ministers or presidents and have lead their country since the first woman was elected to such a position, in sri lanka, 1960.

the rest of the world seems, quite rightly, comfortable in choosing a woman to lead them. to choose how their hard earned tax dollars are spent, are represented overseas, that public health and schools are well cared for etc etc etc. but first, if this person is a woman we must judge her outfit and connect her ability to run a country with her capacity to have unprotected sex and then 9 months later push a small human out of her vagina. are the two things really connected?

the answer is no. the liberal thinking people of australia (aka. voters with a soul) should be applauding this move for a more stable leader in julia gillard. a leader that has tony abbott asking his aids how exactly you spell, 'capitulate'.

--------------------------------------------------------------

for a far more eloquent account/opinion of these recent events check out the blog siesta on the pilar. you know, in case my ramblings didn't make that much sense.

this is australia!

not america! and definitely not sparta. though some days i do get this strong urge to kick certain people into a big bottomless pit. but, i digress...

in my daily stroll through internet news sites i came across something so deeply disturbing that it has awoken a fierce angry fire breathing dragon within me....and not the cute puff kind! lateline is a goldmine, full of wonderful political commentary and today it did not disappoint.

check this video out!

now, i'm not going to say that christian's don't deserve a voice, they do. i'm just not entirely sure that we should be going the americanised route on this. in god we trust? please. have any of them read the bible, god is vengeful. he killed more people in the old testament that anyone else in the entire book. not someone i am personally happy for my governing officials to be taking advice and guidance from with regards to taxation, immigration and environmental reforms. the guy got a little pissed off one day and FLOODED THE EARTH!

i'm not completely stupid, i do know that the whole jesus/god/bible deal is a metaphor blah blah blah and as i was raised catholic, i'm sure i have some latent rage regarding the subject of organised religion. you believe what you believe. i don't agree with you. the world keeps on a turning. politicians are no exception to this rule, they can have beliefs but i don't want to see them begin to seep into day-to-day policy making decisions.

then again, i conceed that they already have. western culture is drenched in christian morality. stealing is bad, adultery is bader and murder is the badest. in other cultures, with a different religious morality, that order is different. for example in some islamic states adultery receives a harsher punishment than murder. neither is right or wrong, it's just how it is. but, this morality is so imbedded in our societies that it will never be removed. most importantly, i don't like faith being used as a tool for self promotion.

as krudd and tony 'budgie smugglers' abbott freak out over how close the next federal election is going to be, they are willing to do almost anything to get a few more votes. if that means parading their religious beliefs out for everyone to see, then so be it. i really do worry about this 1. because people are eating this crap up and 2. THIS IS NOT AMERICA! that is just not how we roll here and also, well those idiots voted for bush (twice) who essentially made all his decisions with 'gods' council. it really is like talking to your imaginary friend, which is fine i had an imaginary friend when i was 2 years old, BUT these men are world leaders!

please take jesus/god out of the equation when you vote. god doesn't direct these men and if he does 'talk' to them then we have a much bigger problem. 'cause everybody knows, when you talk to god it's prayer but if god talks back then you probably have schizophrenia.

i'm the mascot of an evil corporation!

bart simpson said that, but still, doesn't make it untrue. he was talking about mickey mouse while wearing a black bra on his head but, it has got me thinking again about the choices we make when we buy things. business ethics seem to simply not exist with regard to large corporations like disney. they don't care who they trample on for the sake of economic expansion and simple bottom line profits. so, why should we?

well if the economic crisis has taught us anything, it is that we as consumers do have a collective power. we stop buying cars = general motors goes under. we eat at home to conserve cash and mcdonalds posts much lower annual profits. the first example is true, but somehow, the second is not. this year mcdonalds in complete contrary to their sales, posted profits that exceeded the last two financial years. how is this possible, i hear you ask? like other big companies they cut costs wherever they could to keep their ceo in a nice new jaguar.

a lot of us, i'm sure, have worked as teenagers for large transnational companies for disgusting levels of minimum wage to keep us in new billabong threads and the latest album from britney spears (not that i'm projecting with these examples). at this age you don't even think about what you are contributing to these companies, like mcdonalds, you are immersed in your first real step into the big world of consumerism. ignorance might be bliss but that doesn't make it ok.

if you choose to see a disney movie or wear nike shoes then you have to take some responsibility for the business practices of these companies. you might never see the people, who work for almost nothing in indonesian and chinese sweat shops but, you continue to keep them enslaved. consumer culpability.

i have always managed to somehow ignore this fact. i work, i get paid, i buy shoes, they fit, i look cool and nothing else really enters into it. money for product. it's a simple enough trade. it isn't until you look into where the shoes come from that the little voice in your head (mine is starting to sound like you rob, damn you!) starts to make you feel bad about the decisions you have made.

vegetarianism seems to me quite similar. still, it makes me sad that we live in a world where more people care about animal cruelty than human cruelty. politics text books have told me over and over again that globalisation produces clear winners and losers. the divide between rich and poor is expanding as quickly as globalisation is. just because you are a winner doesn't mean you have to ignore the trail of destruction (losers) you have left in your buying frenzied wake.

next time you have a happy meal i suggest you contemplate your impending heart attack AND the 5 year old child in jordon working for 2 cents and hour. would you like to work for that?

if you want to read into this further, i can't recommend enough that you check out 'the national labour committee' website here. they hope to inform people and 'put a human face on the global economy'. also the picture is by british street artist banksy. his work hopes to make people more socially and politically aware. he is amazing. check it out here.

question time: the only thing that can make me that angry and bored at the same time.

now, don't tell anyone but i do on occasion partake in a nice afternoon of not wearing pants and yelling at the television. that might sound just a little bit bad but there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. here we go, this is hard, hi my name is michelle and i'm addicted to question time. wow, that wasn't so bad. but, seriously i really like watching politicians yelling at each other across a room about the politics of the day. does sometime worry me that these people control the country but then julia gillard speaks and i feel a warm glow of security again.

this is unquestionably the greatest thing on free to air television. it is the only thing that can make you absolutely furious and bored at the exact same time. not sure, what that says about me as a normal well rounded individual but hey if i let things like that bother me i would never have gone to bulgaria. which actually in hind-sight wasn't a good idea.

i digress. i do have a sordid voting past. i did vote for john howard (twice eek, please don't lynch me) but i was young and he was good for comedians morale. the latest federal liberal party re-shuffle has me scared. i might have voted for malcolm turnbull, he was quite left for a conservative, and seemed to be somewhat sane. BUT, tony abbott has this bizarre ability to both terrify and anger me without even opening his mouth. then when he does speak you can't not picture him in his speedos.

vomit! this is not america, this is not a country that elects someone because they can lift the heavy thing. i wasn't that worried about his ability to win the next election against our current prime minister but some very smart people are telling me that some aussies are buying what el doucho abbott is selling. tax hikes, outrageous policy shaped by jesus, internet sensorship comparable to china's, no national broadband, taking money away from school kids and giving it to their pals the mining industry. oh and lets not forget 'work choices' that i now believe is 'abbott's box of arse magic'. i could be wrong there but still, if the man had his way secular australian society would become as insane as americas 'in god we trust'. where one third of the population believing in an actual devil (with horns and a tail). that is true by the way. the country of operaology....

then there is julie bishop. i think she might just be the wicked witch of the west. and not the fuzzy singing one of 'wicked'. keep half expecting her to turn green and start running around the house of representatives cackling and calling for her flying monkeys. though, if the liberal party gets into power in the next election the witch will probably have a sexy new hat and her monkeys out of work. then again, abbott looks a bit monkey-like so maybe not.

i'm a scared and you should be too.

so before i hook you into this post with my lyrical style of 'writing' please be warned that this post does require some extra reading. a bit like an arts university tutorial, if you don't read at least a few paragraphs of the referred reading you may not get what i'm going on about. like many of my other angry rants this logical one came from the big brained amazing man david mitchell.

have a mini look at his guardian column here and then check back for my own take on this bizarre turn of event. aaannnddd BREAK!

welcome back, so my problem with this is rather self-concerning. i post crap all the time. my facebook status updates as some of you may know are a myriad of threatening physical violence mixed with just general insanity. what if i 'accidentally' (or more like purposely) have a bit of a vent and end up unemployed and fined like poor ole paul chambers? look there he is....what a muppet!

ok so yea, he did threaten to blow up an airport but COME ON, it clearly wasn't a genuine threat as he did say he was going to do it in 'a week or so'. are al qaeda really that hard up for ideas for terrorist attacks? then why, to add insult to injury, would they then go to all of the trouble of planning to blow up a tiny airport and then POST IT ON TWITTER! for gods sake this is ridiculous and i am really now concerned that if one day i say the wrong thing i will get arrested.

i have as a result joined the wonderful website that aims to protect the rights of bloggers and promote fair and sane online law. the electronic frontier foundation (eff), aims to protect users "freedoms in the networked world when they come under attack, the eff is the first line of defence. eff broke new ground when it was founded in 1990 - well before the internet was on most peoples radar - and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. from the beginning, eff has championed the public in every critical battle affecting digital rights."

if you blog, tweet or even facebook i can not recommend enough that you check their site out. know your rights and keep saying whatever the bloody hell you like.

i really don't get the lesbian 'dress code'.

seriously! as i write this in the uni library, cause i ran out of internet again damn house md and its addictive episode goodness, i am stting opposite a very dykie looking lesbian. though can't be sure she really is gay but the crew cut and trucker singlet are indicators.

last night i went to the opening of the sydney travelling film festival and one of the two movies we watched was 'the topp twins: untouchable girls'. the film follows the lives and careers of new zealands finest yodelling, activist, rural lesbian twins. they were hilarious! their complete abandonment when it comes to performing is very endearing and leaves you forgetting and not even caring that they are so out of this world different.

still, the only problem with them is the way they choose to dress. come one, flannel is not a good look on a lady. BUT, for these two women it doesn't really matter. the crew cut hair and thick new zealand rural accent is actually charming. maybe because they are from the country is is more acceptable. if you are gay living in sydney, you have no excuse to not dress with some sense of femininity. it's as if they think dressing feminine comes from the love of a good penis....ummm somehow i don't think that is right.

anyway back to the topp's, an act like this would never find the level of fame and receive national love were they from australia. new zealand is very lucky in this respect. maybe it is because it is comparably such a small country but the topp twins in my mind seem to personify liberal thinking and acceptance that australia is severely lacking. these two women who have been openly gay from the very beginning of their public lives are truly beloved by all new zealands from every walk of life. from the big city gay scene to their rural home town cattle drive community.

these two women through their extensive advocacy work (anti-nuclear, gay rights, anti-apartheid, breast cancer awareness) make me feel terribly good to be a human being. still, the fact that had they been from rural australia they would never had reached the level of national fame that they do in new zealand. and THAT makes me ashamed to be australian. god bless new zealand.

i smoke, and i vote!

let me preface this post by saying, smoking is bad it causes cancer and i am under no allusions that there is hard scientific proof to back this up. i'm not stupid i know this. though, i do continue to smoke and yes i know THIS is stupid.

a massive hike in the tax on cigarettes began in new south wales last weekend. 2.5% is a lot in the grand scheme of things and the reasons behind this are highly questionable. the tax hike is posited by governments to be purely for health concerns. as though, smokes will now quit because per packet the price has risen about $1 per 25 pack. one, this won't work two, this also won't stop people taking up smoking and three, it isn't the only reason for the tax. there are other incentives to this tax that are far less noble than, 'we want the youth of australia to live long, happy, cancer free lives'.

we all know tobacco companies are evil. we as evil as mcdonalds yet the are perhaps less nasty than their modern day fast food friends. this is due mostly to restrictions governments around the world to undermine companies freedom to for example target their product to young consumers. this is a good thing. kids shouldn't be smoking. they are still developing physically and mentally; having such a vice at a young age IS dangerous.

the right to choose as an adult is a god given rite. if you want to eat meat then you do. if you don't want to own a hand gun then you don't. but upping the price of either of these products is not going to deter people from purchasing them.

the real reason behind the new tax has got to be far more consumer based. capitalism is more powerful than democracy in first world countries like australia or america. politicians and leaders understand this. people smoke tobacco, tobacco comanies make money and governments want a piece of the action. money is a far greater motive than interest in public health during a global economic crisis. why not be up font about this? why not say we want smokers money? well going into a federal election, smokers vote too.

we have come to expect this kind of underhandedness from our conservative liberal party leaders. but krudd, give us a break! why aren't you upping the price of your precious queensland beer xxxx? oooh right, cause its not at all addictive, harmful and doesn't have greater social implications. more aussies drink and vote than smoke and vote.

light up a cigarette for democracy! its your civic duty!

'cause i was born free!

m.i.a is perhaps best known for her famous song 'paper planes' but what some people don't know she is a very political artist. her latest single 'born free' is her most controversial song to date. due in part to the songs unashamed attack on how governments treat their own people. the much publicised music video has got everyones undies in knots over its violence. still, it is beautifully made and the graphic violence in this case serves a very important purpose.

i can't recommend you watch this clip enough. if you don't feel some empathy or any kind of emotion i believe you are what psychiatrists call a sociopath. please tell me what you think, i'm really keen to see what other people get from this.

WARNING the clip below does show some very violent images and i probably wouldn't watch this if you were under 18 years of age OR on your work computer.

M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS on Vimeo.

oh david david david.

you just can't keep a "good" tory down. oh wait yes you can! as britian braces itself for another federal election david mitchell (my hero) is hott on the future down fall or the conservative leader david cameron (the anti-christ, well that might be a bit harsh). fellow qier rob brydon pointed out while quoting dr. phil, history teaches. that and margaret thatcher hate runs deep. which by the way, is a good thing.

david cameron feels the hand of history where it hurts.

ok it could be my warped mind but, julia gillard is everywhere!

it's probably a bit mad to share this but i had the weirdest dream last night. the part that i can remember, just before i woke up, i was being strangled by a giant badger as a knife weilding clown watched. and who came to my rescue? julia gillard! now it might be my apparently odd love for question time or that she is on our screens more because of the impending election but it was what happened after i woke up that freaked me out.

first, i turn on the tv and who is on there debating with tony abbott the merits of stimulus packages? julia! now that was just a coincidence. but i get into the car and she is on the radio. BUT then, i get to work and the guys are debating her level of hottness compared to other female politicians!

i was then that i had no other choice but to conclude, she is stalking me! u would think she has better things to do. lol