Since it seems the done thing at the moment I should like to inform the Australian population that I have not been to a strip club. Although I wouldn't mind changing this..
And *bless* Bob Brown again:
"Four years ago, Kevin Rudd got drunk and took himself into a strip club," Senator Brown said.
"Four years ago, John Howard, sober, took Australia into the Iraq war. I think the electorate can judge which one did the more harm," he said.
The man gets my vote and my knickers thrown at the podium.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Tainting the broth
The gay community can do without Alan Jones.
The red-heads of Australia can do without Pauline Hanson.
The Australian population could do without Olivia Newton-John.
Discuss.
The red-heads of Australia can do without Pauline Hanson.
The Australian population could do without Olivia Newton-John.
Discuss.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
Couldn't Resist
Unfortunately I have copped a lethal dose of StalkBook and have neglected my political ranting (online at least - still going at it in bars of the world with the rest of them). However.. God Gerard Henderson is an irksome little wart!
I do love this part of this article though:
"During the initial hearing before the Federal Court on July 18, Justice Jeffrey Spender effectively ridiculed the Crown's case. He maintained that he, too, would fail such a character test because he has "been associated with persons suspected of criminal conduct". The implication of Spender's comment is that there is no difference between the judges or barristers who, as part of their profession, have associated with individuals suspected of criminal conduct"
Lets get this clear; lawyers and their ilk DO interact with people who have engaged in criminal conduct. That's their job. You've got to worry a little about people who choose this as a profesion don't you? That aside, surely we've all at some time been associated with individuals suspected of criminal conduct in one way or another.. sure there's a big difference between fare evasion or a little spliff and terrorism but the logic is the same. How far does our culpability extend?
I do love this part of this article though:
"During the initial hearing before the Federal Court on July 18, Justice Jeffrey Spender effectively ridiculed the Crown's case. He maintained that he, too, would fail such a character test because he has "been associated with persons suspected of criminal conduct". The implication of Spender's comment is that there is no difference between the judges or barristers who, as part of their profession, have associated with individuals suspected of criminal conduct"
Lets get this clear; lawyers and their ilk DO interact with people who have engaged in criminal conduct. That's their job. You've got to worry a little about people who choose this as a profesion don't you? That aside, surely we've all at some time been associated with individuals suspected of criminal conduct in one way or another.. sure there's a big difference between fare evasion or a little spliff and terrorism but the logic is the same. How far does our culpability extend?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Cast the first stone..
I'm sure that i'm not the only feminist who squirms a little when the topic of Islam's treatment of women is raised. Not in a kind of cultural relativism we-can't-criticize-because-that-would-be-racist way but mainly because it seems to me that on questions of Islamic oppression of women, feminists end up with some rather unsavoury neo-con bedfellows.
After many rather heated debates over the last few weeks i found this article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali which is exactly what i've been trying to express but have not managed to do so quite succinctly. I had also never realized that this woman who is so against asylum seekers especially if they are found to have fudged any of the details of their claim fudged her own asylum application for the Netherlands.
The idea of a monolithic religion and culture seems so far removed from what i have heard about Islamic culture that it seems to make as much sense to equate the Taliban's treatment of women with that of Islam generally as it makes to equate the treatment of women by the Bulldogs as representative of all Australian attitudes. A monolithic view of Islam thus ends up propogating the arguments of the fundamentalists within the religion and not respecting the fact that many muslims are more progressive and are working to change and challenge their religion.
It's more than a little condescending to suggest to these people that they are so oppressed that they just don't know any better.
Considering how recent many developments in gender and racial equality are in western countries it's a little rich to suggest we have the monopoly on non-opressive social relations. Frankly, many of the conservatives who criticize Islam for its treatment of women have not made a peep about inequalities within their own societies and instead seem to spend an inordinate time calling uppity women "femonazis".
It is amazing how Ali has fought back against some of the more insidious parts of Islam and feminism can do with more outspoken and fearless advocates even if we do end up disagreeing with some of their conclusions..
Monday, May 28, 2007
A ticket a tusket
I love this story from the SMH about an elephant demanding road-toll in bananas and vegetables from motorists in India. It seems so wonderfully organised.
The elephant is referred to the article as "the Tusker". Makes him sound like an elephantine superhero...

I'm just waiting for my lycra people..
The elephant is referred to the article as "the Tusker". Makes him sound like an elephantine superhero...

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)