By Challi
Like any lily-livered pinko in Australia, I want the Australian troops out of Iraq. My original reason for this was that they're participating in an unjust war in a god-forsaken hellhole and they might get hurt blah blah blah I want my mummy, but then I reattached my testicles and now actually have a practical reason as to why they shouldn't be in Iraq that even your average heartless bastard will understand:
They're not doing anything there!
Yes, according to a recent report from Iraq which I'll be sure to cite as soon as it comes up on a news site and obviously will have this sentence removed, Australian soldiers are being taunted by American troops for not participating as much as they should be. I tend to agree, mostly because the body count for American troops stands at around the 3500 mark, whereas the body count for Australian troops stands at a measly 2, and they were both accidental. If the Australian soldiers were really doing their jobs, we'd see a lot more dead Australian soldiers, and that's what we'd want to see! If it takes someone to be cleaning their gun and it accidentally going off for a death to happen, they may as well leave right now because they clearly aren't pulling their weight!
Ok, I don't actually wish death on the Australian troops and I understand they probably ran out of things to do, but they're also basically going in there and getting paid extra for nothing, except to stay in a war zone for a few months. So what? I went to the Philippines and Melbourne, I didn't get paid at all for that. Some of my brother's navy buddies, excluding himself, went to Iraq's coast and stayed there for a month or so and did absolutely nothing except stay there and await an attack that obviously isn't gonna happen (because the rebels have no submarines, duh) and they got paid extra for it. My brother went to Aceh and helped to rebuild an entire town after the Boxing Day Tsunami and he just got his regular pay. Injustice!
and to top it all off, it's American troops that are telling our troops that they're not doing enough in the war. That's got to be the last straw. Australians, either do your job and get a nice tally of deaths that somehow indicate a job well done, or get the hell out of there and stop getting paid for no reason whatsoever, slackers!
-C
Showing posts with label satire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label satire. Show all posts
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
a useful self-deception?
By PJK
Sloth: one of the seven deadly sins. Also a large tree-dwelling mammal (see above). We may not be living in trees just yet, but perhaps it's possible that through the former we might in fact be evolving (or is it devolving?) into the latter...
Who knows, maybe it's the absurd over-abundance of modern conveniences in our consumer-driven lifestyles, or maybe it's the legacy of 20th Century counter-culture movements. Or something. In any case, in this day and age laziness is not uncommon and is certainly no longer something to be frowned upon. I would go as far as to say that laziness is now almost seen as a virtue. Thanks to the Simpsons, lazy people are chic; the energetic are to be pitied. Calling someone a 'try-hard' is a term of derision amongst the youth of today; if something takes effort it is not considered cool, no matter how cool it might be.
I for one have adopted laziness as a way of life, taking the great hedonists of Ancient Greece as my mentors. I won't even look at an assignment until at least a week before the due date, and many of my peers are even more adept at putting things off than I am. This should hardly come as a surprise; students are born procrastinators. In fact, we go to such great lengths to avoid studying that paradoxically, we end up performing a lot more activity on impulse than we would ever manage otherwise. It's why this blog exists, it's why all these posts were written, it's probably the very reason you're reading this right now.
This is precisely the phenomenon that Marc Abraham discusses in this week's Guardian:
Sloth: one of the seven deadly sins. Also a large tree-dwelling mammal (see above). We may not be living in trees just yet, but perhaps it's possible that through the former we might in fact be evolving (or is it devolving?) into the latter...Who knows, maybe it's the absurd over-abundance of modern conveniences in our consumer-driven lifestyles, or maybe it's the legacy of 20th Century counter-culture movements. Or something. In any case, in this day and age laziness is not uncommon and is certainly no longer something to be frowned upon. I would go as far as to say that laziness is now almost seen as a virtue. Thanks to the Simpsons, lazy people are chic; the energetic are to be pitied. Calling someone a 'try-hard' is a term of derision amongst the youth of today; if something takes effort it is not considered cool, no matter how cool it might be.
I for one have adopted laziness as a way of life, taking the great hedonists of Ancient Greece as my mentors. I won't even look at an assignment until at least a week before the due date, and many of my peers are even more adept at putting things off than I am. This should hardly come as a surprise; students are born procrastinators. In fact, we go to such great lengths to avoid studying that paradoxically, we end up performing a lot more activity on impulse than we would ever manage otherwise. It's why this blog exists, it's why all these posts were written, it's probably the very reason you're reading this right now.
This is precisely the phenomenon that Marc Abraham discusses in this week's Guardian:
Critics say modern philosophy is a useless waste of time. They are wrong. At its best, modern philosophy tells us how to waste time usefully. Philosophy's great recent achievement, in this respect and perhaps overall, is the theory of structured procrastination.I couldn't agree more. Perhaps there is a better means of coping with the rigorous, boredom-inducing workload of academic life, rather than resorting to the masochism of procrastination. But if there is, I'll look into it some other time. Right now I'm going to go sort my entire wardrobe by colour. Maybe when I'm done I'll arrange my DVD collection alphabetically...
In a 1995 paper, Structured Procrastination, John Perry, a professor of philosophy at Stanford University, explains: "I have been intending to write this essay for months. Why am I finally doing it? Because I finally found some uncommitted time? Wrong. I have papers to grade, textbook orders to fill out, a National Science Foundation proposal to referee, dissertation drafts to read. I am working on this essay as a way of not doing all of those things. This is the essence of what I call structured procrastination, an amazing strategy I have discovered that converts procrastinators into effective human beings, respected and admired for all that they can accomplish, and the good use they make of time."
Perry's notion is to channel an ostensibly bad habit ... "Structured procrastination means shaping the structure of the tasks one has to do in a way that exploits this fact. The list of tasks one has in mind will be ordered by importance. Tasks that seem most urgent and important are on top. But there are also worthwhile tasks to perform lower down on the list. Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list."
...
Perry points out that "structured procrastination requires a certain amount of self-deception, since one is, in effect, constantly perpetrating a pyramid scheme on oneself ... This is not a problem, because virtually all procrastinators have excellent self-deceptive skills . And what could be more noble than using one character flaw to offset the bad effects of another?"
Saturday, November 04, 2006
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
