Monthly Archives: January 2010

Problem grows

More depressing economic developments:

The central bank will almost certainly raise the official interest rate next week

Okay, so it’s good news for:

  • investors (who’ll have less competition from homebuyers and who will be able to promptly pass the rate rise on to their tenants);

  • the rich; and
  • people who prey on social unrest.

But it’s very bad news for:

  • homeowners with mortgages (whose repayments will rise);

  • renters (whose rents will rise);
  • those who’d like to buy a house to live in (who will be even less able to compete with investors);
  • parents (who want their adult offspring to finally move out); and
  • the community as a whole, which benefits from the existence of a healthy middle-class.

Another step widening the gap between rich and poor. Well done, Australia.

Kinglake, Australia Day 2010

Kinglake on Tuesday, almost a year after the fires:

What the Classification Board has taught me #1

This week, the Classification Board has taught me two useful pieces of information:

  • female ejaculation – as opposed to male ejaculation – is an “abhorent” perversion; and

  • adult women who don’t have large breasts aren’t real adult women.

Women with “small” breasts may previously have thought they were entitled to be treated as adults, drink, vote, have sex, etc – well, now they know. As for “female ejaculation” and other matters related to the so-called “female orgasm” – well, I’ve never experienced it AND NEITHER HAS MY WIFE.

What other taxpayer-funded government body would have the balls to impart such controversial social pronouncements so openly, for the good of the nation’s moral health? Whatever we’re paying them, it isn’t enough.

And thank God that nice Mr Conroy, whose filter will block anything refused classification, is going to keep the Australian internet free of such things. Small-breasted women on the nation’s computer screens? SAVE US STEPHEN!

When spite is also expensive

Responding the news that the gay marriage ban costs Australia over $700 million, Fanny asks:

Oh this is a tough one… Does the government hate gays more than they love money??

The answer, of course, is “yes”. Yes, the government “hates” gays more than they love money.

Or, more precisely – they love bigot votes more than they fear losing greedy votes, which they secure in other ways.

It’s a pity, really, because there are actually more non-bigot votes out there, if anyone other than the Greens would care to represent them.

Actually Julie, Tony, I’d encourage my daughters to make their own decisions

Some odd person, prompted by my criticism of Tony Abbott’s fifteen-century understanding of women and sex, has been going round to other blogs making comments in my name (and with a weird email address that looks like it could be mine but isn’t):

Jeremy (wjs@hotmail.com)- If I had daughters I’d tell them to shag at will.

Apparently, according to Julie Bishop and George Brandis, parents “understand” Tony Abbott’s views because they don’t think their daughters should be having sex either. They are incapable of reconciling the idea of them as independent adults with the same rights as their parents had, with the fact that it’s disturbing to think of a relative having sex.

If Julie had added the word “some” in front of the word “parents”, she might be right. I’m sure there are plenty of self-satisfied sanctimonious bossy people out there with daughters they’d like to make abide by medieval standards of female behaviour, at least so far as it comes to sex. But it’s a big call to assume that that’s all, or even a majority of parents. Even though almost every organisation with the word “family” in the name is a far-right socially-conservative front, not all families are far-right social conservatives.

My anonymous stalker is actually, despite his bad-faith attempt to attack me where he didn’t think I’d see it, right – if I had adult daughters, I would tell them to “shag” when they “will”, as in, when they want to. They should be aware of the risks, and take precautions, and be sensible, but sexuality is a gift – unlike “virginity”, one that keeps on giving throughout a person’s life – and they would be as entitled as every one of their ancestors to enjoy it. They should never be pressured into it; they should feel as confident and comfortable saying “no” as they would saying “yes” – but the critical issue is that it would be up to them. It has nothing to do with me. Parents who think they should have a say in their children’s sex lives are WEIRD. If my daughter asked me my opinion about whether she should “save herself for marriage” then I’d offer an opinion – um, why? – and if I saw that they were being pressured by a boyfriend, a girlfriend, a church, whatever, then I’d make sure they knew they had an alternative – but my kids won’t be a pushover for any such bullies, anyway. The point would be, it always should be their decision, not anybody else’s. And they would know that.

The thing is, Tony isn’t suggesting that unmarried women not have sex when they’re uncomfortable with it – he’s telling them to say “no” even if they want to have sex, because he thinks he and society should have a say in what people do in their own bedrooms. In what their daughters do in their own bedrooms.

And that is creepy.

Some democracy

What’s the point of voting for an alternative to the Republican Party if they’re just going to give the Republicans what they want anyway?

President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration officials said Monday.

Oh no! Some independent voters in Massachusetts voted against a bad Democrat candidate! Quick, we must abandon all our ACTUAL voters and give in even further to our opponents!

Madness. It’s getting to the point, since the Democrats would rather pander to the Republicans than their own voters, where American liberals might as well vote for a third party. Do they really enjoy being taken for granted this much?

Sophisticated reviewing

News.com.au headlines with Apple’s new iPad:

“Good or bad”?

UPDATE: Via LGWS, Lifehacker outlines why the iPad is a very disturbing development – it’s an extension of Apple’s “we will control what you do with your machine” ethos to personal computers. If it was tolerable with a mobile phone, it shouldn’t be with an actual computer.