Friday, October 31, 2003

A quick test 

This is just a quick test post to see whether the time-stamp that appears at the bottom of a post now incorporates New South Wales daylight savings time.



Murph over at Mangled Thoughts muses about where all the big OzBloggers are. I'm not mentioned, so I'm obviously not a big OzBlogger (sob, sob) but hey, I can almost fit into the crowd of OzBloggers who just aren't posting enough. I have to say that right now I don't have a great deal of time to sit down and blog properly, what with other commitments that are going on at the moment. Who'da thunk it? Marty has less time to spend blogging when he isn't doing university work. Ha!

At any rate, until I can sort more time out for blogging, I'm going to do my absolute best to continue to update daily. However I'll probably only manage one or two posts per day, so I hope nobody really minds that.

We're getting the yard earth-moved tomorrow morning, which will be a lot of fun. Before and after pictures will become available if I get enough requests to provide them. C'mon, who doesn't like bits and pieces of trivial fun!

Boorish Bob 

John Howard and his evil dictatorship of Australia will crush dissent at any time they wish:

Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown's behaviour during US President George W Bush's visit to Canberra was opportunistic and boorish, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

See what I mean? What kind of country do we live in?! Sheesh...

Mr Howard said Senator Brown's actions, which resulted in him being suspended from parliament for 24 hours, did not bother Mr Bush.

"I think he (Mr Bush) was the most unfazed of all people about it," he told radio 3AW.

"I think it was boorish behaviour - and I think most Australians take that view - and I think it was opportunistic.

"It was all of those things.

"But it was always going to happen, and I mean people who carry on like that will always get publicity because we are a free society."

I hate living under a fascist dictatorship like Howard's where any kind of dissent is simply not tolerated! About 10 days ago, Evil Pundit put up a pretty good wrap-up of the dissent-crushing activities that I'm talking about.

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Words from a intilectual advicate of free speach and all things good 

Why is it that we're constantly bombarded with crap like this? (all spelling and grammatical errors are deliberate, such as to preserve the nature of the "intilectual"):


George Dubya Bush visiting Arsetralia (snerk, snerk) last week. Ha! I cant take a "man" like that seriusly when he's treated like a rock star and so called democracy is put on hold while the leader of the 'world's superpower' (as John 'Dubya' Howard [tee hee] has repeatedly called it) is ushered around our supposed democratic capital with the secrecy remenicent of the cold war. It's just fucked. Everything is fucked. Fucked fucked fucked. It's all fucked. Fred Durst is a fuckhead, but he was right -- It's just all fucked up.

Free speach is a farse nowdays. It hasn't excisted for well over a year now. Those of us who are informed members of society, who have the power of KNOWLEDGE, cant voice our opinions without being given shit and told to shut up. Its all just serving this disgusting neoconservative agenda so a select few of the richest elite can pander their fat arses to each other. It makes me sick.

I dont have a job and i worked long and hard for an arts degree. This further demonstrates my point that the capitalist community are only out to serve each other and do no good for the rest of society. Oh well, i don't want to spend my life working for a living anyway. i get only minimal benefits while i search for a job too. This stupid unfair country is so stupid and unfair. We have people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and yet i cant get my fair share of any of that simply because the evil, foul, fascist government likes to discriminate against those who wish to voice dissent!

I hate it when people tell me to shut up when i'm voicing my opinion. It's not free speach if people don't listen to me! My voice must be heard and taken into account! What kind of so-called "democracy" is this where I get told to shut up because people don't like my viewpoints? It's totalitarian corporate brainwash over the uninformed, lazy and stupid masses, that's what! It's so simple for somebody like me to understand - why can't the other 99% of the human race? I feel so defeatist...


So, my question remains, why do we constantly get bombarded with this crap?

Wednesday, October 29, 2003


I said that I'd resume proper blogging as of today, due to me finishing university, moving house and whatnot.

Well, since that had completely slipped my mind until now, I'll give myself a days extension and resume blogging tomorrow. May I also point out that, for the first time ever, I'm preferring to drink Crown Lager over Corona. Weird, huh?

Saturday, October 25, 2003

Why I'm embarrassed to be Australian 

Note: I know I'm supposed to be taking a break from this blog, but I had to write this...

I may seem rather patriotic at times. In fact, I'll quite freely admit it - I love living in Australia. I am proud of my status as an Australian. After all, Australia is awesome.

But I'm still embarrassed to be Australian. Why? Because we manage to breed total fucktards like Bob Brown.

The Greens are only after the ratbag protest vote and they proved themselves the biggest ratbags in parliament, mastering as ever the politics of futile gesture rather than civilised discourse.

I think Greg Sheridan would have had to have dumbed that down a bit so it was suitable to appear in a national Australian newspaper. I think Bernard Slattery said it best:

A doofus in my local bar last week kept smoking while playing pool, despite several warnings from customers and staff.

He got thrown out and no one tried to defend him. He behaved like an idiot, got treated like an idiot and no one changed their mind about anything because of what he did.

Must be contagious. Two other dickheads were thrown out of a public room in Canberra today. Same upshot there as down in the local ... act like a dickhead, get treated like a dickhead and impress no one.

Not only is Tasmania over-represented in Canberra (Tasmania has a lot less than a million people and still roughly the same amount of representatives as New South Wales, with over 6 million), they're all bloody moronic, untactful wankers like "Senator" Brown. Greg Sheridan also says:

The publicity-seeking farce would only need to be repeated a few times more and the result would be that Australia could not have foreign leaders address its parliament because the parliament is too uncouth.

Which is true. Of course we don't have to agree with whoever is addressing parliament, but for Christ's sake Mr. Brown, you could at least be a little bit civil, couldn't you? As a result of my hatred of Mr. Brown, I have written him a letter.


Dear Mr. Brown,

I was going to address you with "To the honourable Senator Brown", but that would immediately imply that I think highly of you. Which I don't. I was also thinking along the opposite angle, such as "ATT: Rotten scumbag," but that's not my style. See, I prefer to hold a little class when I address somebody, unlike you.

Your display of ... wait, I'll start that again... Your abhorrent lack of any kind of sensibility and civility in parliament a couple of days ago was so far beyond disgraceful that I cannot possibly, despite my high level of eloquence, put into words just how repugnant your behaviour was. You are supposed to be in the top levels of administration in this country. You are a senator and you represent us (well, Tasmania) by acting like a 15-year old, teenage-angst-ridden high-school dropout? Did you seriously think that kicking up a fuss in parliament will gain you any credibility at all? If you did, please go and see your school counsellor.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not asking or telling you that you should blindly agree to what Mr. Bush had to say. In fact I think that, in a rare moment of refinement, Simon Crean was quite dignified in how he addressed and disagreed with Mr. Bush. Although I'm no fan of Mr. Crean or indeed his party policies, the dignity that he displayed towards Mr. Bush is worthy of my respect.

You, on the other hand, decided to act up like a misbehaving child and make a mockery of Australian parliament, and by extension, Australia as a whole. Sure, those badly dressed, pot-smoking, visionary, dole-eating, slogan-creating, unemployable Marxist protesters outside Parliament House may vote for you next election, but is that truly the kind of people you'd be willing to represent? A rabble of trouble-makers who, despite initial claims, almost always resort to childish violence and vandalism to get a point across? Your Rent-A-Protest™ crowd of supporters are no more dignified than you, which may explain your detestable behaviour and gross disrespect for decency.

You are an embarrassment to this country, Bob Brown. You should be ashamed of yourself. Now go to your room and don't come out until you've thought about what you've done. We're all very disappointed with you.

Yours sincerely,

Thursday, October 23, 2003

Business opportunity spotted 

I know what I'm going to invest lots of money in next quarter: Porno Karaoke!

Players pair off in male-female teams as an XXX film is loaded into the projector. With the sound turned off, each duo is handed two microphones, and has one minute to provide the aural fireworks for the action on the screen.

That would make me a fortune!

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Another, more official, notice 

I've come to the conclusion that if I'm not willing to commit to doing substantial blogging until the 29th of October, I might as well go on hiatus and use it as a break from the real world (or silly comments on a silly website about the real world)...

Uhh, so yeah. Back on the 28th or 29th of October!

Until then, amuse yourselves with awesome DVD's, such as the 1st series of The Office.

Monday, October 20, 2003


Posting will be very light this coming week as I have my final university exams. After this week, I have a lot of other stuff to do, so I'm issuing a forewarning that posting will be non-existent between October 24 - 29.

I'll be re-assessing things after that, seeing how I go for time once I start full-time work.

Saturday, October 18, 2003

Hooray for stupid things! 

A large amount of other bloggers (of the Left, of the Right and of the other), think that turning Iraqi aid into a bunch of loans is stupid, pathetic and ... um, some other word that means something along those lines, but is very harsh. I agree with this sentiment.

Both links stolen from appear courtesy of Michele from A Small Victory, although I saw the first one earlier at Instapundit... But I figure that Glenn Reynolds has enough links as it is.

Good literature, among other things 

* Now here's a book that I have to read! You'll find it in the non-fiction area of your local book store. Go! Go! Go! Buy! Buy! Buy!

* ABC News is screaming out that the "US death toll in Iraq exceeds 100" since May, when George Bush declared major hostilities over. Quagmire! Iraq is certainly another Vietnam! Way back at the end of March when Iraq was beginning to go quagmire on us, Dr. Weevil gave a comparison to the Vietnam conflict. Iraq is nothing compared to Vietnam. A grand total of 200-something U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, while in Vietnam 58,169 died. Still, the ABC is still hinting that IT'S A QUAGMIRE!

* A Yale student commenting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

It is beyond me how a student at Yale, or anyone for that matter, could continue to equate Palestinian terrorism, aimed exclusively at innocent civilians, with Israeli self-defense measures, whose targets are always those directly involved with organizing or carrying out terror attacks. It is simple: when Israeli soldiers kill civilians, which unfortunately does occur, albeit infrequently, it is a tragic mistake. When Palestinian terrorists kill civilians, it is their goal.

It's beyond me, too.

Friday, October 17, 2003


I haven't posted anything today, nor do I intend to do anything substantial due to me being a bit sick and run-down today. I'll try and make up for it tomorrow, although that depends on whether I feel up to the task. We'll see.

Apologies to some, and "go to hell" to others.

Thursday, October 16, 2003

Notes @ Night 

A couple of quick links before I fall asleep. Hopefully this time I'll land on my bed when I fall over.

The Yobbo sums up current protest environments rather neatly.

In case you hadn't seen it, courtesy of EvilDan, is the footage of Roy Horn (from the Las Vegas animal act 'Siegfried and Roy') getting attacked!

Via Michael Jennings (who got it via Geoff Honnor), is the Neo-Con Quiz! I thought some of the answers sucked, and didn't reflect what I thought 100%, but it's not meant to be a scientific quiz anyway. Oh, I'm a realist, by the way.

Frank J. has written more hate mail to Michael Moore. Hurrah! Don't forget to read his original hate letter if you haven't already. Funny stuff.

Okay, goodnight.

World Wide Wankers 

So, should we assassinate George W. Bush? There's a discussion hosted by the left-"leaning" Guardian newspaper in the UK asking just that:

He is perhaps the most dangerous man currently to inhabit the earth. A hypocritical lunatic, his family have been sponsoring terrorism around the globe for decades - first he was cosy with Saddam and then he was'nt, then he was cosy with Bin Laden and then he changed his mind. His motivations are greed and he cares little for the sanctity of human life, and will support any state, no matter how brutal their administration, as long as they are compliant with US companies.

His administration is full of facists, such as Mr Rumsfeld, who thought apartheid in South Africa was 'a pretty neat idea'. Outside of America we cannot vote him out, the propoganda and lies within the US media is akin to the Nazi state so it maybe that the innocent American electorate will not know the real truth and not vote hime out. So...should we just pay someone to shoot the cowboy?

My reaction was very similar to that of "Laura" in the comments of this post by Tim Blair:

I thought the left was opposed to regime change by violence.

I guess that's only for the respectable, well-mannered paragons of human rights like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, but when it comes to those who are conduct waaaaarrrs for oooiiiiiilllll, they can make an exception.

Oh, but of course! My reaction was immediately followed up by "That's rich! This guy at the Guardian called Bush the 'hypocritical lunatic'! Haha!" I finally came to the final conclusion, however, that the poster of this "discussion" is just another nutcase neo-Stalinist fucktard.

NZ Pundit notes how this discussion is in violation of The Guardian's participation policy. And EvilPundit has made an interesting comment:

I wonder if a discussion calling for the assassination of fundamentalist religious leaders who support terrorism would have lasted this long?

The answer is, obviously, no. That would be inhumane! What kind of crazy person would want to discuss that?

This whole thing is an interesting example of something that John Hawkins wrote a while ago, about how left-wingers will treat politics like religion. Of particular note in Hawkins' piece, relating to the comment EvilPundit wrote, is how the Left will change any argument to suit themselves:

... when Bill Clinton was talking about WMD, terrorists, & invading Iraq, a lot of prominent left-wingers were for it. But when Bush was talking about WMD, terrorists, & invading Iraq, many of those same Democrats opposed doing the exact same thing they supported vociferously when Clinton was in office.


All those petty little motives they [anti-war protesters] attributed to Bush like a "war for oil," "revenge for daddy," "trying to help out business buddies," etc, wouldn't have been an issue if a Democrat was in the White House, because he would have been on their side. Whereas Conservatives would have looked at the issue largely in the same way because most of them made their decision based on whether they thought about the issue, not out of blind loyalty to their party.

I obviously can't speak for many other conservatives out there, but that's exactly my stance. Of course I don't like war in the world, but when you weigh up the advantages of the war (freedom of all the Iraqis, ridding Saddam and ending his struggle for weapons), it ends up making a bit of sense to me.

Well, I'm rambling and if I continue I'm only going to say stuff that I've said a million times before.

UPDATE: This "discussion" has been removed. Thank Christ.

Wednesday, October 15, 2003


Blogger wasn't working for pretty much the entire afternoon for me. As a result, I hadn't prepared anything to post this afternoon or this evening. And I'm much too tired to do anything of substance now.

Goodnight. I'll be back tomorrow.

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

He's a Nazi! GET HIM! 

What the hell is the dealio with all these accusations of "so-and-so is a Nazi!!!" nowdays?! Arnold is a Nazi, George Bush is a Nazi, pretty much all of Israel and the Jews are Nazis (ironically), and now Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen is a nazi, according to some gay British bishop.

So what actually constitutes being a nazi? Let's see:

Na·zi (näts, nt-)
n. pl. Na·zis
A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.

Often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.

Bob Brown is a nazi! Most of the Australian Labor Party are nazis! Natasha Stott Despoi Despot What's-Her-Face is a nazi! All of them would have more in common with the National Socialist German Workers' Party than John Howard and his brutal dictatorship of Australia, or George Bush and his equally brutal dictatorship of America (since when would a bunch of Nazis go on a military campaign "to free the Iraqi's from an oppressive, brutal regime"?). It's amusing to note that the Nazi party is a workers party. That means every employee must be a Nazi because they are workers!

Yeah, I think it's getting ridiculous too.

In more Nazi-related craziness, super-columnist Mark Steyn has a go at CNN and the American Democrats, who on both counts were, like the Nazi party, created on planet Earth.

This is the silliness of the whole current political trend in America (and by extension, Australia), as Steyn magnificently points out:

The Republicans said it was all about business and taxes and growth; the Dems said it was about whether Arnie was a Nazi sex fiend. OK, let's take that as seriously as Katie Couric and the rest of the gang did. Every day I get a gazillion e-mails screaming ''BUSH IS A NAZI!!!!'' Also Cheney, Rumsfeld, even yours truly: We're all Nazis. In California, an accident of birth gave the Democrats the opportunity to run with the Nazi hysteria literally. It flopped spectacularly.

It must be some kind of insecurity thing for all the socialists out there in the world, knowing that they share more in common with the Nazis than people like myself who favour smaller government and a more deregulated market economy. Stupid Left-Wing Death Beasts.

Heheh, suckers.

Champagne and sex 

Today is much like yesterday in that I don't really feel there's much to blog about. Well, there probably is, but it's nearing exam time so I haven't been keeping much of an eye on the news. This leads me to think there's barely anything to blog about. Geddit?

So I ask a friend of mine (give him a break, he's Canadian) about what I should write about today. He says "no sex in the champagne room."

Great. I was after something perhaps a little more intellectually stimulating than that. So I ask him for a better idea; something that covers a broad range of topics so I can have more freedom to write about whatever the hell I want.

"No sex in ALL the champagne rooms," he says. I sigh.

Today is not going very well...

Monday, October 13, 2003

Rest in Peace, old friend... 

It's time to retire my first poll and replace it with a new one.

Here are the results from my first poll:

Do you like my new stupid gimmick?

1) No. I don't like YOU either! - 55%
2) Well, at least you said it was "stupid"... - 15%
3) Yeah, I guess. - 7%
4) Gimmicks are awesome! - 24%

This is humiliating. You should all stop hating me THIS INSTANT!

Say hello to the new poll on your right, by the way.

A quick note 

Providing I remember to do it each time, every link I post from now on will open in a new window. Hurrah!

This does not include links on my sidebar, because I really can't be bothered to change them at the moment.

I'm also going to maintain my argument that a "Left-Wing Death Beast" is more a more accurate term than a "Right-Wing Death Beast", because it is. Argument is in the post below.

Today's musing 

There's nothing to blog about today. Or I'm just feeling incredibly lazy. Yeah, I think that's it....

Anyway, I've decided to post a list of things I've been thinking about lately.

1) Why is the mentality of a typical artist that of "the world owes me a living"? I mean, if you listen to at least 85% of 'alternative' music (that is, not pop music in the Britney Spears sense), you'll hear badly-dressed, unshaven, smelly guys in their late teens or somewhere in their 20's screaming about how materialism is evil! How everything about today's society sucks! About how the rotten government isn't giving them enough taxpayer-funded arts grants! For some reason, it is beyond their intellectual capacity to accept the fact that they're just crap. To quote Michael Moore, these are the real "Stupid White Men".

The solution? I say the Australia Council for the Arts is abolished - or privatised with no government involvement at all - and then the "artists" might realise they won't ever get anywhere as complainy-pants "musicians" and give up completely.

For the record, I am an accomplished bass player. In my peak, I can rival the likes of Les Claypool (no kidding, those who have seen me play will testify). But I treat musicianship as a time-wasting hobby, not as a career-path, because I am awesome. More people should follow in my footsteps!

2) If economic globalisation were stopped tomorrow, say goodbye to any further technological developments in anything. Say goodbye to anything that we rely on people overseas for. Say hello to colonial times again. Say hello to more fascism and dictatorships. Say hello to a middle-age society with powerful weapons again. That's the reality. Deal with it.

3) Walking around any city in Australia (or any city in general), you'll probably see lots of propaganda fliers on poles, on walls and various other places. Why is it that they all say "George Bush is evil!" or "John Howard is a wanker!" or "Socialism brings a better society!" ? I think I should put a series of these same fliers around Brisbane that have messages like:

* "To hell with artists!"

* "Boycott Michael Moore! A better society is possible when we rid ourselves of this monster!"

* "Support brave multi-nationals!"

* "Kill the hippies!"

* "Why the hell would anyone vote for the Greens?"

I think you get what I'm saying. I think it's a good idea, and if I wasn't so lazy, I'd actually do it. It'd be amusing!

4) Why are the left-wingers always fighting for a better society? Hitler was a socialist (well, as far as I know, he was quite Keynesian when it came to economics, but that's close enough to socialism for me), Stalin was a communist, Saddam Hussein favoured socialism... Why? A state-planned economy, along with an iron-fist ruler, is easier to keep a strangle-hold on the people. If a government or dictator is controlling the monetary supply, they have a total control over the people.

Also, we are a free society as it is now. Why is the Left so focused on achieving social change? So they can make a "fairer" society, at the expense of our freedoms? So they can tell us what's good for us? No thanks, the Left has already blown their chances after Hitler, Stalin and Hussein.

I personally think the Left should be recognised as the "fascist pig" side of politics. I also think the term "Left-Wing Death Beast" is more appropriate, considering the three biggest murderers of the 20th century were all spawned from the Left.


Ranting over.

Saturday, October 11, 2003

The case for war re-opened 

Being such a war-mongering death-lover, I should have commented on David Kay's interim report on Iraq's WMD capabilities by now. So, although it's slightly delayed, here goes...

Firstly, I just want to say that I like how the media is practically ignoring what's going on with the U.S.-led weapons inspections going on in Iraq. All of David Kay's interim report is online, so I suggest that everybody who hasn't already read it should read it. It contains bits and pieces like:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

Oh? Iraq misleading the UN? I never would have suspected they'd do that... He goes on to point out nine concealment attempts by Iraq. Bear in mind that this interim report is only after roughly 8% of the known weapons locations have been searched. More:

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.

I always thought Iraq was such a peaceful, honest place too. It's all George Bush's fault that Iraq concealed their weapons projects from the UN! I mean, if he was never going to invade, Iraq wouldn't have needed to conceal these projects! Stupid Americans!

So, can we all agree that Iraq did possess WMD? Oh, but "programs to make or obtain them" are different from "actually having the weapons", isn't it? Think about that... Peaceful, benevolent Iraq is producing it's own weapons of mass destruction. They're no threat to their neighbours! Saddam's weapons-in-progress are no threat to the Kurds! This is absolutely no threat at all to the many, many Iraqi prisoners that get taken! Not at all! Besides, George Bush is the real bad guy here, because he went to war on the peace-loving Iraqi regime and barely killed any civilians at all!

David Kay goes on after that to detail examples of Iraq's removal of documented evidence.

Here's more:

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

Ahh, bugger it. If you want to live in fairy land and still think that Iraq didn't possess WMD's and that this war was not justified, then be my guest. Other people, who are more prone to accepting evidence and logic, should just go and read the whole damn statement.

Friday, October 10, 2003

The costs of fine women 

I've mentioned my friend Jo. on this blog before, I know I have. Want proof?

So she was going to go to this guy's formal as a favour to him and a couple of her friends. It was a legitimate favour and those reasons shall not be discussed here. Actually, it seemed like a pretty good deal for her to go, since all expenses were paid. The guy apparently even bought a Toyota Supra for the formal, so there can't be too much hot air involved. Anyway, me being a fan of shameless capitalism, came up with a business plan and proposal to have Jo. as any formal date (high school formals through to business dinners - although only for young guys, no over-25's). This plan even managed to get her approval! Here is the pricing for the average formal occasion:

* $80 for nails;
* $200 for shoes;
* $200 for hair;
* $500 for make-up - only brand new kits are acceptable;
* $700 for a dress (give or take a hundred or so);
* An hourly "in company" rate of $350 per hour for the first 15 hours, then $420 per hour thereafter. This includes meeting times between her and the client, and also post-occasion operations. So for the average occasion, it would roughly come to about 18 hours;
* One-off administration fee of $475;
* $200 for photography;
* Up to $300 shitty-car allowance. If client is not driving, extra limousine costs replace this charge. Client is refused if $300 is still not enough to compensate Jo. for riding around in the client's car. Penalties of $100 apply to every moment of recklessness.
* Up to $450 stress allowance - her liking the client is not guaranteed.
* $1750 penalty per sexual advance - Jo. is not a prostitute.

So let's see how much your average formal occasion will cost:

Average Breakdown:
$80 nails; $200 shoes; $200 hair; $500 make-up; $750 dress; 18 hours "in company", 15 hours at $350 and 3 hours at $420, so $6510 total "in company" time; $475 administration fee; $200 for photography; $200 shitty-car allowance, plus 6 incidents of recklessness at $100 each, so $800 total transport allowance; $300 stress allowance.

TOTAL COST: $10,015

When clients apply for a formal occasion with Jo., the company issues a proposal with a projected cost. 30% of this projected cost is expected to be paid as a deposit and confirmation of your booking. Refunds are not available. So in the example shown above, the client would have had to have paid $3004.50 as a deposit.

As a final note of policy, the client is usually made aware from the beginning that sexual advances are strictly not tolerated, and heavy penalties apply. But alcohol sure makes fools of some people.

The company is looking to expand staff, as Jo. is booked out for the next 6 months. Interested women may apply by emailing me; I'll arrange for an interview. And yes, I'll pay for the coffee.

Questions Answered! 

I received an email asking a perfectly innocent question. Now it is time to answer it:

Dear Marty,

What is your view on drugs? Do you think if Heroin was to be legalised, drug-related crime would become lower?

Small little girl

Small little girl,

Drug-related crime would certainly become lower if heroin was legalised, mainly because it wouldn't be illegal to possess or use heroin. So I guess if we legalise everything, crime would go all the way down, and Australia would be able to stick their finger up at the rest of the world and go "Look at us! We have 0% crime! SUCKERS!"

But it'll have to be done progressively so that people can adapt to the changes, rather than go crazy immediately just because they can. The first thing that should be legalised is the bombing of Tasmania!

If anybody has any more questions they want answered, just email me (address is on the sidebar somewhere). If you don't want me to publish names, just indicate so. I will make up a name for you instead.

Thursday, October 09, 2003


Busy as ... somebody that is really, really... busy.

This means that blogging will continue tomorrow.

UPDATE: The Yobbo is a bad influence on me... Well, he will be if I have anything to do with my academic future. Which I think I will, somehow.

Time to gloat 

For the two or three of you out there that may actually be concerned, Marty is very good with economics. Latest university results indicate that Marty's average result in economics is just short of the level of high distinction (compared to nearly everybody else who is sitting on a "Credit" rating or less - economics is hard). That means that I only got an average result, by my own standards, in the last assignment. But hey, I'm still happy.


Wednesday, October 08, 2003

I want my entertaining television! 

Those evil, meddling, war-causing Joooos now have the right to defend themselves, according to The Age:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, buoyed by US backing for Israel's right to defend itself, said yesterday the army was ready to "hit its enemies any place and in any way" after an air raid deep inside Syria.

It's all about the OOIIILLLLL! Oh, wait, sorry, wrong protest. It's all an evil zionist plot to take over the world! George Bush is at the heart of this, as he is clearly manipulating Israel to attack their neighbours:

US President George Bush insisted on Monday that Israel should not feel constrained in defending itself but said he told Mr Sharon: "It's very important that any action Israel take(s) should avoid escalation and creating higher tensions."

I think Sharon's response would have been something along the lines of, "Sure thing, George. None of those bastards are going to argue with me once they're all dead!" Hooray! One thing I'm getting sick of is the lack of cool explosions on the news. I think Israel should be more tough in future strike operations. Here are my ideas:

* When going for Hamas operatives that are trapped in some hotel or apartment building, I expect at least the entire complex to be blown apart. I would suggest blowing surrounding complexes up too, but that might be overkill.

* Actually, overkill might be a good thing. More Hamas operatives may be hiding out in surrounding buildings. Blow them apart too.

* Everytime a suicide bomber explodes themselves on Israeli territory, Israel should respond immediately by launching upwards of 15 missiles at random targets.

* Israel should drill Iraq for oil. That way, when the anti-war rabble find out that Iraq's oil has been stolen and millions march out to protest again, Israel can say, "LOOK! A SUICIDE BOMBER!" and take out the entire army of smelly hippies. Hurrah!

* Israel can think of their own damn tough responses as of now; I have better things to do.

Um... Yeah. Coming soon (like, later tonight or tomorrow), Marty answers idiotic questions that he's been receiving via email!


Newcastle, Australia. What is the first thing you'd think about when I mentioned the name of that place? Hooting, raucous industrial workers? Steel factories? Air pollution? All of these are common stereotypes of a Novocastrian. (For some reason, that's what a Newcastle citizen is called - I can clearly spot the connection, can't you?)

Anyway, I think you're wrong. Newcastle is quite the artistic hub of central-coast New South Wales. That's right, it's a city that plays host to a large number of musicians, actors, dancers and entertainers:

John Doyle (aka Rampaging Roy Slaven), Jonathan Biggins, Sarah Wynter, Susie Porter, Celia Ireland, Yahoo Serious, Glenn Butcher, Silverchair, the Screaming Jets, the Castanet Club, Su Cruickshank, Lisa Pavane, Dein Perry and the Tap Dogs, John Olsen, William Dobell - all hail from the place known as Steel City but which, if you scratch the surface, boasts a large population involved in the creative arts.

Proof that I'm not lying. Anyway, although people like Roy Slaven -- sorry, John Doyle -- have earned my respect via their hilarity, I'm thinking that Newcastle is, and has been, a breeding ground for communist and socialist ideology. And so what do I go on to read? Surely, with all that masculinity around because of the industrial nature of the city, workers wouldn't be turning to artsy-farsty pansy arts crap...

"The New Theatre was one of the big forces, and in its early days it evolved from the Communist Party," he [David Berthold, former Maitland boy and now artistic director of the Griffin Theatre Company] says. "It was always a very socially aware, politically aligned theatre, and it thrived in working-class areas, putting on plays that reflected the socialist perspective."

I should have known. It would actually make me feel kind of strange walking through Newcastle now, because I've always known Newcastle to be the kind of place where somebody would walk down the street in the latest Hawaiian-esque designer-wear and any given member of the public would spot you, causing an uproar of similar size to one if Bob Brown was uncovered as a strong Nazi supporter.

So, for example, here I am walking down the street wearing, say, a stylish Hugo Boss shirt. Some big burly tradesworker spots me across the street and yells, "Kill the faggot!" So I run, and all these other guys appear out of nowhere and chase me down, eventually catching me and beating me to a bloody pulp. However, with this new revelation, I'm wondering if I could get out of such a beating if I pleaded "oh, but I'm studying performing arts at the University of Newcastle! You can't kill me!" And they'd ease up and say "oh. I'm sorry! I thought you were one of those real poofs! Sorry, comrade!"

Indeed. Silly Newcastle.

Paranoid idea of the week 

September 11, 2001 - Attacks in the United States.
October 12, 2002 - Bali bombings.
November 13, 2003 - Marty runs out of beer.


If even total lunatics like Michael Moore imply that they would have approved pre-emptive action against any vaguely-known terrorist threat, I suggest certain areas of the world be blown to bits before November 13. It's the right thing to do!

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

This week's Act of Unmitigated Evil™ 

I think it's about time I revealed more of my evil plots to make the world a better place, or just to annoy the people that I don't like - there is a borderline that I quite often get to there. Anyway, on to this week's Act of Unmitigated Evil™, which some of you may notice is heavily inspired by the great Alan B'Stard.

It's no secret that quite a few people out there disagree with me on the issues of education (and health). You know, whether private schooling is better; how decent health care for the working class seems to be an oxymoron ; why the arse gets taxed out of small business owners just so some dope-head can finish his creative arts degree... You know, that stuff. I think I have come up with a solution to this problem that could satisfy everyone.

The solution to this problem is so simple that even an idiot could have devised it. Why, we simply need to abolish the public services sector! The logic behind it is very simple. If this idea was to be carried out, you are poor, you get sick, then you die. It's so simple! One thing I have never been able to comprehend is that everyone now seems to think that they have a god-given right to be cured, educated and generally looked after. What is the result of this kind of socialist ideology?

More poor people!!!

This is probably the biggest downside of socialism. It creates poverty! See, here is the beauty of this idea - we would be fixing the public health system, the education system and also the general system of society by eliminating poverty and removing this ridiculous socialist thinking from our community. Standards of living amongst the society would therefore increase ten-fold! Think of what this could mean for all of us:

* Gaining entry into the university of your choice would be a lot easier.

* A 3-storey mansion with the most kick-ass television(s) is certainly easier to obtain.

* No useless bums on the streets begging for your money.

* Taxes would be at an all-time low, for some reason that you should have probably figured out by now.

* The amount of crime would sharply decrease.

* Public hygiene levels would dramatically increase.

* There would be less whinging from talentless arts students, because they wouldn't exist.

* For the reasons listed above, public stress levels would be at an all-time low, due to them not having to worry about "all the bad things in the world".

I think you get what I'm saying here. I'm doing my bit for society, and people still have the nerve to tell me that I have no heart. Ungrateful bastards.

Today's stuff 

Today's bag-o-links:

* Tim Blair manages to chew up and spit out Michael Moore's latest offerings. Also, the comments must be read. Here's a preview, posted by a guy called Brendan:

Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used.

Moore is right - Bush should have launched a pre-emptive strike on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, based on vague reports from the CIA that Al Quaeda was planning something, possibly involving planes. I'm sure Mikey & Co. would have supported Bush wholeheartedly in this endeavor.

* Frank J.'s latest In My World is up, featuring Ah-nuld and friends.

* Have I told you to go and check out Front Line Voices yet? I think I have, but I'll tell you again, just to make sure. I'll put a link to it on my sidebar sometime, too.

* If left-wingers can produce studies saying that us conservatives are crazy, then I guess it's well within John Hawkins' right to tell why the Left is crazy. The thing is, Hawkins makes a lot more sense when he does it.

* Speaking of the idiocy of the Left, why do they like Fidel Castro so much? Communist Cuba is supposed to be a paradise, but those stupid Americans won't let Cuba's greatness even air on television, after Oliver Stone's documentary was censored:

HBO co-produced the 90-minute film, but the cable channel pulled the documentary in May after Castro had three hijackers executed and imprisoned some 70 dissidents. Stone was asked to return to Cuba to reinterview the longstanding Cuban president.

Oh, how I long to have the freedom that is only attainable in Cuba.

Monday, October 06, 2003

Sex, sex, sex! 

I haven't mentioned much about sex lately, and I think this blog gets a bit crazy for sex sometimes. Randy little bastard. Anyway, I think Brisbane is in contention to win the award of being Australia's most perverted city, after the story about James Marriner surfaced:

Marriner, who was a sergeant based at Ipswich in Queensland's south-east, became involved with members of the Christian Brethren, a conservative religious group with strict rules, including prohibitions on watching films and television.

The court was told Marriner had convinced the group they had to cut off their pubic hair, and take photos of themselves naked on the pretext such actions were mandatory before becoming police informants.

The officer had told the group they would become operatives in an undercover investigation to smash a pedophile ring.

Maybe it's an Ipswich thing. Then again, some pretty wild things also go on behind (and in front of) closed doors in Brisbane's inner-city suburb of Fortitude Valley. Maybe it's true! Maybe Brisbane is Australia's most perverted city!

Having said that, we're probably all very well aware that perversion can be anywhere. From your local IT guys, to your local California recall candidate. How can we deal with such perversion in our society? Maybe we should go to the next step after putting bells on the children. I have an idea!

Kill the suckers.

News that nobody should care about 

There is a very strong possibility that this blog will change address and have an entirely new layout in the not-too-distant future. Yes, that's right, I'm looking into getting my very own .com address in the next couple of weeks, and the new website (including a Movable Type blog finally) will hopefully be up and running soon thereafter.

I'm not guaranteeing anything, but that is hopefully what will happen. Ceteris paribus.

Indy is a-comin' 

So anyway, it decided to rain on what is meant to be the sunniest, most ass-kickingest part of Australia - south-east Queensland. Actually seeing moisture fall out of the sky is fairly uncommon in these parts, probably because the slogans that are associated with tourist advertisments are true. That's right, every day is a Sunday! ... Except today.

I'm not sure if it would be a good thing or not if the weather stayed like this up to and over the weekend of the Gold Coast Indy race. It'd obviously be a good thing because it'd mean water restrictions here would inevitably be eased, and I'd be able to wash my damn car some time! Also, considering what happened when they tried to start the Indy race last year, it could be a cause for entertainment.

On the other hand, if that happens at Indy, they'll probably run the entire race behind the pace car again. Boring. One thing has to be said though - those guys know how to do a good smash! The only downside is that I probably won't be in attendance.


Just a final note: For some reason, it is very hard to find pictures of what happened at the start of the 2002 Indy race. It's quite annoying, actually.

Saturday, October 04, 2003

Musing away... 

I seem to get more traffic after I've said something that could be considered somewhat controversial. Like when I opened my yap on education issues. So, since I believe so much in shameless capitalism, here is a list of debate-worthy revelations that I've come to over the course of the last few days:

* The poor should be taxed more. They should pay for their own bloody welfare!

* The rich should be taxed less. At this current rate, there will be no rich people left in a few decades! This is bad, because a society needs rich people to make the poor feel oppressed and inferior.

* Australia should disown Tasmania (after all the cool Tasmanians have relocated to the mainland, that is). It's done nothing but give us a bad name. I mean, even as far as comedians go, Bob Brown is a crime against humanity.

* I can't wait until Telstra is privatised. No, really, I can't wait.

* Anybody who votes for the Democrats or the Greens should be deported to Cuba for reasons that should be obvious.

* When we fill Cuba up with Australian undergraduates, we will then go about populating North Korea with postgraduates and civil servants. Hey, at least they won't complain so much about the economic structure!

* Australia should become armed with nuclear weapons. That way, we will be able to conquer a lot more than about 4 or 5 countries without the help of the United States.

* The government should pass a law saying it's illegal to be a member of a union.

* John Howard should challenge Simon Crean to a duel. Assuming Crean's reflexes are about as quick as his public speaking, Howard would have won the next election by the time Crean realises that he'd been shot. Twice.

* Australia should become the 51st state of America in an effort to get Tasmania to become it's own nation. Then we can blow the crap out of it, reclaim it, and recolonise it.

There you have it. As I'm sure you have figured out, these are completely honest viewpoints, and as soon as Australia takes them on, the better off we'll be. Seriously.

Stupid Americans! 

This is something I've suspected for a long while. The head of inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, David Kay, has said that Saddam may have gotten rid of weapons before the American invasion:

Asked at a telephone press conference if chemical or biological weapons had been moved out of Iraq before the US-led invasion, Kay replied: "We have multiple reports from Iraqis of substances being moved across borders."

He added: "We've got information indicating movement to Iran, Syria, Jordan, essentially all states that border the north with Iraq, that's not surprising those routes have been long used.

I don't care whatever he has to say. It's still very obviously all about the OOOOOIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

In other America-is-stupid news, the Sydney Morning Herald is predictably jumping on this:

A new poll saying Americans do not think the Iraq war was worth it has been released at the same time as a report that US weapons experts have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

10 out of Iraq's 130 known weapons storage sites have been searched. Nothing has been found yet. Therefore, Iraq didn't have any WMD's. Stupid evil, agressive, oil-loving Americans! And who was it that conducted the poll?

The New York Times/CBS News poll, released on Thursday, showed a sharp fall in public confidence in President George Bush and new lows for his foreign policy performance, which received only a 44 per cent approval rating. Fifty per cent of respondents lacked confidence in Mr Bush's ability to handle an international crisis, and 53 per cent believed the Iraq war was not worth it.

That's like getting the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC to conduct a poll on how much the public simply hates John Howard. Which, of course, they do. Don't you read the news?!

Anyway, the clear conclusion to come to here, thanks to the wisdom of the Sydney Morning Herald, is that Bush lied and people died. Oh, it's also a filthy war about oil. And we've searched less than 10% of the known weapons storage locations, where Saddam would even still logically keep them, and nothing has been found. It was all a lie!

UPDATE: John Hawkins has the low-down on the whole dealio.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Professor gives the SMH what-for as well.

Friday, October 03, 2003

Policy notice 

For some reason I think I may just point out that comments on this site are completely unmoderated.

Another policy issue that I would like to make clear is that quite often what I'm saying is to be taken with a grain of salt. Although what I write about is more-or-less my opinions, quite often I'll exaggerate what I'm saying in order to try to make it slightly more entertaining to read. Most of the time I try to make this obvious, but in cases when it isn't, you can consider yourself warned.

You'll notice that I've added a disclaimer on the side saying that I reserve the right to publish any blog-related email that I get, no matter whether it's hate or praise mail (or somewhere in between). Of course, I will not publish any contact details, but I will post the senders name unless they indicate that they want to remain anonymous.

I think that's all I have to say at the moment.

By crikey! 

Appearing in today's Gold Coast Bulletin is a letter to Steve Irwin from the paper's editors. It reappears on their website, but it isn't the same as in print form (it has been edited from it's original "letter" format), although the same message was there. Since Steve is looking to relocate his zoo from the Sunshine Coast (north of Brisbane), the Gold Coast Bulletin said they're prepared to send a limo to pick him up, and give him the red carpet treatment.

To be honest, I think Irwin would fit in well if he relocated to the Gold Coast. For both obvious and more subtle reasons.

New clear evidence 

The difference in main stories between News Corp. and the Fairfax press is rather interesting. Today's cover story at news.com.au is "N Korea prepares to go nuclear", while today's head story in the Sydney Morning Herald's "World" section is Iraq weapons search turns up zilch.

Well, I guess this shows the list of priorities in each source. I mean, News Corp. is saying that stupid North Korea is ready to blow the bejesus out of the West, and Fairfax is saying that the West is stupid for blowing the bejesus out of Iraq. Which story packs the most punch to you, as a reader? Personally, I'd have to say it's News Corp's story. There's just something that is sitting a little uncomfortably with me knowing that some crazy guy with equally crazy hair is ready to nuke whoever he wants. Quite possibly the United States, as apparently North Korea doesn't like them much, or something. Actually, reading over Kim's journal is essential in deciding where you stand on the guy. Saddam doesn't like him, neither does Bush. So maybe he'd want to have nukes in order to defend himself from those evil oil-stealing Americans! After all, in an effort to get Bush to pay more attention to him, Kim might have actually gained some control of oil reserves. Either that or it'll give the anti-war crowd an excuse to prolong the "all about the oil" protest. It's all so interesting!

Also worthy of note is the fact that Fairfax has seemed to pretty much ignore this story about North Korea, choosing to devote 4 stories (so far) based around the lack of WMD's found so far in Iraq. Meanwhile, News Corp. has run the lack of WMD's story as well, to a rather different tone to the Sydney Morning Herald. Let's compare:

News Corp's story:

The report by David Kay, the head of the US team of 1200 experts scouring Iraq for WMD, is likely to be seized upon by opponents of the war that brought down Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. But Kay appealed for up to nine months more to complete his work.


... "we have found substantial evidence of an intent of senior level Iraqi officials, including Saddam, to continue production at some future point in time of weapons of mass destruction".

Okay, so that seems to say "nothing yet, but Jesus Christ, give us time to look everywhere before conclusions are jumped to!" Now, we'll take a look at what the Sydney Morning Herald has to say:

Kay, heading the search for chemical and biological weapons as well as evidence of any effort to develop nuclear weapons, presented a classified interim report to US lawmakers behind closed doors.

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," Kay said in a statement obtained by Reuters.


The United States went to war against Iraq in March and ousted Saddam Hussein from power in April, largely citing what it said was a threat posed by Baghdad's development of unconventional weapons.

But no such weapons have yet been found, and critics have questioned whether the Bush administration exaggerated the threat to get support for the war. Others have urged patience, saying that Iraq is a large country and such weapons are relatively easy to hide.

BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED! That's all there is about it! I feel there is a more obvious slant in the SMH article than the News Corp. article, which possibly shows my own personal bias. So sue me! I'm just concerned that the SMH is not running stories because they don't make America look bad enough, or something.

In more SMH-bashing, here's today's cartoon (stolen off their servers due to me being a thieving little bastard):

HAHA!! Geddit? The stupid Americans are supposed to have a perfect, fully-functioning democracy running flawlessly in a country with people who have probably never experienced anything like it in all their lives! They are so stupid!

Thursday, October 02, 2003


Today's worthy-of-looking-at stuff:

* Tim Blair uncovers dirt on Steve Irwin, as well as a female celebrity friend of his.

* Bill Whittle's new essay "Power" is up, and you absolutely must read it now.

* You think this blog is dull? Check out the dullest blog in the world if, for whatever reason, you haven't done so already.

* John Hawkins lists the 125 most popular political websites. Interesting.

* For you economic-heads out there, the Adam Smith Institute Weblog has uncovered a new example of market failure. Well, it isn't really, but it'd be cooler if it was.

* What's big, red and looks like a bucket? ... A big red bucket, dumbass.

As a final tidbit of bitching, Blogger is being rather painful at the moment.

Where's the Crushinator? 

I was in one of Brisbane's many newsagents today, looking for something potentially stimulating to read. I would have got the latest issue of The Bulletin, but I bought and read it yesterday. So I was checking out all the other business/current affairs magazines and was considering, say, The Economist? Business Review Weekly? Newsweek? All very exciting choices, I know, but then another magazine caught my eye. Usually in this section of the newsagency, what I'd like to call the "protest" magazines like Adbusters (who I just love to hate) are hiding away too. Before any conclusions are jumped to; no, I didn't see a copy of Adbusters, and no I wasn't going to buy it even if it was there. What I saw, and even had the wild urge to pick up and look at, was this Australian magazine called "Dissent".

I barely bothered to look at the cartoon of John Howard on the front, mainly because I was interested to see how much they'd charge for the magazine. Turns out it was $7.70. I started musing out loud (though ultimately still to myself) as to why the hell such a magazine would charge so much. I would be guessing that $7.70 would be a bit steep for a regular reader of the magazine, who I'm sure would rely on student welfare handouts or something. But that's the way it goes, I guess. I can remember that Adbusters was once criticised for having such a steep price (I think it's about $8 in America). This criticism is obviously considering the content was preaching something along the lines of "consumerism is bad! Money is evil! Profits promote greed!" The response that Adbusters gave to this harsh, venomous logic was something about them needing good presentation in order to compete with the mainstream magazines on the shelf. Fair enough, I guess. The only problem is the Hypocrisy-O-Meter™, which would be running rather high. For the people who subscribe to this anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist ideology, hypocrisy is very, very bad when it's George W. Bush or John Howard. Heck, these guys even draw ridiculous parallels between events in order to help them sleep at night. However, they'll also turn around very quickly and say "everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another. Let's just get on with our own lives!" These guys are quite the acrobats, in my eyes.

Anyway, back to the magazine Dissent. Here's what they stand for:

DISSENT is not aligned to any political party or groups, but it reflects the Editors' views which dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy that the welfare state should be cut back in favour of economic efficiency and unfettered individual liberty. Reducing the government’s role may be liberating for the powerful and rich, but it puts most individuals at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control. The state has a duty to ensure that its citizens have equality of access to education and health services, and a level of income adequate to the basic needs of civilised life. Markets cannot ensure these outcomes even in the richest economies. No society can be truly economically efficient, unless all its citizens are able to express their fullest creative potential in a secure, healthy environment.

Well, I'm a keen subscriber to Milton Friedman's school of thought. If you're unsure about this guy, I'm sure it'd be easy to Google up something. Anyway, that's not really the point I'm trying to make. The part that I bolded in the above quote should be kept in mind when this part on the main page is read:

Views expressed in D!SSENT are those of the contributors and are not necessarily shared by its editors or editorial advisers.

Seems like they're covered either way! What was I saying about hypocrisy again? Oh, sod it. I'm getting sick of dealing with this. And, for some strange reason, I just used the word "sod".

In other unrelated news, but still deserving mention, please say hello to my newest troll, Tiggah! Appearing in the comments of this post. Hi, Tiggah!

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Witty post title not found 

Thanks to a high level of work to be done, I have a smaller amount of time to dedicate to blogging, as you may or may not have noticed. I must sleep.

Until tomorrow, amuse yourself with comparisons to worms. Also worthy of checking out is Front Line Voices, the brainchild of Frank J. (of IMAO fame).

Toyboys and guns 

So, what's the dealio with this toyboy craze that's sweeping (or has swept) America? I can't say that it's quite hit Australia yet (despite what you'll hear about Kylie Minogue), due to me still not being paired with an older woman. Is this a good thing? I don't know; I've never been in a toyboy situation so I guess I can't comment. Although I'm sure I know who will ultimately get the blame for bringing on this seemingly absurd trend:

A rash of celebrities have developed a keen eye for younger men. Hollywood star Demi Moore, 40, is dating 25-year-old Ashton Kutcher. Madonna, 45, is married to film director Guy Ritchie, 10 years her junior. And Charlie's Angels star Cameron Diaz, 31, is dating Justin Timberlake, the 22-year-old singer and ex-boyfriend of Britney Spears.

That's right, it's all George W. Bush's fault! And, as soon as it hits Australia, it'll be John Howard's fault. Opposition leader Simon Crean, Greens senator Bob Brown, journalists (to use the term loosely) like Phillip Adams and Margo Kingston as well as the Indymedia rabble will insist that Howard is behind a secret government conspiracy to let this trend keep young boys out of school and out of jobs! Also, Mark Latham will probably join in on this to, using it as a somewhat flimsy pretext to hurl constructive abuse across the parliamentary chamber.

"The male members of the Young Liberals are a bunch of motherfuckers!" He'd scream, and I guess he'd be right. When questioned later by the press as to why he used such, er... confronting language, he'd say, "well they are!" Latham would gain a fan club consisting of mostly high-school dropouts and undergraduates, because "whoa! He uses the F-word in parliament! He's awesome!" In what would be slightly less controversial news (for some reason), Bob Carr would try to put a tax on the trend.

Surely I may be too quickly coming to a conclusion with older women (so to speak), and I realise this as I become aware that the lawyers are on the side of the women:

A LAW firm principal allegedly told a client's distraught wife to "shoot the bastard and put him out of his misery" when she said her husband had attempted suicide.

Sure, the firm may be facing inquiries and possible charges at the hands of the Queensland Law Society, but my point remains. I mean, once the guy hits the age of 30, he's no longer adequate for the status of a toyboy. So what do the older, wiser women do? Divorce him! Find a new toyboy! One with the latest accessories! If this trend becomes as serious as I'm making it out to be, hitting the age of 30 and growing out of the "toyboy age" would be more than enough to go for suicide. You don't need to think too deeply into this; a guy turns 30 and all of a sudden isn't wanted by any women anymore. Draw your own conclusion.

To be perfectly honest, however, I'm not sure that Australia would grasp this phenomenon as quickly as America has. From a guy's point of view, I don't think many, if any, women in the midst of a mid-life crisis and after some kind of "adventure" are really that desirable to a guy like me. And it's guys like me who are the next batch of toyboys. Sorry, women.