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!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
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
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
Friday, October 20, 2006
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
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
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
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":
-C
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
-C
Sunday, October 15, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, October 13, 2006
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:
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
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
- Sara-Marie from Big Brother appearing on Celebrity Big Brother.
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
Thursday, October 12, 2006
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!
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!
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 09, 2006
"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?
... 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?
Sunday, October 08, 2006
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!
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!
Saturday, October 07, 2006
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?
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
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
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
