season's greetings.

By PJK



Merry Christmas etc. from all of us here at the unenthusiast(s).

More unenthusiasm coming in 2007! Stay tuned!

the cash-in of the christ.

By Challi

I'm curious. Why the hell is there a movie out about the birth of Jesus? We Christians and all those other serious denominations of the Catholic church have already suffered as much as Jesus did because of hearing about the freaking birth of Jesus every single Christmas when we get forced by our parents or religious significant other to go to church and sit through that whole story about Mary and Joseph looking for a place to give birth to their magical ninja child and they found a barn because there was no room at the hotel. Sure, they could of tried the hospital but they didn't want to pay the bill.

We've heard this story over and over again every year at school. What was even worse was that we had to watch it played out by a whole lot of year 1 kids that are clearly poorly schooled in drama, but that's ok I guess, all of that is free. Now we are given an option to pay to watch a poor reenactment of the birth of Jesus, which we have heard and seen so many times before? I don't think so, Tim. I'll just stick to having to hear about it for free at church.

Oh yeah and lol @ the idiot protestors who tried to fill up the MCG on November 15 with people protesting about the Industrial Relations laws. They only managed about 120,000 when they were aiming for half a million. You know why they fell so short of the amount of people they were expecting? It must have something to do with everyone else having jobs! Despite the hype, these new laws have somehow improved Australia's employment figures dramatically, or so Kevin Andrews states: "We have seen 1.7 million extra jobs created in Australia, more than a 14% increase in real wages. Part of the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996.". So stop complaining!

-C

living next door to Challis.

By Challi

Challis? Who the fuck is Challis?

Well since you asked, let me just get a little history of the Challis family out of the way first. 9 or so years ago, me and my family lived next door to where we live now. Then we moved to where we are now upon the realisation that nobody actually lives next to us on this side. We then just rented out our old house to several different people and we get a little bit richer because of it. Who knows? Maybe we'll end up buying all the houses on our street and then maybe the whole of Littlehampton and have monopoly over it and paint all the houses green and add in some hotels which are red and have chimneys for some reason. Kind of like this:


Yessir, we'll have complete monopoly over our suburb, just like that board game where you try to gain a monopoly over everything, y'know, chess.

The people currently renting our house appear to be a family of 3 who ironically look homeless and obviously have minimal possessions that don't include a razor or soap. They used to live in one of those Housing Trust houses where the house is practically free. Apparently they left because the house was a little bit too small. Sounds like a dumb excuse to me, there's only 3 people in the family and the house is free anyway! It's fucking free! Who gives a shit if it's a little small? I'd live in a 2 room house with no toilets if it was free. Oh well, I guess beggars can be choosers and these people look an awful lot like beggars.

One time when I was walking home I saw the sasquatch father and the son of this family playing cricket with none of the actual equipment you need to play cricket but I'm sure they were still kind of playing cricket. They had a tennis ball for a ball, a wheelie bin for wickets and, here's the quencher, a tennis racquet for a bat. OK, the tennis ball I can understand because it bounces better, the wheelie bin I can understand because, let's face it, nobody actually owns a set of wickets but a freaking tennis racquet? No! Uh uh. That's just not cricket. That's a travesty my dear sir. I would of leant them my brother's Gray Nicholls cricket bat if he didn't take it with him. Hell, even a plastic cricket bat would of been good. But no, they play cricket with a tennis racquet. There's only one thing I have to say about that:

Shame Shame Shame

What annoys me the most is that these losers think they have a right to complain that the bathroom is a bit dirty. Wa wa wa, call a wambulance. We're the poor people who have to watch these ugly neanderthals play cricket with a tennis racquet in our backyard while their ute rusts outside. They have no right to complain at all. I hate how the bottom rungs of society feel they can bitch about anything their superiors do when they're not exactly setting the best example either. Now I know how the Prime Minister feels.

and if those people don't clean up themselves and their act, I guess they've got to get used to not living next door to Challis.
-C

Matisyahu.

By PJK

reactions to the mufti's comments.

By Challi

Just some quick thoughts RE: Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Sheik didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the mufti of Australia an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as several Muslims and also Bronwyn Bishop remarked, that "the Mufti doesn't like Australian women" on the Sunday program this week.

First of all, the Mufti was QUOTING. He happened to just be quoting a conversation he had with other Australian Sheiks and what he had said. If you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Mufti was speaking on the subject of "protection and humility", specifically, suggesting that any woman who dresses up with any skin showing at all is bound to attract a whole lot of horny cats that see the uncovered woman and think she is expired raw meat. I agree. I mean, look at the skin of any woman, sure looks like rotting meat flesh to me. And it is a historical fact that cats have eaten scantily-clad women whole upon the realisation that they are in fact made of meat. Let's not sugar-coat history here people, we were born with meaty flesh, ok? and now we must protect ourself from hungry cats. Hell, if he wasn't a Muslim this wouldn't of been an issue AT ALL. I mean sure any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age we see women straining their periods about it. I mean maybe he has a point, women's flesh should be preserved for the cats they end up marrying and isn't for anyone else to see. Allah forbid women's skin should be shown at all, I mean how is the way a woman looks supposed to land a husband? That's never happened before! and it's his opinion anyway. How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously should not accept double-standards.

Yeah, I'll do a proper post tomorrow maybe. I just got a little bored.
-C

a letter to the UN, re: Australia's nuclear threat.

By PJK

Dear the United Nations,

Grave news: my countrymen are planning to harness nuclear energy — supposedly for electricity, but how can we be sure? For the sake of consistency and for the safety of the Free World™, I call for immediate sanctions against Australia. This is a real threat to the stability of the region and there can be no delay. I know how effective the UN has been in past emergencies and I’m sure you’ll come through for us again.

Yours in good faith,
Patrick Keeley — Citizen of the World

unenthused dialogue.

29/10/2006, 3:37pm

PJK: what's with that show, Anatomy for Beginners?
Challi: TV has become some kind of gross out contest
Challi: On Channel 10, it's the half-naked fatsos on The Biggest Loser. On Channel 9, it's shock docs and on ABC it's Corinne Grant on The Glass House.
PJK: zing!
PJK: Corinne Grant looks like a lizard
PJK: or a bird
PJK: a lizard-bird
Challi: but she was still TROGDOR!!!!
Challi: Can you believe we're paying tax for The Glass House?
PJK: not if John Howard has his way
PJK: he'll eventually privatise everything
Challi: That's what SHE said!
PJK: zing!
Challi: She's a very political person, you see.
PJK: she being Kate Ellis, Member for Adelaide?
PJK: I'd hit it!
Challi: What's more attractive? Her looks or her political savvy?
PJK: don't really know what she stands for. thus I'm assuming her looks, comparitively speaking of course
PJK: not hard to make a comparison when she's sitting behind Kim Beazely, aka Big Kev
Challi: Did you know that the Big Kev who advertised cleaning products is dead?
PJK: nope, didn't know. did a stingray stab him in heart?
PJK: OOOOOH TOPICAL!
PJK: *head explods*
Challi: Some people may of said Steve Irwin died from a stingray tail through the chest, but I say he died of a broken heart
Challi: too soon?
PJK: no, I didn't even know Steve Irwin, so fire away the jokes
Challi: Steve Irwin's death certainly was a sting in the tail
PJK: I guess you could say he was just catching some rays
Challi: He got tailgated
PJK: no wonder he never liked Sting
PJK: ...
PJK: ok that one was a swing and a miss
Challi: as opposed to Steve Irwin's death, which was a sting and a hit
* * *
Challi: Sheikh Hilali, discuss
PJK: that guy is a douche. but, he pisses off bogans. so it balances out
Challi: He regarded scantily-clad women (any woman that isn'tdressed like a ninja) as discarded pieces of meat for the cats to feast on. What a strange metaphor. You don't exactly see the cats try to have sex with discarded pieces of meat.
PJK: maybe... he didn't mean sex...
PJK: *raises eyebrow*
Challi: Maybe he meant cannibalism? because that is the only way that metaphor could make any sense
PJK: yeah, thats what I was implying
PJK: muslims feast on our women! we should nuke Saudi Arabia
PJK: turn the middle east into glass
Challi: I feel sorry for the virgins in heaven, they're only there to be eaten!
PJK: in more ways than one
PJK: ayo!

Black Rénégat freestyle.

By PJK

koalafication.

By Challi

Yeah, I'm neglectful of this blog. You'd be too if you were taught in an institution that inspires apathy towards everything. Don't be fooled by a university's stalls and stands which promote whatever kooky BS they pretend to believe in, everyone just wants to attend classes and then piss off home to play video games and/or smoke their bongs safe in the knowledge that uni will tide them over until they get a solid job that pays well. After that, they'll forget about whatever their Uni taught them altogether. That's how it works.

Oh damn, now I need a segway into what I actually wanted to bitch about.

Well, universities like to do environmental shit like save koalas so they feel better about themselves, right? (Well there is my segway. Smooth.) but who will save us from the koalas? Yesterday, my dad almost ran over a koala that was trying to cross the road. Conveniently it was a 4-wheel drive with big wheels so the koala only received a donk on the head as we drove over it. We didn't swerve, of course, because that would of killed us and frankly we're better than some koala. Eventually the koala managed to make it to the other side with only a throbbing headache.

How terrible are koalas as pedestrians? They're so slow on the road and they never keep an eye out for traffic. Screw the koala cull, they're culling themselves with their reckless disregard of the road, and they could potentially be killing other drivers too if the drivers were dumb enough to swerve as a lot of them are.

We humans had to adapt to their environment when we came to their country several thousand years ago, now it's their turn. Yes we may of killed half their environment to make room for roads, but since we all have to go to universities and other shit that we quite clearly care a lot about, they have to at least have the common courtesy to look both ways before they cross the road and get off as quickly as possible so we can get where we need to go.

Is that too much to ask?
-C

unenthused debate: the human cost of the Iraq War.

By PJK

In contrast to what normally passes as a post here on the unenthusiast(s), I want to discuss one of the most important issues our time: the Iraq War. It's a pretty mammoth topic, so for the sake of brevity I'm going to leave out the debate over casus belli, war-aims and the broader situation in the Middle East and just focus on the recent controversy surrounding loss of human life. After all, is that not the most important thing at stake here?

The facts: The number of confirmed US military casualties in Iraq is currently 2776; the number of British losses is 119. Of the other coalition members, 118 military personnel have been killed, of whom 2 were Australian. 85 journalists have lost their lives covering the Iraq War. If we are to believe the new Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian losses (and there are certainly plausible reasons why we should), the current death toll stands at around 655,000 (31% of this directly attributed to Coalition forces), which would equate to around 2.5 percent of the population. Civilian casualty numbers are disputed however: the L.A. Times points to a figure around 500,000, and the White House claims any estimate above 300,000 is "not credible". In any case, these numbers are pretty hard to comprehend out of context. To put it in perspective (and no, I am not infering moral equivalency), Human Rights Watch estimates that deaths under Saddam range from 250,000 to 290,000. Perhaps we will never know how many were murdered by the Baathist regime, but with the current civil war showing no signs of abating, any plausible figure would likely be exceeded by the time Iraq is stabilised (and indeed it may have already been exceeded). I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Baghdad on Google Earth. If you haven't looked it up yet you should.

The opinion: History will make up its own mind whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. In any case, we cannot simply undo all of these deaths. They are the price that has been paid for Saddam's removal, and we must now ask ourselves the question: are we responsible for Iraq's future? Supporters and opponents of the war alike mostly agree that we are. The challenge therefore is to debate responsibility in a rational and nonpartisan manner, and to fufill whatever responsibility we accept to the best of our ability — especially if Iraq was, as many believe, a mistake.

Comments welcome.

Sources for this post:
Japan Times Online: 'More Deadly Than Saddam'
PBS Online NewsHour: 'Study Finds Iraq Death Toll Higher Than Previous Estimates'
Editor and Publisher: 'Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War'
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Iraq: Journalists in Danger

you've got to ask yourself one question: "do I feel lucky?"

By Challi

Well do ya, punk?

Yes my timing is a bit off but last week we did experience a Friday the 13th, supposedly the unluckiest day of the year, if you don't count the day you have to pay taxes or those 5 or so days that happen once every month if you are a woman, but lets not get into that. Otherwise, Friday the 13th is the unluckiest day of the year because apparently a whole lot of knights got massacred on that day in 1307. Seems like a dumb reason for it to be unlucky, right? Ok sure, but a date that both Fidel Castro and the Olsen Twins were born on seems a good reason enough for it to be considered unlucky.

But generally, I'm not a superstitious person. Shit happens, ok? I have no idea why people think that breaking a mirror is bad luck because your reflection is your soul. Bullshit, your reflection is light projecting off of the mirror and back onto your face so that you can see it (thankyou Wikipedia). It's all scientific mumbo jumbo, not spiritual mumbo jumbo! No, here are the real reasons why certain things are "bad luck":

• Breaking a mirror is bad luck because you'll probably get into trouble with your parents for doing so
• Walking under a ladder is bad luck because it might fall on you
• Opening an umbrella inside is bad luck because you might hit something over with the umbrella in such an enclosed space
• A black cat crossing your path is bad luck because you might trip over it
• Red shoes are bad luck because they're absolutely tacky
• Spilling salt on a table is bad luck because now the table is dirty, you ungrateful bastard!
• Bringing a peacock feather inside the house is bad luck because the peacock will probably come inside the house with you and attack you until you give the feather back
  
• and the number 13 in general is bad luck because when you are 13 you have to go through all those embarrassing things that happen during puberty like your voice breaking

And I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. It is bad luck because it is a bad thing that happened to you, not because the stars and God said so. Screw them!
-C

satire... or truth?

By PJK

Forget Ancient Greece. I think it's safe to say that political satire has found its golden age.

Or maybe not. Maybe satire doesn't exist anymore. Sad as it may be, that which we tend to think of as humour actually comes closer to the truth than the biggest joke of all, which happens to be modern political discourse. We live in a dualistic society entangled with invested interests, where ideology is disguised by convenient euphamisms. Even intellectuals regurgitate buzzwords fed to us by government speech-writers. Who then dares point out the absurd contradictions of our politicians and journalists? Who cuts through the bullshit and half-truths to get to the nutmeat of the issue? Only the sanest individuals among us can expose undiluted reality eloquently and for all time. We generally call those people comedians.

So the real question is, why isn't a satirist like Jon Stewart running the United States? Well, that's the premise for a new movie starring Robin Williams, "Man of the Year".



Sounds entertaining, but the reviews I've read were critical of the film — not for being controversial, in fact quite the opposite; many are saying it doesn't give enough to attention to addressing its underlying concept, which is what merits serious discussion. Satire and satirists aside, politics has abandoned reality in favour of becoming a deceptive fantasy-land, to the left and right of the poltical spectrum alike.

And if you aren't pissed off by that then I have grave concerns about our future.

the immortality of reality and other verses.

By Challi

You haters can complain all you like about reality television and how there is way too much of it on television and yeah, you'd be right, but reality television is here to stay.

By "here" I mean "on television" and where you are now clearly isn't television so that didn't make sense at all.

What does make sense, however, is that reality TV shows will be screening on our televisions sets for decades to come. They're cheap to produce, meaning maximum profit, and they're extremely popular because they're addictive. In a sense, the producers are capitalising on people's addictions, they're like drug dealers!

This doesn't bother me too much, it's natural, but I still need something to complain about otherwise this will be one boring-ass post. So what does bother me is how the contestants in these kind of shows reckon they have some kind of celebrity status just based on the fact they were on these shows, and it's true, they do. In fact, it has gone to the point where the reality TV contestants have gone on another reality TV show just because they have been on the previous reality TV show and are now considered celebrities so they have given access to the subgenre I have dubbed celebrity reality television (Dancing With The Stars, Celebrity Overhaul, It takes Two, Celebrity Survivor etc.)

Here are the main offenders:

• Paulini from Australian Idol appearing on Celebrity Overhaul
  
• Guy Sebastian from Australian Idol appearing on It Takes Two
• Fiona from The Biggest Loser appearing on Dancing With The Stars

and possibly the most ridiculous one of all:

• Sara-Marie from Big Brother appearing on Celebrity Big Brother.
  

Oh yeah, and then there is Ian "Dicko" Dickson, Australian Idol judge, who has went on to host two reality shows on channel 7: My Restaurant Rules and Celebrity Survivor.

There is a blatant pattern of reality tv show contestants being used as reality TV show contestants again on another show just because of there fame from their first reality TV show. Reality show contestants should be put in the garbage part of the wheelie bin after they're finished with, not the recycle part. But no, apparently if they've been on TV once they are now celebrities. Is Australia so damn short of celebrities for their celebrity reality television that they need to put in a contestant from another reality show and deem them as a celebrity even if they didn't even win the original show?

If it wasn't for The Biggest Loser, Fiona would of just been some fat slob on the bus trying to make her way home that nobody would give a shit about, but now she is a celebrity because she lost weight on TV. If she lost weight in real life she would feel happy about herself but she wouldn't be a celebrity and would never of been considered for Dancing With The Stars.

So what of Sara-Marie? All she did on Big Brother was laze around and show off her big fat ass occasionally and basically be a stupid bitch all the time, and for that reason she is deemed a celebrity? She didn't even win Big Brother, for freaks sake. I could laze around and be a stupid bitch all my life and still wouldn't get the celebrity status she sort of got.

The pattern is clear. If you really want to be a celebrity but don't want to go through the hard work of having to go to acting schools or singing lessons, try to get on Big Brother like Sara Marie did and just be as irritating as you possibly can to insure maximum airtime. Hey Presto, you're a celebrity.

and I am aware that nobody cares about Sara-Marie anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that at a time people did, and that's what pisses me off the most.
-C

another day, another dollar... for television.

By PJK

Ok get this. So I'm watching SBS just now (I know why you're smirking and the answer is no), and the show I'm watching cuts to a commercial break. So I think to myself, oh ok, I'll go make myself an espresso. After all, isn't this SBS, the channel for artsy intellectual poseurs and black-scivvied latte-sippers, and...? Whoah, wait a second... a commercial break?! *does double take* I check the channel: it's definately SBS. And yet there I am, in bewilderment, watching an overly-dramatic car ad.

I immidiately leapt onto the computer to check this out (not really, that would probably break the computer, it just sounds dramatic). I asked Google in no uncertain terms: what the fuck is going on? Well, apparently I'm not going insane, it's true; SBS will be running ads throughout their programming now. Why do I get the impression a lot of suburban hippies are going to get very mad? After all, this is supposed to be television's last refuge for the Australian middle class intelligensia (obviously the ABC remains ad-free, but just remember who our Prime Minister has been for the last decade and then compare that to the annual budget of the ABC over that period and you realise we're in big trouble).

I don't mind SBS "selling out" or whatever, I'm not going to go accusing them. I mean, it's not like they didn't already have ads. I just thought it was considerate that they were shown AFTER the programme, so we could change channels or leave the room. Now what? Quality shows/cult-movies will run longer and be less engaging to watch, all for the sake of a buck. For shame.

In other news, apparently North Korea has the bomb or somesuch and there might be a war going on in the Middle East. But I guess we'll never know that, because our most trusted news source SOLD OUT BIG TIME!

duck and cover!

By PJK

North Korea recently proved to the world that they can explode a nuclear device. This is serious stuff and the concern is mounting here in Australia about the possible threat North Korea poses to the security of our region. Inspired by an interview on Channel Nine’s breakfast news programme, The Today Show, I decided to compile a list of frequently asked questions regarding the possibilities of a nuclear-armed North Korea.

The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Programme FAQ

Q. Could North Korea launch a nuclear weapon at Australia?
A. No. Even if they did have the technology to deliver a nuclear device via missile, their range extends only about 2000 kilometres at best.

Q. How would the government respond if North Korea launched a nuclear missile at Australia?
A. It wouldn’t need to. North Korea has no such missile, and Australia is well beyond the range of their missile technology. Any long-ranged missile of this type developed in the future would probably be aimed at the US.

Q. Would the North Koreans strike our major cities, or would they attempt to radiate our agriculture?
A. Neither. North Korea does not possess the technology to deliver a nuclear device that could reach Australia. It cannot attack Australia.

Q. Are the North Koreans more likely to nuke Sydney than Melbourne?
A. No, because North Korea does NOT have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon at Australia.

Q. Would the fallout from a nuclear attack produce a nightmarish post-apocalyptic wasteland in which Mel Gibson roams the desert battling other tribes for survival, ala Mad Max?
A. Irrelevant. There will NOT be any nuclear fallout, as there will NOT be a North Korean nuclear attack on Australia!

Q. Will bottle-caps become the new currency in the Year Zero?
A. I don’t know.

Q. I decide to re-locate my family to a high-tech bomb shelter deep underground in anticipation of the coming nuclear attack. I soon run out of dehydrated foods. Should I eat my eldest children first?
A. …

Q. When the radiation diminishes and it becomes safe for us to emerge, which weapon should we use to fight off the hideous mutant freaks?
A. A shotgun I guess.

Q. I live in Adelaide. Should I be concerned?
A. Yes.

**

Well there you have it. I hope you’re all marginally less informed about the coming Armageddon than you were before. Good luck creating a new and better society over the rubble of civilisation!

This is PJK, signing off from P'yŏngyang.

"artworks go under the hammer"...

By PJK

... always a shame to hear about the senseless destruction of artwork.

Seriously, why can't the media just use normal sentences like rest of us? What's wrong with saying "artworks auctioned"? Why the convoluted clichés all the time?

Anyone else got any examples of dumb headlines they'd like to share?

what a stinker!

You may have thought the world's biggest cheese would be in France. Germany maybe? Somewhere in Europe?

Nope, it's right here in Australia. It's the Rock Eisteddfod!



Ah the Rock Eisteddfod. I love the predictable dance routines, crap sets, shitty costumes, and just the humungous effort these over-achieving dorks put into making... a load of bollocks basically. The none-too-subtle poltical messages are always a good larf too.

What's this? A satirical jab at our Prime Minister?!
*Gasp!* But such a thing has never been done!

They have a REC special on TV right now (if you're watching, switch over to Channel 9) with hysterical behind the scenes interviews. But if you miss it, don't sweat: the website has streaming videos of the complete 8 minute performances for each of the schools that make the finals! Yay!

What are you waiting for? Click here for Rock Eisteddfod videos!

Enjoy!

popular culture and the rising sun.

By PJK

One rather striking image that seems to be appearing in graphic designs all over the place all of the sudden — on clothing and in brand logos and so forth — is the Japanese "rising sun" emblem.

A quick check on Wikipedia reveals the origins of the symbol: historically associated with the Japanese military, it was first adopted as the official naval ensign in 1889 (the flag is still in use for that purpose to this very day). Here's a t-shirt I found on a simple Google search featuring the symbol, similar to one I saw today:

Now I admit it does look cool. There's no denying that. But I am disturbed by the fact that it's being absorbed into popular culture in this way. I wonder: how is wearing this any different to wearing a Swastika? This is a flag against which a generation of Australians were called to fight. It's the flag waved by Japanese Imperialists as they conquered and subjugated the people of South East Asia. Horrific atrocities like the Rape of Nanking were carried out under this flag. It was a rallying symbol for Tojo's militarist thugs. In short, it is a flag of fascists.

As I mentioned earlier, this flag is still in official use. We could get into a whole sideline debate as to why that is and whether or not it should be disassociated completely from the modern Japanese military, but that's an entirely different discussion. The question is, where do we draw the line on political correctness in pop-culture iconography?

decomposer*

By Challi

When you think of Ludwig Van Beethoven, do you picture a guy with greyish hair in late 18th century attire writing down carefully constructed compositions of sonata-form piano music and then playing the compositions on his piano to make sure that they're perfect? Well apparently you should actually be thinking of a naked woman holding a conductor's baton.

(If you're a guy, you probably were anyway, but let's not get into that)

To understand what I meant by that, feast your eyes, and I do mean feast, on this album cover I first noticed on the iTunes music store:


Dang, Beethoven had a nice rack! I should be listening to more classical music!

It is actually quite a good way to completely change the target audience from 50+ year old English guys to 18-35 year old Aussie guys like us, just stick a naked chick on the front! and then when we come home from the shops with it, we'd suddenly realise we just bought a classical music CD and be really pissed off.

Ok, I've run out things to say on this issue, but here is a quick message to Shanna Moakler, the former Miss USA runner-up who thought it was a good idea to punch Paris Hilton, heir of the Hilton Hotels fortune, square in the jaw:

Thankyou
-C

meta-rant.

By PJK

You know what sucks? When people ask dumb rhetorical questions at the beginning of a post and then do a rant on that subject, usually about how much something sucks. Makes me sick to the stomach (argh, I hate that expression — where else are you going to be sick to, your spleen?! incidentally, what's with everyone always using "spleen" as their default obscure bodily organ? what's wrong with "pancreas"?) and yet the sad part is, these people think they're funny. People who complain about stuff all the time are NOT funny! They contribute nothing to worthwhile discussion and just annoy everyone else. (don't get me started on everyone else...)

Blog is a dirty word. A filthy skank of a word. All to save a mere fraction of a second. What's the matter, too lazy to type two letters?! It's "weblog". Though I suppose even that's just a lazy contraction. Note to the English language: INVENT NEW WORDS!! DO NOT CONTRACT EXISTING WORDS INTO UGLY MASHED UP HYBRIDS!! But I digress (hate that phrase, such a pretentious cliché... and yes there is an accent on the "e" so get it right next time morons!). Returning to my previous point: rants are the bane of the Internet. (which appparently gets to be capitalised because apparently it's a pronoun... go figure [ohmyfuckinggod I hate the phrase "go figure", that is such a huge Americanism right there — and while I'm at it, what's the deal with people complaining about Americanisms? it's my language and I'll use it how I want] — the only other theoretical entity I can think of that gets to be capitalised is God... are you people trying to say that the Internet is God?!)

Like a sad old man committed to an asylum for yelling at ducks, so-called "Bloggers" (ugh) will resort to ranting at any given opportunity. After all, it's easier than coming up with something worthwhile to talk about, and can be fed to them directly from the mouths of other Bloggers; regurgitated if you will to form bite-sized digestible chunks. Mmm... pre-chewed.
HOWEVER — the absolute worst thing (apart from introducing sentences with ridiculous hyperbole like "the absolute worst thing") is when bloggers write posts about how they supposedly have nothing to write about. Umm, aside from the whole massive irony thing, what did you just achieve exactly? Why waste everyone's precious leisure time by telling us something as pointless as that?! For freak's sake.

Speaking of wasting time, I believe that fulfills my contractual requirement for a post this week.
Nicely played. *sweeps one in past the goalie while he wasn't looking*

Er... fin?

caught in a web(ster).

By Challi

This week's cover of Zoo Weekly features forgotten Sydney 2000 singing starlet Nikki Webster in racy lingerie and promises more pictures of her like that in the magazine.

Now right now you're either thinking "Giggidy giggidy giggidy" or "eww" or "I don't care" or "How the hell did I end up on this website?" or all of the above but I was just thinking "Why not? She's 19 and she's got a nice body, more power to her", but I'm still not buying the magazine. I know it's cheap but I'd only be getting it for Nikki and I don't want to even get it for that. I learnt my lesson from her first shoot in a Zoo weekly magazine that I actually bought. It said "Look what's happened to Nikki Webster" and it featured her in a two piece. I bought it, conveniently I was in Queensland at the time so nobody I knew, except my cousin, knows that I bought it, but now you do. Dammit!

Anyway, I was kind of excited to see her but when I looked at the pictures I was kind of disappointed. I'm sure Patrick won't appreciate me posting smut on the blog, we're way too refined for that, so just search nikki+webster+zoo in Google and you can see what I mean. She doesn't smile in the majority of her photos!

I know the oogling of her body is degrading and demeaning to both her and I, but she doesn't need to remind us of it! She has a look of disgust on her face like I just walked in on her while she was getting changed. Now excuse me while I talk in second person. Just pretend you're Nikki for a moment.

How about a little smile, girl? You're getting paid to wear barely anything and look pretty, not make us feel bad about ourself! That look of disgust is really discouraging and a real turn-off anyway, especially because you show your buckteeth when you do it, I hope you don't stare at your boyfriend in that way when he's pleasuring himself to your pictures.

Ok, you aren't Nikki Webster anymore, not that you ever were.

If it wasn't for the pictures semi-naked women, Zoo magazine would not be worth buying at all. It's just a whole lot of poorly pieced together articles with a section full of jpegs that are all available from the freaking internet anyway. So I want to get what I paid for: Scantily clad women looking pretty and looking like they enjoy it, and I don't feel dirty because they've still almost got clothes on.

and before you try to connect this with what I do during the night with the door closed, I say this:
Shut up, you do it too, just not as frequently.
-C

the twenty dollar challenge:

By Challi

I needed some kind of inspiration for me to make an interesting post, and some of the best inspiration I can always get from work, and that's what I did today: I went to work. Yahoo for me!

Today in the till I noticed a twenty dollar note unlike any other, it had a protest on it! Check it out!







Now if you can't read neo-greenie high horse it says "TRUST JOHNNY HOWARD. ? (Squiggly mark) No No No (Squiggly mark) ." and even if you can read it, that's still what it says.

Did you get the ever so subtle message? Howard has the word "war" in his name so they've highlighted it to refer to his connections with a war! It's like since his last name has "war" in it, he is destined to participate in a war! *poke* Geddit? *poke poke*

Clearly this twenty dollar must of been scribbled on by some self-righteous hippie whilst the election between Mark Latham and John Howard took place and people were still bitchy about the 2003 "invasion" of "Iraq" by "The Coalition" and wanted "Mark Latham" to be "elected" in the 2004 "federal election" because they "reckon" he could "stop it" (Ok, I'll stop with the quotation marks). It was also scribbled on during a time when that phrase would of still been considered clever.

Nowadays, your average Australian citizen cares a little less about the war in Iraq because we're all focusing on some war between Israel and Lebanon, and we've even stopped focusing on that because it's footy finals season. So this twenty dollar note represents a moment in time when a whole lot of whiny Aussies decided that they don't like the war because people die in it, and we all stepped up and let John Howard know that we don't like him anymore because he sent troops out to kill and get killed. It's a piece of history, basically, so I might keep it for a bit until I lack money and actually need to spend it and then some other unfortunate sod will be stuck with a twenty dollar note that has a slightly outdated protest scribbled on it. Or it's still valid, I don't know how hippies think.

But wow, what a great way to protest. Sure it's illegal, sure people will be embarrassed to use it now, but at least people will read your message and you will be heard by the masses due to the power of consumerism and money circulation. Besides, nobody wants to chuck a twenty dollar note away, do they?

Think about it
-C

urgent memo: help Flinders on Wikipedia!

By PJK

Ok gang, this is serious. I just looked up the article for Flinders University on Wikipedia and it's woefully inadequate. Take a look for yourselves. It's nothing more than some dull background followed by a few dot points. The section labelled "student life" has nothing under it!! Literally nothing!!

Now I know it's the mid-semester break and you're all probably hung over from like ten nights of consecutive drinking-binges, but even that fact itself is a story that needs to be told! Think: all it takes is one sentence each and we've already written a paragraph. It doesn't have to be good, it doesn't even need to be true. It just needs to be done. Tell your friends! Get the word out! If not for me, then for the Flinders mascot! (invent a Flinders mascot and upload a photo of it)

Do it! Do it now!

the tank from the black lagoon...

By PJK

Ahhh man. Here's a story that'll put a smile on the face of any self-respecting male. In a heartwarming case of every-little-boy's-dream-come-true, Estonian hobbyists uncover a Soviet T34 tank (circa 1944) buried in a peat bog. Lucky bastards!!

Naturally there are pics:

Holy crap that's beautiful...

Don't be confused by the German insignia; it's a trophy tank, taken by the Germans and purposely abandoned. Just as well, otherwise it'd be scrap metal by now. Seems the peat managed to preserve it pretty well though:

Altogether, 116 shells were found on board. Remarkably, the tank was in good condition, with no rust, and all systems (except the engine) in working condition.

And yes, they did get it working using a substituted engine. I am so fucking jealous. I want a tank ride damnit!!

reactions to the pope's comments.

By PJK

Just some quick thoughts RE: the Pope's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Pope didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the Pope an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as one commenter on our Cbox remarked, that "the Pope doesn't like Muslim people".

First of all, the Pope was QUOTING. He made perfectly clear that the quote was not a reflection of his own view, so unfortunately for all you rabid anti-Papal nutjobs, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. And if you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Pope was speaking on the subject of "faith and reason", specifically, suggesting that anyone who spreads faith through violence shows a lack of reason. I agree. And it is a historical fact that the religion of Islam, at the command of its own prophet, did at one time spread the Islamic faith by the sword, killing many innocent people in the name of Allah. Let's not sugar-coat history here people. Christians did the same thing, so did Hindus and Buddhists and probably at some point even Jews. The fact that he focused on Islam was probably a bad move, but so what? Why do we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements? Particularly something that happened over 600 years ago? Any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age, we see people firebombed for drawing cartoons of Muhammed (for example). How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously (and that is a whole other discussion entirely), should not accept double-standards.

if you can't stand the heat...

By Challi

Let me just start this little rant by saying this, and even if you don't let me I'm going to do it anyway, you can't stop me:

Jamie Oliver is an crap chef who clearly doesn't know what he's doing at all and touches and eats way too much of what he's supposed to be preparing. He is also disorganised and annoying. If he was ever on Iron Chef, Hiroyuki Sakai would pwn him to the ground in a metaphor that is not to be taken literally. To clarify...








Now Jamie's Kitchen Australia is equally as stupid as the idiot it is named after, if not less. Why? Jamie Oliver is trying to make a restaurant that is supposed to be able to compete with the other top restaurants in Melbourne. You'd think that in order to do that he'd want to hire some competent people who have completed some form of education and know at least something about cooking, right? Wrong. Jamie Oliver had specifically ordered his selection team to choose a bunch of former druggies, criminals and some clinically depressed people and shun the intellectuals and uni graduates away.

and in the upcoming episode, we'll apparently learn that there are going to be some troubles and conflicts. Of course there is going to be some fucking problems, you hired druggies and ex-cons to take care of your restaurant! It's not exactly going to be a walk in the park. I know Jamie Oliver is trying to give these lowlives a "second chance" but this is a place of business, not the fucking Salvos! Half of them will abandon the restaurant and go back to hooker duties and the druggies will probably have a case of the munchies and eat half the food they're supposed to be preparing, kind of like what Jamie does. The whole restaurant will be a wreck but Jamie will be out of the country long before that happens, because he's just that kind of douche.

Probably shouldn't of opened the restaurant in Melbourne either, that's a bad way to get the windows broken.

and another thing, Jamie Oliver is hiring people with lower or similar competency to him and got rid of the intellectuals. Maoism much?

To clarify...







Now you political geeks can argue with me all you like about what it means to be a Maoist or what Mao Tse Tung did, and then you'd be bewildered as how I could make such a stupid comparison, but I think we can all agree that Jamie Oliver is a nutface.

and if Jamie Oliver really did try to kill everyone smarter than him, there goes the Southern Hemisphere.

Don't worry, I'm sure Patrick will come up with a more meaningful post when he comes around

So bye for now
-C

what if stupid songwriters were one of us?

By Challi

There had been an old song from 1995 (Gosh, almost ancient) playing on the radio the other day (the other day being 4 weeks ago) that's been kind of bugging me a lot because it sticks in your head, and I admit to downloading it once before, but the lyrics are so bland and don't make sense at all. It wouldn't usually bother me but the guy who wrote the lyrics (Eric Bazilian, btw, not like you care) was clearly trying to be all philosophical but instead wrote a song that is incredibly ignorant and has demeaned us as humans.

The song I'm referring to is "One of us" by Joan Osborne. Ring a bell yet? It undeservedly won a Grammy for song of the year in 1996 probably just because it mentions God in it 20 times. The lyrics to the chorus ought to refresh your memory.

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?

Yeah that's right. That song.

Now if God was one of us, he'd be just that, one of us. He'd just be some stranger that we wouldn't look at twice because he's just some uninteresting guy we don't know. That's pretty much what the chorus is saying anyway, but let's take a look at some of the other lyrics.

If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?

I'm sure his name would still be God, or possibly Godfrey, but I wouldn't call it to his face because I don't know who the fuck he is, because he'd just be some stranger on the bus.

If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?

If he was just some slob like one of us, he would not be in "all his glory", because he wouldn't have a whole lot of glory anyway. The only question I'd need to ask him would be something like "Could you please move out of the way so I could get out of the bus?"

If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?

but it wouldn't. He's supposed to be a human now in your little hypothetical, so I'd be able to see him anyway unless he is hiding behind something. I would not have to believe in any spiritual being in order for a normal human to be visible to me. Geez.

Back up to heaven all alone

"Back" up to heaven? If God was truly one of us, he would of been born on Earth. And yeah, "maybe" go back up to heaven when he dies.

No, nobody calling on the phone
No, just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome

What the fuck? We slobs don't get phone calls from the freaking Pope! and if we did, we wouldn't exactly be on his speed dial. If God was just some slob like one of us, he wouldn't get calls from the Pope. I mean c'mon, what would make him so special? I doubt God even gets phone calls from the Pope in reality. What a stupid thing to say.

So the bottom line is this: If God was one of us, nobody who didn't know who he is would give a shit who he is. Not even the Pope. It's like the guy who wrote the song is completely out of touch of how a normal human is like and thinks that we're all invisible and are friends with the Pope. We really aren't.

and that's the bottom line because Challi said so.
-C

kung fu action swords!

By PJK

HEY!! I'm LOUD!!

Did you read the text in capitals louder in your head? You should've, it was intentional. It represents me shouting at you. LISTEN TO ME!! Are you? Excellent.

Rarely do I frequent the cinema as my major source of amusement. If my brow were any higher, it'd be levetating above my head. But I did see Fearless recently — it's a movie — and of course one of the great things about martial arts films is the insane martial arts they do! People get smashed, grabbed, knee-ed, kicked in the shins and so forth. All that is awesome, and sometimes they even use deadly weapons when fighting. But that's not actually what I love most about martial arts epics. My favourite thing ever is just the whole visual motifs in these films, the aesthetics if you will. The sets, the costumes, the landscapes. This is where asian cinema excels.

Talking about movies critically in this way is not my vain attempt at being avant-garde. I don't even know what that means. For I, dear readers, am a student of Screen Studies, and this is all part of my plot to destroy Hollywood! ... I kid. Except not about the Screen Studies part. I am actually doing it (so is Challi, my co-conspirator for this weblog). It's one of several arts subjects I'm taking this semester, along with History and Philosophy (I'm starting Law next semester). But now I'm straying from the topic and we can't have that. Back to film. So what you find with Screen Studies is, surprise surprise, there are a lot of very pretentious people doing it (including moi of course). Unlike them however, I'm not that much of a movie snob. Mainly because I haven't seen nearly as many movies as most screen students. I hate the same crap they hate, but when it comes to naming directors, I find myself at ClueFactor Zero™.

For this reason, Screen Studies has been my least successful subject, grades-wise, this semester. I'm trying to better that though, because I really do enjoy my weekly dose of screen. The lectures are fun and the screenings are a good chance to see some classic films with an appreciative audience. It's also fun to do some "homework" on your own — I've been renting films from the directors/genres/eras we're studying to try and get a better grasp of the subject and I'm already starting to feel the snobbery begin to bulge like rippling biceps of pretention! It's fascinating, and contrary to what I thought, it's not actually ruining my experience of going to movies (quite the opposite in fact).

So back to Fearless. Though it is a joy of a film to watch (got that one from Margaret and David, yoink), it didn't have the same depth as say, House of the Flying Daggers. I think one thing we can all agree on however: it would totally suck to own a restaurant or teahouse in a martial arts movie. You just know what's going to happen! Why did I buy those vases, oh why?!

cheers to you, mrs. robinson.

By Challi

Hello, my name is Michael Challis, co-contributor to the blog, you killed my father, prepare to die.

If you don't know me by now, congratulations. You're one of the lucky ones. Unfortunately you'll have to find out about me and watch me fuel my ego while this blog is still around and I'm still on it. I used to have a blog of my own but then I realised that in order to have a proper blog I would have to update it at least once a year, which I failed to do. So I'll just let Patrick keep the blog alive and I shall use this blog on the occasion that I feel a rant coming on and need to dispose of it here so I don't stain my clothes. Like now:

As a job, I work at my parent's pet stuff and pet food store down in rural Adelaide Hills. As such, we get many a customer, most of whom lack teeth and reek of pot. Whenever we finish a transaction with a customer, these monstrous entities always feel they should exchange gratitude for it. That's fine, if they just said "Thanks" but unfortunately for me, the flavour of the last few years has been "Cheers". Nobody ever says thanks anymore, they just say "Cheers", like I just clinked a glass of rancid wine with theirs, which I haven't.

Why has "Cheers" officially replaced "Thanks" in Australian culture? Were we just looking for something different to say, or were we just trying to allude to that stupid sitcom? Saying "Cheers" doesn't even make sense in a situation where you'd normally say thanks anyhow. "Cheers" implies celebration, and buying something from our shop, which they do every freaking day, isn't exactly a cause for a celebration. That is unless you're a really lonely person who gets really excited every time you go to shop because that's the only way you can make human contact anymore.

If that is the case, then that's not exactly a cause for a celebration, but crank out the booze anyway.

-C

connect the dots to find the treasure.

By PJK

Text text text text shadalah bing! — Welcome.
Alright, that takes care of the intro. You know who I am, you know what a blog is for, let's not fool around any.

I presume my readers are all aware that I'm back in Australia? I am. It's currently week... dunno, stopped keeping track of the weeks... at my new academic home, Flinders University™. And to think I need only cross several tectonic plate-lines from my house to get there! It's great. Remind me to write more about student life in later posts. Besides the novelty of being at uni though (which I admit is rapidly fading) I seriously can't believe just how fast everything is now back to normal. The first six months of this year are now like a blip in my mind! I'm dissapointed, but I can't say I didn't predict that. Anyway, things aren't all gloomy. Naturally I've caught up with many of my friends and lesser beings since getting back (plenty of Merc alumni at Flinders of course), and yeah... right now I'm just taking life as it comes, trying to find true hapiness etc. in this puzzle that is our existence. Kewl! (note to readers: this is not a novel spelling of cool, please avoid.)

When in future I think of specific things to discuss, they will become posts. My only useful thought just now was, hey, I should stop procrastinating and make that new blog I was meaning to make! And I did. Yay me! Freep.