Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 July
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
My Work-at-Home Site
My homepage
My Archives
Tblog December archives
Tblog November archives
Mark Latham
Mangled Thoughts
Musings by Andaloo
Paul and Carl
James Morrow
Evil Pundit
Red Tigress
The Bladder
Blog Search Engine
Raymond
Lauren Karsten
Tim Blair
Derek Sapphire
Bernard Slattery
Investigate Magazine
The Comedy Lounge (Perth)
The Polarizer
Sydney Dance Classes
Online Business Review Directory
DealByEthan.com
Salo Creative
Best Aussie Dating Sites
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
2005 Archives
You'll see in the archives section above that 2005 is missing. That's some glitch that will hopefully rectify itself eventually. But in the meantime if you want to find my posts from this period they are below:
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
Being a tightwad and a cheapskate (and also particularly greedy) I'm constantly on the lookout for ways to get web traffic for free. Signing up to a traffic exchange is one of the better ones. Here are some you might want to join:
Traffic Swarm
Web Biz Insider
Clicks Matrix
Traffic Project
Clickin' Fingers
Pro Hits Plus
Stock Traffic
Funny Farm Traffic
Hit Safari
Traffic Roundup
Traffic Tornado
Easy Hits 4 U
Vinterchange
Counter Crazy
Storm Hits
Click Thru
Advertising Know How
Deep Sea Hits
Weblog Directory - Directory of blogs from all around the world.
| Union curse |
| 10.28.04 (6:47 am) [edit] |
|
Here's a good union bashing piece from Janet Albrechtsen in The Oz. Unions have been whiffy with the electorate for quite some time. Yet they still manage to hang on to power by scaring employees into believing that their bosses have all got it in for them deep down. But I think we have turned a corner now. There are now many, many opportunities for people to improve their lot and become their own bosses. Even if people don't seize them, they dream of doing so. This stops them feeling that they are powerless victims with no other way but the union way, so they are no longer easy prey for Stalinist fear-mongers. Lacker Latham should take note of this phenomenon if he wants to have a chance at the next election. Labor being associated with unions is as damaging as being associated with, er, him. |
| 0 Comments |
| Determined to lose |
| 10.27.04 (6:51 pm) [edit] |
|
Miranda Devine offers a good summary of the doomed attempt by Limey snerds to sway the voters of Clark County through an anti-Bush letter campaign. It shows yet again that a death beast's best friend is his enemy. I'm often amazed at how these pompous pinkos don't actually twig to this phenomenon and tone down their behaviour in order to further their own cause. But I've started to think that maybe they actually do know what's happening (on a subconscious level at least). And that is why they do it. That is, they find a kind of perverse sanctimonious pleasure in losing. Since they are driven by infantile emotions, and would rather squitter and squawk about the world's problems than actually doing something about them, they will always sabotage their own movement in the end. I reckon they'll be almost happier than the death beasts if Bush wins. See, we get to gloat for a week or two. But they get to posture and wail and give each other peace prizes for years on end. They're in snerd heaven! Maybe we should all vote for their candidates just to screw with their heads? |
| 0 Comments |
| Thought police on World Police |
| 10.24.04 (6:01 am) [edit] |
|
I'm looking forward to seeing Team America: World Police. I read an article about it over the weekend, which I'm pretty sure was in The Australian. Can't find a link for it. So maybe it's only in the print edition. Anyway, it was a pretty good summary of the reaction to the film. Of course everybody knows that Sean Penn didn't take too kindly to being pilloried in it. But apparently quite a few liberal reviewers thought that the satirical subtext beneath all the silly gags was disturbingly right-wing. I certainly hope it is. Ages ago, in my standup days, I would always try to have a bob each way and take the piss out of both sides of politics. But now I see no sin in being completely partisan. The left is forever mocking the right (usually not very well) and right wingers have been more than forgiving and good-natured about it. Go to any standup venue and you'll see just about every comic get up and spit bile about John Howard, while the audience (most of whom probably voted for him) are happy to go along with it. But if, as a comic, you clearly have a go at lefite icons you can be damn sure to get a snippy response from their supporters both in the audience and the comedy scene itself. Pinkos can dish it out, but they sure as shit can't take it. I sense that this is what is happening with World Police. I recall reading that the creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone claimed to vote Republican (and they weren't joking!). If this comes through strongly in the film it will certainly buck the unwritten rule of comedy in the US, Australia and Britain, which is that it must lean leftward or be apolitical. Could be the start of a wider trend. I look forward to the day when right-wing piss-taking of the left becomes the norm and not the exception. |
| 0 Comments |
| Lacker's tragedy |
| 10.20.04 (11:36 pm) [edit] |
|
As the experienced members of the Labor Party desert Mark Latham and things go from shockin' to Godawful, I feel more and more pity for the bloke. The saddest thing is that he continues to believe in his father figure Gough Whitlam. But really, the old buffoon has proved to be a curse. The past is haunting Latham hugely but he doesn't know it yet. And I think there will be even worse in store. If he hangs on to his gig as leader, I fear he'll make exactly the same mistakes again and get even more thoroughly caned next time. Then he'll disappear completely from the scene, totally destroyed. The whole thing is panning out like a Greek tragedy. (Which one exactly, I have no idea. Gough would, but.) |
| 0 Comments |
| Hack shows true colours |
| 10.20.04 (5:30 am) [edit] |
|
For sheer politically correct idiocy, this John Martinkus fellow takes the cake (and the icing, the candles, the table and the whole friggin' party for that matter!). Only days after being released by terrorists (sorry, insurgents) in Iraq he had this to say: "These guys ... (are) not stupid. They're fighting a war but they're not savages. They're not actually just killing people willy-nilly. They talk to you, they think about things." So, they're not just killing people willy-nilly. If they were just killing people willy-nilly, then they might be savages. But because they kidnap them, and use them as bargaining chips in their campaign to turn Iraq into a pre-mediaeval state in which (among other things) women would be disfigured for showing their faces and publicly shot for infidelity - and then kill them by cutting off their heads, they are therefore not savages. Can't argue with that. Well, I can see why they didn't kill him. He was on their side. I'll bet they even asked him to stay and sign up for jihad. (He probably politely turned down the offer saying he could do more for the cause by continuing to work for SBS. And he would have been right on that score.) The bit I really love is that he says that Alexander Downer should apologise to him. Personally. Stupid, morally relativist, and amazingly arrogant. He's the perfect fluffy wuffy commentator. Watch the arc of this guy's career. I'll bet it's up and up from now on. Update: Just found a similar sentiment expressed in this Andrew Bolt piece. |
| 1 Comments |
| Rhymes with "turd" |
| 10.16.04 (4:42 am) [edit] |
|
Via Evil Pundit and Tim Blair I found an excellent essay describing and naming the kind of smug, squittering wanker RWDBs love to hate. The piece is by Ian McFadyen and the name he's given to them is onomatopoeically perfect: "snerd". I always thought that the name I gave to this sub-species of sub-human - "jackbooted fluffy wuffy" - was a pretty good one. But I'll have to defer to McFadyen's term. "Snerd" is better in every sense. I'm not renaming my blog, but. |
| 0 Comments |
| Fluffy wuffy posters |
| 10.15.04 (7:47 am) [edit] |
|
Saw an amusing fluffy wuffy poster today. It was on a telegraph poll in King St, Newtown. I can't remember the words exactly, but it went something like: "Labor's loss: Are people too comfortable to change the world?" Below this headline were details of the attendant squawkfest. The wording was just so fluffy wuffy. There seem to be at least three characteristic assumptions at work. One: that changing the world (whatever the hell that means!) is unquestionably good. Two: that if you do want to "change the world" you must necessarily vote Labor, or preferably a party further to the left. Three: that comfortable apathy was the most likely reason for Labor's poor showing. All pretty silly really, since Howard and the people who voted for him are far from apathetic. They're much more motivated than the kind of stoned, stunted half-people who would shuffle along to a confab like the one advertised. At least they get up and go to work, instead of sitting around picking their arses and suckling their bongs. Actually, the Liberals just "changed the world" in a very positive way. They delivered yet another major blow to the squitterati, who are looking more and more marginalised and hysterical by the day. In any case, what changes would fluffs actually bring if they finally did get hold of the levers of power (besides creating massive unemployment and enacting nihilistic, inhumane policies and Stalinist behavioural codes, that is)? Hell, their followers are usually too comfortably numb to change their own underpants, let alone the friggin' "world". |
| 0 Comments |
| Lacker's shirt-front |
| 10.13.04 (10:55 pm) [edit] |
|
Firstly, sorry for not posting for ages. Just heaps of things on. Also, I got this shockin' flu almost two weeks back which is still lingering. But I'm back into it at least semi-regularly from now on. So, re what's been happening: Everyone's been posting up a storm over Labor's huge loss on the weekend. I knew it was going to happen. The party is just all over the place. But there's one thing which not many people have picked up on which I think was hugely influential. It was that moment in the ABC studios when Lacker Latham met John Howard. Michael Kroger describes it very well in today's Australian: As the two men met, Latham grabbed Howard's hand, aggressively wrenching a clearly unsuspecting Prime Minister towards him. False pleasantries followed, with the contact ending by a somewhat more polite pat of Latham's arm by his opponent. Yet for a moment, just for a moment, the nation got the impression Latham was attempting a physical shirt front on a man 20 years his senior. This was shown many times during the day and it was almost certainly seen by most of the electorate at least once. There was something really quite disturbing about it. It only lasted a split-second, but the REAL Mark Latham surfaced again, and it was not pretty. I feel sorry for him in one sense because he had such huge pressure placed on him, and then suffered such a humiliating loss. Also, I do think he has got some good qualities and a real desire to improve the lives of Australians. But there is just something quite scary about him. He has an aura of physical threat and violence. And it's at the core of him; something he always seems to be suppressing. This is nothing like I've seen in other hot-head pollies. They may explode verbally from time to time. But they never do it physically. Their running state is at least halfway calm and rational, and they do quickly retain equilibrium. Dubya Bush for instance, is an impatient and quite aggressive man, but you never get the impression that he might actually thump someone. But with Lacker that's like a continual, barely submerged desire. And it surfaced just for a second the other day. Of course I have no way of proving my hunch. But I think that one moment had a huge effect on the election result, at least as big as the forest stuff up. Latham is a visceral character. And people reacted viscerally against him. |
| 0 Comments |
