I've just watched a program on Britain's MI5 and it's performance during and in the lead up to, the London bombings of 7/7.
In a surveillance operation involving approximately 70 suspects, MI5 watched and recorded hundreds of hour of footage of the suspects meeting and talking. They managed to bring to trial some of the men on terrorism charges with varying levels of success.
Now, after the bombings in London, they're being forced to defend their actions. And part of that defence, in fact ultimately their ONLY defence was that they didn't have the resources to adequately watch all the suspects, 2 of whom turned out to be the actual bombers on that fateful day in July. MI5 claimed that they were almost extraneous in their involvement with the actual suspects on whom the surveillance was targeted and that it was nothing more than an almost chanced meet between the two groups.
Ultimately, it's impossible to know what's in a man's mind and that's what makes the current threat from the terrorists so alarming
I find it fascinating actually; this whole world carrying on as we lead our daily lives in ignorance. Brings a spark of excitement to an otherwise rather mudane existance.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Some time ago I wrote of how the public hospitals had banned snack foods high in unhealthy ingredients from their buildings in an attempt to curb the rapidly rising rate of obesity among the public.
Well, it now transpires that some months later, the State government has been caught flooding the health system's vending machines again. A government tender has called for bidders to supply "chocolate, sugars, sweeteners and confectionary products to more than 130 machines in hospitals, and medical centres.
They haven't admitted as yet, why they are invoking this cause of obesity but I'll hazard a guess it has something to do with money.
Well, it now transpires that some months later, the State government has been caught flooding the health system's vending machines again. A government tender has called for bidders to supply "chocolate, sugars, sweeteners and confectionary products to more than 130 machines in hospitals, and medical centres.
They haven't admitted as yet, why they are invoking this cause of obesity but I'll hazard a guess it has something to do with money.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
There was a siege situation in Sydney recently; a policeman had decided he'd had enough and was threatening to shoot himself while barricaded into his station. It was solved by talking him out of it.
The next day it was a big story on talk radio. One caller in particular called in to describe how hard it was for her husband as a policeman. How he was withdrawn and depressed at times by his work.
Boo-hoo, my poor wittle hubby. Did you make him warm cocoa and tuck him into bed? Of course policing can be a difficult job - at times, it has to be said. Doesn't seem to be too hard sitting in your, provided at the public's expense, air conditioned vehicle zapping unsuspecting battlers trying to get from A to B.
It's just another example the nanny state intruding into areas in which it has no business.
This seems to happen a lot; people complaining about how hard it is - that they need counselling, that things are 'just too much'.
Word is soldiers, too, aren't as tough as they used to be. And after incidents they are offered 'counselling'. Look, it's a soldier's job to be shot at; they know this when they sign up and don't forget they're provided with the means to return fire.
I'm getting so sick of the way people in dangerous occupations are treated with kid gloves. Hey! If you can't handle it, don't join up - simple as that really. Frankly, I don't want sissys in these positions. Policemen and soldiers should be hard. Often in the case of police, I'll see this tiny little woman on patrol around the city drunks. Exactly what is she goin to do when a fight breaks out between 4 or 5 men, tanked up on the sauce? I'll tell you what. Nothing. In a case like that we need big men. Tough men who can intervene with equal ferocity to break up such a melee, not a tiny woman who'll get flattened in about 5 seconds.
And then of course she'll- seek 'counselling' resulting in a tax payer holiday for however many months while she recuperates from her 'traumatic' experience. This applies to weak men as well.
If you're not prepared to see and act upon traumatic incidents, then don't join such a force.
The next day it was a big story on talk radio. One caller in particular called in to describe how hard it was for her husband as a policeman. How he was withdrawn and depressed at times by his work.
Boo-hoo, my poor wittle hubby. Did you make him warm cocoa and tuck him into bed? Of course policing can be a difficult job - at times, it has to be said. Doesn't seem to be too hard sitting in your, provided at the public's expense, air conditioned vehicle zapping unsuspecting battlers trying to get from A to B.
It's just another example the nanny state intruding into areas in which it has no business.
This seems to happen a lot; people complaining about how hard it is - that they need counselling, that things are 'just too much'.
Word is soldiers, too, aren't as tough as they used to be. And after incidents they are offered 'counselling'. Look, it's a soldier's job to be shot at; they know this when they sign up and don't forget they're provided with the means to return fire.
I'm getting so sick of the way people in dangerous occupations are treated with kid gloves. Hey! If you can't handle it, don't join up - simple as that really. Frankly, I don't want sissys in these positions. Policemen and soldiers should be hard. Often in the case of police, I'll see this tiny little woman on patrol around the city drunks. Exactly what is she goin to do when a fight breaks out between 4 or 5 men, tanked up on the sauce? I'll tell you what. Nothing. In a case like that we need big men. Tough men who can intervene with equal ferocity to break up such a melee, not a tiny woman who'll get flattened in about 5 seconds.
And then of course she'll- seek 'counselling' resulting in a tax payer holiday for however many months while she recuperates from her 'traumatic' experience. This applies to weak men as well.
If you're not prepared to see and act upon traumatic incidents, then don't join such a force.
It official. Women drivers are better than the men - at least that's what the geniuses at AAMI, an insurance provider, have deduced form their research which states that 84% of males are involved in accidents vs 77% of females.
What's initially startling about these figures is the significant increase in the female percentage. The women on the roads used to be much more law-abiding than their male counterparts but no more it would seem.
And actually, I have witnessed such females, usually teenagers or in the low twenties, zipping through the traffic like wannabe racer girls.
The report also claims that the males' accidents are typically more serious, meaning serious bodily harm, even death/extreme vehicle damage.
The girls by comparison tend to reverse into things and slowly shunt other vehicles with the worst result being embarrassment and an insurance claim.
Well, while you're sitting there in smug satisfaction at this new evidence suggesting your superiority, you might want to hear this first.
The whole report is nonsense; total and utter nonsense. It has no more effect than any statistic does. Lies, damned lies and statistics, remember. Put no stock in this.
Observe:
The reason why males are involved in more serious accidents is because the second they get in a vehicle (and driven by that most uncontrollable of chemicals, testosterone), the majority imagine they're Michael Schumacher. What often follows is they invariably overstep their limits resulting in the significant damage (collaterally and to life and limb).
Women, on the other hand, crash into things in a minor way, not because they imitate the males and push beyond their limits, but rather, because they don't know what they're doing (not helped by the gossiping away to their girlfriends on the mobile)
.
And then there's the screen-hogger; we've all seen them. These women, (and pensioners too, in fact but rarely if ever young males) with their seat as far forward as it'll go and their noses mere inches from the glass, staring intently, directly ahead, completely oblivious to what's going on around them.
Their hands gripping the steering wheel at the ten past two position, as if their very life depended on it. It's almost like they're afraid to be there.
These types are much more dangerous than any hooligan.
Better drivers indeed! What tripe.
What's initially startling about these figures is the significant increase in the female percentage. The women on the roads used to be much more law-abiding than their male counterparts but no more it would seem.
And actually, I have witnessed such females, usually teenagers or in the low twenties, zipping through the traffic like wannabe racer girls.
The report also claims that the males' accidents are typically more serious, meaning serious bodily harm, even death/extreme vehicle damage.
The girls by comparison tend to reverse into things and slowly shunt other vehicles with the worst result being embarrassment and an insurance claim.
Well, while you're sitting there in smug satisfaction at this new evidence suggesting your superiority, you might want to hear this first.
The whole report is nonsense; total and utter nonsense. It has no more effect than any statistic does. Lies, damned lies and statistics, remember. Put no stock in this.
Observe:
The reason why males are involved in more serious accidents is because the second they get in a vehicle (and driven by that most uncontrollable of chemicals, testosterone), the majority imagine they're Michael Schumacher. What often follows is they invariably overstep their limits resulting in the significant damage (collaterally and to life and limb).
Women, on the other hand, crash into things in a minor way, not because they imitate the males and push beyond their limits, but rather, because they don't know what they're doing (not helped by the gossiping away to their girlfriends on the mobile)
.
And then there's the screen-hogger; we've all seen them. These women, (and pensioners too, in fact but rarely if ever young males) with their seat as far forward as it'll go and their noses mere inches from the glass, staring intently, directly ahead, completely oblivious to what's going on around them.
Their hands gripping the steering wheel at the ten past two position, as if their very life depended on it. It's almost like they're afraid to be there.
These types are much more dangerous than any hooligan.
Better drivers indeed! What tripe.
Monday, April 30, 2007
I wrote a while back about how the conflict in Iraq qas spurred by a knee-jerk reaction to the Trade Centre attacks. I have repeated this opinion several times and for the most part it has fallen on deaf ears.
Well, it now transpires that George Dubya, made that particular decision within one day of the attack. He was quoted as saying that "Iraq deserves to shoulder some of the responsibilty for the attacks". At the time (and currently for that matter) there was , nor has there been since despite the US's puppet inspectors best efforts to uncover, no evidence to suggest any connection between the Middle-Eastern country and the attacks save for the shared religion.
Could this just be a continuation of Bush senior's attempt to control that uncontrollable land? A family affair as it were?
It's been quite a price for keeping something in the family. The man would put you in mind of a mad sientist, drunk on his unfettered power.
Who's the bigger terrorist?
Well, it now transpires that George Dubya, made that particular decision within one day of the attack. He was quoted as saying that "Iraq deserves to shoulder some of the responsibilty for the attacks". At the time (and currently for that matter) there was , nor has there been since despite the US's puppet inspectors best efforts to uncover, no evidence to suggest any connection between the Middle-Eastern country and the attacks save for the shared religion.
Could this just be a continuation of Bush senior's attempt to control that uncontrollable land? A family affair as it were?
It's been quite a price for keeping something in the family. The man would put you in mind of a mad sientist, drunk on his unfettered power.
Who's the bigger terrorist?
"UM!"
Todays um, lesson, readers, concerns the um, rapidly developing occurrence of um, dead-air fillers in um, everyday speech.
This emerging predeliction is disturbing as it illustrates sloth of mind with an equally dumb sounding 'doh!' type utterance.
While listening to talkback radio, I sometimes count the 'ams' during interviews and general talkback. The record is an amazing 47 in a 1 minute, 30 secs period. About every fifth word.
Has society become so lazy that we no longer care if we sound like grunting apes, or a society of Homers? (The cartoon idiot - not the poet).
I recently read a friend's son's English homework and although it was demonstrably understood, there were fifteen errors, in spelling and grammar (I can just hear the 'cool kids' guffawing in derision).
If this is, as I suspect, a slide, and not a one-off then what future intelligible speech. Is the world going to communicate via electronics and cease conversation? An entire language created around 'ums and ams'? Like a binary language?
This emerging predeliction is disturbing as it illustrates sloth of mind with an equally dumb sounding 'doh!' type utterance.
While listening to talkback radio, I sometimes count the 'ams' during interviews and general talkback. The record is an amazing 47 in a 1 minute, 30 secs period. About every fifth word.
Has society become so lazy that we no longer care if we sound like grunting apes, or a society of Homers? (The cartoon idiot - not the poet).
I recently read a friend's son's English homework and although it was demonstrably understood, there were fifteen errors, in spelling and grammar (I can just hear the 'cool kids' guffawing in derision).
If this is, as I suspect, a slide, and not a one-off then what future intelligible speech. Is the world going to communicate via electronics and cease conversation? An entire language created around 'ums and ams'? Like a binary language?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Todays paper
There's quite a lot in it today.
I'll start with the Prince Harry story. The young Prince is to act as troop leader with the Blues and Royals regiment of the Household Cavalry. And the insurgents are awaiting his arrival. As soon as it was made public, they came out threatening to 'send him home to his grandmother without his ears'.
An Iraqi militia commander claims he has soldiers whose job it will be to capture the young prince. He claims he has people within the British bases who will inform when the prince arrives.
A huge scalp indeed.
There's a small piece on the teenage drinking culture. And how assault has dramatically risen in the group of 15-19 year olds. It seems to me that alcohol and assault have been inextricably linked since Adam was a boy. So nothing unusual there. Part of the problem Down Under at least is the almost obligatory way Australians are expected to consume quantities of 'grog' as they bluntly refer to it.
One is considered a freak, to have something wrong with them if they don't embrace the culture. Even the PC, sanctimonious radio hosts espouse with regularity the benefits of alcohol. Depending on the class of host, the more respectful 'wine' is exampled instead of the 'ockey' beer.
But it all means the same thing - drink piss, it's great. Essentially that's what they mean. Well, look at the results.
Forget drugs, there has been nothing as socially destructive as alcohol. Complete strangers, eons in separation from the imbiber of the fluid, can feel its effect.
But it's a HUGE business and as per usual - money talks so for as long as the powerful keep getting rich of its back, the culture will remain.
I've spoken often of the general decline in standards of English and the following headline may go some way to explaining why:
"It's true, mum, we don't have any homework".
A Sydney high school has stopped giving homework to the younger students (year 7 and 8. Ages 9-12). The theory is that the only homework they do get is work they didn't finish in class. Parents say, "it gives them time to be kids". I suspect it may be laziness on the part of the parents (that and the fact that even the parents who have probably not been educated that well and therefore can't help with their kids' work, are perhaps feeling a bit stupid so remove the issue rather than face it.)
Homework is practice. One learns in class but sometimes it can be overwhelming and it rarely locks in immediately so homework is a way of 'pushing it home' as it were. Take that away, instead letting the kids go out and play and completely forget about the subject can result in the next day almost having to start again.
I'm convinced it's detrimental to learning.
I'll start with the Prince Harry story. The young Prince is to act as troop leader with the Blues and Royals regiment of the Household Cavalry. And the insurgents are awaiting his arrival. As soon as it was made public, they came out threatening to 'send him home to his grandmother without his ears'.
An Iraqi militia commander claims he has soldiers whose job it will be to capture the young prince. He claims he has people within the British bases who will inform when the prince arrives.
A huge scalp indeed.
There's a small piece on the teenage drinking culture. And how assault has dramatically risen in the group of 15-19 year olds. It seems to me that alcohol and assault have been inextricably linked since Adam was a boy. So nothing unusual there. Part of the problem Down Under at least is the almost obligatory way Australians are expected to consume quantities of 'grog' as they bluntly refer to it.
One is considered a freak, to have something wrong with them if they don't embrace the culture. Even the PC, sanctimonious radio hosts espouse with regularity the benefits of alcohol. Depending on the class of host, the more respectful 'wine' is exampled instead of the 'ockey' beer.
But it all means the same thing - drink piss, it's great. Essentially that's what they mean. Well, look at the results.
Forget drugs, there has been nothing as socially destructive as alcohol. Complete strangers, eons in separation from the imbiber of the fluid, can feel its effect.
But it's a HUGE business and as per usual - money talks so for as long as the powerful keep getting rich of its back, the culture will remain.
I've spoken often of the general decline in standards of English and the following headline may go some way to explaining why:
"It's true, mum, we don't have any homework".
A Sydney high school has stopped giving homework to the younger students (year 7 and 8. Ages 9-12). The theory is that the only homework they do get is work they didn't finish in class. Parents say, "it gives them time to be kids". I suspect it may be laziness on the part of the parents (that and the fact that even the parents who have probably not been educated that well and therefore can't help with their kids' work, are perhaps feeling a bit stupid so remove the issue rather than face it.)
Homework is practice. One learns in class but sometimes it can be overwhelming and it rarely locks in immediately so homework is a way of 'pushing it home' as it were. Take that away, instead letting the kids go out and play and completely forget about the subject can result in the next day almost having to start again.
I'm convinced it's detrimental to learning.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Furthermore
People who choose cats over dogs are a bit strange, too. A bit like those weirdo vegetarians who always appear pale and a bit sickly like they're not eatin right or somethin.
Freaks.
Freaks.
Why do dogs chase cats?
And why am I made to feel like a bad owner when I let mine chase them?
Well, no more. For a start, cats are bastards. Y'ever seen how they torture rodents? Letting them run a bit away, like they have even some chance of escape before leaping on them and continuing the torture.
Eventually they get bored and just remove the head.
Moreover, cats will go where they're fed - no matter who 'owns' them. They sit in comfort on laps or cushions by the fire in the house while their canine cousins are banished outside in whatever weather meets them.
There's a cat in my street that sits and watches with this look of superior contempt as I walk my dogs past. Man, I swear, one of these days I'm goin to let 'the big fella' of his lead. That'll take the smug look of its face when it sees the dog comin at it.
See, we have nothing to learn from cats - at least nothing good. Selfishness and exploitation, the ability to slyly feign interest to achieve an end (usually gettin stroked or petted or fed).
From dogs, on the other hand, we can learn honesty, trust, bravery, loyalty and an unconditional love. Man's best friend is apt. We get companionship from them; they lead us, work for us and provide us with a sense of happiness. The great explorers of the ice world used the humble dog to pull sleds. Police forces use them to enforce law and otherwise protect the public.
Cats? Well, like I say - selfish bastards and if my most trusted of friends want to succumb to the pull of nature then tough shit on the cat. If you don't like it, keep your scrawny moggie inside. Any cat out after 5pm is fair game in my book.
Well, no more. For a start, cats are bastards. Y'ever seen how they torture rodents? Letting them run a bit away, like they have even some chance of escape before leaping on them and continuing the torture.
Eventually they get bored and just remove the head.
Moreover, cats will go where they're fed - no matter who 'owns' them. They sit in comfort on laps or cushions by the fire in the house while their canine cousins are banished outside in whatever weather meets them.
There's a cat in my street that sits and watches with this look of superior contempt as I walk my dogs past. Man, I swear, one of these days I'm goin to let 'the big fella' of his lead. That'll take the smug look of its face when it sees the dog comin at it.
See, we have nothing to learn from cats - at least nothing good. Selfishness and exploitation, the ability to slyly feign interest to achieve an end (usually gettin stroked or petted or fed).
From dogs, on the other hand, we can learn honesty, trust, bravery, loyalty and an unconditional love. Man's best friend is apt. We get companionship from them; they lead us, work for us and provide us with a sense of happiness. The great explorers of the ice world used the humble dog to pull sleds. Police forces use them to enforce law and otherwise protect the public.
Cats? Well, like I say - selfish bastards and if my most trusted of friends want to succumb to the pull of nature then tough shit on the cat. If you don't like it, keep your scrawny moggie inside. Any cat out after 5pm is fair game in my book.
I'm back
Far out, I've been ignorin this corner of late. But I'm back now, armed with reams of research and ready to put it out there.
Think I've maybe mellowed a bit - have to wait and see 'bout that though.
The pollies have been at their infuriating best again, especially that twat Iemma. And his obvious manipulation concerning the Lane Cove tunnel. This roughly 2 K tunnel which runs between Epping and the Warringah freeway, is facing the same future as the disastrous cross-city tunnel (which has recently fallen into receivership after the public turned away in droves when the RTA closed virtually every other access road around it, in a failed attempt to force traffic into said tunnel).
The toll-free period has just finished and the goverment expect a reduction of about 10%. Interestingly and promoting suspicion of conspiracy in yours truly, radio broadcasters that previously were against the ill-fated CCT, seem to be attempting to persuade the public of THIS tunnels benefits.
I wonder if any behind the scenes manipulation has been goin on. A few bucks changin hands maybe? A little favour coaxed? Hmmm.
This would come as no surprise considering the protagonists and the worlds in which they exist. (Politicians and media people - their whole world's a sham).
And the idiotic public voted Iemma dilemma (as a radio host in a, rather poor I think attempt at humour, often referred to him) and his party of incompetents back in. I'm still astounded (though, actually, not particularly that surprised as it just confirms my suspicions that Joe Public is indeed a cretin).
I feel surrounded by the incompetent and deceitful.
Tch! That'll do for now
Think I've maybe mellowed a bit - have to wait and see 'bout that though.
The pollies have been at their infuriating best again, especially that twat Iemma. And his obvious manipulation concerning the Lane Cove tunnel. This roughly 2 K tunnel which runs between Epping and the Warringah freeway, is facing the same future as the disastrous cross-city tunnel (which has recently fallen into receivership after the public turned away in droves when the RTA closed virtually every other access road around it, in a failed attempt to force traffic into said tunnel).
The toll-free period has just finished and the goverment expect a reduction of about 10%. Interestingly and promoting suspicion of conspiracy in yours truly, radio broadcasters that previously were against the ill-fated CCT, seem to be attempting to persuade the public of THIS tunnels benefits.
I wonder if any behind the scenes manipulation has been goin on. A few bucks changin hands maybe? A little favour coaxed? Hmmm.
This would come as no surprise considering the protagonists and the worlds in which they exist. (Politicians and media people - their whole world's a sham).
And the idiotic public voted Iemma dilemma (as a radio host in a, rather poor I think attempt at humour, often referred to him) and his party of incompetents back in. I'm still astounded (though, actually, not particularly that surprised as it just confirms my suspicions that Joe Public is indeed a cretin).
I feel surrounded by the incompetent and deceitful.
Tch! That'll do for now
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Experts (in inverted commas)
I haven't written expert without the commas for some time now. I'll explain why:
We join the tale about ten years into it. Joe public (hereafter known as 'dopey Joe') is happily eating/drinking away at a given substance. Then suddenly, out of the blue, one of the aforementioned 'experts' claims in the public forum that the particular food isn't good for you. It gives you cancer/makes you go blind or any other of a million reasons (all of which are complete nonsense - see later).
So dopey joe, as is his/her wont, blindly follows the instruction and ceases forthwith to consume the offending material, safe in the knowledge that he/she dodged the proverbial bullet, and carries on with their lives in blissful ignorance.
Fast forward a number of years (it varies - but usually between 3-5) and some other 'expert' from the same field normally, and in fact often the exact 'expert' who made the original claim, comes out with - "wait a minute, hang on, we made a mistake - it's not bad for you after all. It doesn't give you cancer blah blah. Quite the contrary he goes on to claim, if you DON'T consume this particular substance, you'll be missing out on some important vitamin/nutrient".
And like so much sheep, dopey joe swallows this new contrary information and resumes eating/drinking the once offending consumable. This time breathing a sigh of relief and wondering if they've missed out on something healthy.
Okay - got it so far? Good, so, fast forward another number of years and yet another 'expert' makes himself heard.
"No wait - hang on", he says, "it turns out that we'd got it right first time and the second claim was actually wrong. Stop eating/drinking it again because it IS bad for you - we mean it this time. It definitely gives you cancer/liver damage/heart problems etc."
And on and on it goes. Give it enough time and it'll swing back the OTHER way once again.
Tch! Experts indeed. I swear they just sit in rooms bored, and when it gets too much for them they make these riduculous claims that dopey joe swallows hook, line and sinker.
We join the tale about ten years into it. Joe public (hereafter known as 'dopey Joe') is happily eating/drinking away at a given substance. Then suddenly, out of the blue, one of the aforementioned 'experts' claims in the public forum that the particular food isn't good for you. It gives you cancer/makes you go blind or any other of a million reasons (all of which are complete nonsense - see later).
So dopey joe, as is his/her wont, blindly follows the instruction and ceases forthwith to consume the offending material, safe in the knowledge that he/she dodged the proverbial bullet, and carries on with their lives in blissful ignorance.
Fast forward a number of years (it varies - but usually between 3-5) and some other 'expert' from the same field normally, and in fact often the exact 'expert' who made the original claim, comes out with - "wait a minute, hang on, we made a mistake - it's not bad for you after all. It doesn't give you cancer blah blah. Quite the contrary he goes on to claim, if you DON'T consume this particular substance, you'll be missing out on some important vitamin/nutrient".
And like so much sheep, dopey joe swallows this new contrary information and resumes eating/drinking the once offending consumable. This time breathing a sigh of relief and wondering if they've missed out on something healthy.
Okay - got it so far? Good, so, fast forward another number of years and yet another 'expert' makes himself heard.
"No wait - hang on", he says, "it turns out that we'd got it right first time and the second claim was actually wrong. Stop eating/drinking it again because it IS bad for you - we mean it this time. It definitely gives you cancer/liver damage/heart problems etc."
And on and on it goes. Give it enough time and it'll swing back the OTHER way once again.
Tch! Experts indeed. I swear they just sit in rooms bored, and when it gets too much for them they make these riduculous claims that dopey joe swallows hook, line and sinker.
Monday, January 29, 2007
The definition of scum
Skye Banning was walking with her guide dog near her home in Sydney's suburb of Bondi. A lady in her latter years, and bereft of sight, (a sense most of us take for granted) a more defenceless person one would be hard pressed to find. As she strolled, all of a sudden she was thrown against a wall and had her handbag stolen. The attack left her with significant facial injuries.
Robbery and theft occur in any major city on an almost daily basis but to commit such an act against a blind person, especially one of mature years (and female) is delving to the depths of depravity.
If hell does exist, these cowardly thugs are surely on the fast train there!
What is as digusting and shocking is that this has happened to the lady six, that's right - SIX - times before. To use that tired but nonetheless pertinent old cliche - 'what is the world coming to?'
Pieces of shit. Hell holds a special place just for you.
Robbery and theft occur in any major city on an almost daily basis but to commit such an act against a blind person, especially one of mature years (and female) is delving to the depths of depravity.
If hell does exist, these cowardly thugs are surely on the fast train there!
What is as digusting and shocking is that this has happened to the lady six, that's right - SIX - times before. To use that tired but nonetheless pertinent old cliche - 'what is the world coming to?'
Pieces of shit. Hell holds a special place just for you.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Bloody Tony Abbot's at it again!
Yep, the rabid catholic of whom I've written is at his work again. First it was the attempted blocking of an abortion drug without considering the possible effects on either mother or child, just because it goes against his religion (what happened to the church and state being separate?)
Then in an almost nepotistic fashion, it was the award of a pregnancy counselling contract to his buddies in the Roman Catholic church.
And now this heinous creature has the gall to suggest Kevin Rudd is 'trying to shame christians into voting Labour'.
Not only that, he's said these things at the young Liberals convention in Melbourne. Talk about getting them when they're young.
Has this man no shame? Is no-one going to stop this zealot?
Then in an almost nepotistic fashion, it was the award of a pregnancy counselling contract to his buddies in the Roman Catholic church.
And now this heinous creature has the gall to suggest Kevin Rudd is 'trying to shame christians into voting Labour'.
Not only that, he's said these things at the young Liberals convention in Melbourne. Talk about getting them when they're young.
Has this man no shame? Is no-one going to stop this zealot?
God Almighty - what has happened to men?
In a Sunday magazine someone called Kathy Buchanan has somewhat crowingly written a piece entitled 'Have you noticed...men are looking better than ever'?
If that means men are looking more like women then she's hit the nail right on the head.
Turns out, according to Ms Buchanan, that skincare products' sales for men have taken off. Manicures; pedicures; facials; eyebrow plucks etc. are being sought by the male of the species like never before.
The author goes on to quote a Jo-Anne Mason, director of BU Australasia, a company responsible for tracking sales of such products as saying 'This market growth has been driven by a more image-concious man who does not consider grooming a compromise to his masculinity. Hence the emergence of the metrosexual market with role models such as David Beckham'. Well, there y'go.
Except, would this be the same Mr Beckham who openly admitted to wearing his wife's underwear and whose testicles are in the grasp of said wife?. Hmmm, if he's the typical modern man, we're in BIG trouble, fellas!
Of course, it's no surprise that the world is changing in favour of the fairer sex. Maybe not in the corporate boardroom, but in the average household women are the targeted audience of advertisers. The average man, conversely, is seen as a bumbling idiot who can't do anything and who's treated like a stupid child by the spouse. I am woman hear me roar!
I'm a man. I smell nice, I'm trim, and I dress well. I'm intelligent (no Einstein but no Mr Bean either) and I'm sensitive. And that's about it. I don't exfoliate, I don't pluck my eyebrows and I don't get manicures. I have no desire to be some sort of hybrid - a mixture of man and woman. I have body hair, I have scars from years of motorcycle riding (or tumbling off same) and I sometimes look rough. But, I'm unmistakenly a man. And proud of it too. I have a feminine side, which I keep securely hidden from all but my most trusted colleagues and I can watch soppy films. After which I'll take the lady with whom I've watched the film to dinner where it will be absolutely clear who the man in the relationship is. Why? Well just use your bloody eyes!
If that means men are looking more like women then she's hit the nail right on the head.
Turns out, according to Ms Buchanan, that skincare products' sales for men have taken off. Manicures; pedicures; facials; eyebrow plucks etc. are being sought by the male of the species like never before.
The author goes on to quote a Jo-Anne Mason, director of BU Australasia, a company responsible for tracking sales of such products as saying 'This market growth has been driven by a more image-concious man who does not consider grooming a compromise to his masculinity. Hence the emergence of the metrosexual market with role models such as David Beckham'. Well, there y'go.
Except, would this be the same Mr Beckham who openly admitted to wearing his wife's underwear and whose testicles are in the grasp of said wife?. Hmmm, if he's the typical modern man, we're in BIG trouble, fellas!
Of course, it's no surprise that the world is changing in favour of the fairer sex. Maybe not in the corporate boardroom, but in the average household women are the targeted audience of advertisers. The average man, conversely, is seen as a bumbling idiot who can't do anything and who's treated like a stupid child by the spouse. I am woman hear me roar!
I'm a man. I smell nice, I'm trim, and I dress well. I'm intelligent (no Einstein but no Mr Bean either) and I'm sensitive. And that's about it. I don't exfoliate, I don't pluck my eyebrows and I don't get manicures. I have no desire to be some sort of hybrid - a mixture of man and woman. I have body hair, I have scars from years of motorcycle riding (or tumbling off same) and I sometimes look rough. But, I'm unmistakenly a man. And proud of it too. I have a feminine side, which I keep securely hidden from all but my most trusted colleagues and I can watch soppy films. After which I'll take the lady with whom I've watched the film to dinner where it will be absolutely clear who the man in the relationship is. Why? Well just use your bloody eyes!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Australian pride?
The Big Day Out was held over the last few days. It's a big outdoor concert that runs every year. Never been at it myself (probably because I'm not a teenager anymore) but by all accounts it's a popular gig amongst 'those in the know'.
This year, however, there was a bit of controversy. It would seem that the organizers of the event called for Australians not to bring the national flag just in case it upset some of the non-Australians.
Joe public (understandably) nearly had kittens and voiced such most vehemently. Of course, the commercial radio stations, seeing this anger as a great revenue spinner, exploited it to the full. Disgusting behaviour. I've spoken of these types before - that is - the kind of people who (under the cloak of self-serving sanctimony), manipulate and exploit the dopey public patriotism into a frenzy to achieve a given end. And THAT end is their masters' bottom line. Honestly, these people make me nauseous. But I'm drifting again.
The reason for this post is to comment on the fact that the so-called leaders of this allegedly free nation have done nothing to object to this suggested banning of THEIR flag at an AUSTRALIAN concert in an AUSTRALIAN city.
Where in the name of God is their backbone? These invertabrates are scared to stand up and say - 'hey, this is our country; this is our flag; and if we want to wave our flag in our country, we're damn well going to. If you don't like it then fuck off!
If I was an Australian I'd be ashamed at what I'm witnessing. I'm finding it hard to believe that these weak and pathetic leaders are just going to lie down and let whomever likes dictate to them.
These spineless characters are supposed to be running your country. During the second world war, many Australians fought beside the British to preserve the freedoms we all now enjoy (though those freedoms are being whittled day by day, but that's another post - stay tuned). These men fought bravely and cultured a reputation of Australians that any country would be proud to have. They must be turning in their graves at this cowardly response to an obvious 'throwing down' of the metaphorical gauntlet.
I'm so glad I'm not Australian!
This year, however, there was a bit of controversy. It would seem that the organizers of the event called for Australians not to bring the national flag just in case it upset some of the non-Australians.
Joe public (understandably) nearly had kittens and voiced such most vehemently. Of course, the commercial radio stations, seeing this anger as a great revenue spinner, exploited it to the full. Disgusting behaviour. I've spoken of these types before - that is - the kind of people who (under the cloak of self-serving sanctimony), manipulate and exploit the dopey public patriotism into a frenzy to achieve a given end. And THAT end is their masters' bottom line. Honestly, these people make me nauseous. But I'm drifting again.
The reason for this post is to comment on the fact that the so-called leaders of this allegedly free nation have done nothing to object to this suggested banning of THEIR flag at an AUSTRALIAN concert in an AUSTRALIAN city.
Where in the name of God is their backbone? These invertabrates are scared to stand up and say - 'hey, this is our country; this is our flag; and if we want to wave our flag in our country, we're damn well going to. If you don't like it then fuck off!
If I was an Australian I'd be ashamed at what I'm witnessing. I'm finding it hard to believe that these weak and pathetic leaders are just going to lie down and let whomever likes dictate to them.
These spineless characters are supposed to be running your country. During the second world war, many Australians fought beside the British to preserve the freedoms we all now enjoy (though those freedoms are being whittled day by day, but that's another post - stay tuned). These men fought bravely and cultured a reputation of Australians that any country would be proud to have. They must be turning in their graves at this cowardly response to an obvious 'throwing down' of the metaphorical gauntlet.
I'm so glad I'm not Australian!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
And so it goes
Another sheik is in trouble - this time for preaching jihad and encouraging parents to teach their offspring the same.
92% off people, according to a Sky news poll, think the sheik should be banned from preaching.
Banning freedom of speech is much more frightening than anything anyone can say. This kind of arbitrary oppression of freedom is becoming more prevalent of late and signifies the beginning of a 'police state' mentality.
And it at best only adds pressure to the cooker, in turn aggravating the whole issue.
Society heads interminably towards a train wreck. Like rats in a corner, it turns on itself out of desperation.
Scary stuff eh? Orwellian almost? That's the future. Get used to it.
92% off people, according to a Sky news poll, think the sheik should be banned from preaching.
Banning freedom of speech is much more frightening than anything anyone can say. This kind of arbitrary oppression of freedom is becoming more prevalent of late and signifies the beginning of a 'police state' mentality.
And it at best only adds pressure to the cooker, in turn aggravating the whole issue.
Society heads interminably towards a train wreck. Like rats in a corner, it turns on itself out of desperation.
Scary stuff eh? Orwellian almost? That's the future. Get used to it.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
3000 American souls
More than 3000 Americans have now died since the start of 'the war on terror'. This after Bush's triumphant declaration 3 years ago that 'We've won'.
To put it in layman's terms - it was a terrible mistake going in, it's a mistake to stay, and it's a mistake to leave. These are facts that are being confirmed every day another US soldier dies (and that's not to mention the hundreds of innocents caught in the middle who are also dying in droves).
The countless billions being spent on this folly is going to have terrible ramifications for the once mighty USA. It could well sound the death knell for this superpower. And as hard as it may be to believe at this time, it could bring her to her knees.
The middle east and it's denizons will not back away from this.
3000. And counting. Prepare yourselves for that number to double, treble, quadruple. There is absolutley no telling when this will end. What price American pride?
To put it in layman's terms - it was a terrible mistake going in, it's a mistake to stay, and it's a mistake to leave. These are facts that are being confirmed every day another US soldier dies (and that's not to mention the hundreds of innocents caught in the middle who are also dying in droves).
The countless billions being spent on this folly is going to have terrible ramifications for the once mighty USA. It could well sound the death knell for this superpower. And as hard as it may be to believe at this time, it could bring her to her knees.
The middle east and it's denizons will not back away from this.
3000. And counting. Prepare yourselves for that number to double, treble, quadruple. There is absolutley no telling when this will end. What price American pride?
Fat tax
As spoken of in a previous post, obesity is now a bigger strain on various nations' economies than tobacco products.
Now the Government of Australia has suggested a 'fat tax', where all fast food is taxed more to prevent those of a weak mind from stuffing themselves to oblivion.
That's all well and good - except, what about me, and people like me; that is people who aren't fat and who like a burger now and again - or a can of soft drink.
How about this? Similar to the frames they use at airports to gauge the size of cases one is allowed to take onto the aircraft, why don't we utilize the same thing in fast food restaurants? Sort of - 'if you can't fit through this space, you can't eat our burgers'
Course, there will be the inevitable uproar from the bleeding hearts, citing discrimination. 'Fatties are people too', they would vehemently claim. Yeah, well, so are smokers and nobody gives a stuff about the shocking way they are treated. (Remember the modern lepers forced into the background where they can't disgust the sensitive public?)
Once again I say - fairs fair; what's good for the goose...
Now the Government of Australia has suggested a 'fat tax', where all fast food is taxed more to prevent those of a weak mind from stuffing themselves to oblivion.
That's all well and good - except, what about me, and people like me; that is people who aren't fat and who like a burger now and again - or a can of soft drink.
How about this? Similar to the frames they use at airports to gauge the size of cases one is allowed to take onto the aircraft, why don't we utilize the same thing in fast food restaurants? Sort of - 'if you can't fit through this space, you can't eat our burgers'
Course, there will be the inevitable uproar from the bleeding hearts, citing discrimination. 'Fatties are people too', they would vehemently claim. Yeah, well, so are smokers and nobody gives a stuff about the shocking way they are treated. (Remember the modern lepers forced into the background where they can't disgust the sensitive public?)
Once again I say - fairs fair; what's good for the goose...
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Turning point
Oh oh, heads up, this looks like it could be the turning point. What the hell is he rabbiting on about now, I hear you ask. Well, I'll tell ye.
Some big-shot doctor who's got a 'God' complex, has proclaimed that smokers (remember those vile people deserving of vitriol - the lepers?) - should be denied elective surgery because they smoke. Hey Doc - when are ye gettin the black shirt and boots?
The public are outraged, some going as far as asking - who's next? Fat people, extreme sports seekers, etc? Concerning the fat, I've been saying that for years. 'That' being that burger wrappers should have as equally disgusting pictures on their wrappers considering obesity has now overtaken tobacco related products in economic costs.
Maybe the rest of the planet will now see what a witch hunt it's becoming.
Hang on! I have an idea. Smoking booths - better still mobile smoking booths. Instead of funking up the atmosphere with the disgusting habit, they could all wear this...fully enclosed umbrella type thing with a special filter within to protect the fragile public from the smoke. We could all then walk around bumping into each other like weebles. Yeah, the anti-smoking lobby would be all for that. And! it'll identify the offenders so they can be avoided. 'Don't go near the smoker! Stay away from the smoker', mothers would tell their 'prey-shus'.
God! I need a smoke!
Some big-shot doctor who's got a 'God' complex, has proclaimed that smokers (remember those vile people deserving of vitriol - the lepers?) - should be denied elective surgery because they smoke. Hey Doc - when are ye gettin the black shirt and boots?
The public are outraged, some going as far as asking - who's next? Fat people, extreme sports seekers, etc? Concerning the fat, I've been saying that for years. 'That' being that burger wrappers should have as equally disgusting pictures on their wrappers considering obesity has now overtaken tobacco related products in economic costs.
Maybe the rest of the planet will now see what a witch hunt it's becoming.
Hang on! I have an idea. Smoking booths - better still mobile smoking booths. Instead of funking up the atmosphere with the disgusting habit, they could all wear this...fully enclosed umbrella type thing with a special filter within to protect the fragile public from the smoke. We could all then walk around bumping into each other like weebles. Yeah, the anti-smoking lobby would be all for that. And! it'll identify the offenders so they can be avoided. 'Don't go near the smoker! Stay away from the smoker', mothers would tell their 'prey-shus'.
God! I need a smoke!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
