The Good. The Bad. The Asinine.

Why We Can’t Beat ISIS, And Other Imponderables

Last night a plane flew over my home. It didn’t drop any bombs, so I guess I’m safe from Cory Bernardi’s criticism for a while, but what I did notice  was that it had headlights. I’m sure there are excellent reasons for this, but just at that moment I couldn’t think of any. I therefore decided to not think about it any more. Except, of course, at dinner parties, when I fully intend to bring it up as a sardonic comment on the irrationality of the world.

ME: “You know planes have headlights? What the hell for? Isn’t everyone but us so completely stupid!” polite laughter

It occurs to me that this kind of thinking, if you can call it that, is very similar to the way we think about ISIS. What we as the general public really know about ISIS is next to nothing. We have a vague idea that there’s a pretty complex situation on the ground, what with tribes and different kinds of Moslems and a whole bunch of rape and beheading going on. We’re aware that ISIS holds some towns, and may even know the names of those towns, but there is where it usually stops. We accept commentary from the media and from various defence and government officials that say that it’s all just too complicated and all we can do is to make desultory stabs at ISIS cells and leaders with drones and FGA.

But this just isn’t true. When we talk about what can be done, we’re generally not talking about what’s possible, but about what is politically acceptable. The fact of the matter is that ISIS’ territory is loosely held at best. Their military tactics are shambolic, being made up of equal parts of social media based psy-ops campaigns and a focus on keeping recruitment at a higher level than attrition. 130,000 troops, an armoured division and the air assets already on station could probably take the entire territory in question in a matter of months. If we were so minded, we could structure the invasion in such a way that it would drive the enemy through Syria, into the waiting arms of neighbouring allies, thus putting paid to the Assad regime in the process. It should be remembered that a much better defended, similar sized territory was taken with breathtaking speed in the second Gulf War. It’s possible – it’s eminently possible, but what’s unthinkable right now is once again committing to the long, grinding process of military-driven nation-building that has taken so much in time, treasure and lives over the past decade and a half.

The problem is not that we can’t do this, it’s that we don’t want to. This speaks to a shift in public thinking that many see as the end true end of Imperialist thinking in the West. Over the past century we’ve rejected hard, territorial based empires in favour of de facto empires based on influence and hegemony and, now, we seem to be rejecting them in favour of something called ‘soft power’. We think that this represents some kind of advancement or moral improvement in the way that the West deals with the rest of the world, but it really doesn’t. This is apparent through the fact that almost all Western commentary on the current situation still rests on the assumption that the Middle East is a region in which we can and should intervene, which points to the idea that we still feel that we have some kind of ownership over the region. Compare, for example, our deafening silence on the conflict between the two Sudans, or the civil war raging in the Yemen. No, the fact is that deep in the Western mind lie the very same attitudes that informed the British and the Americans back in the immediate post war years. We still see it as our very own territory, we’re just unwilling to go back. It’s a case of forty times bitten, just now becoming shy.

And now is the worst possible moment to become shy. An evil conglomerate of extremists is carving out a new shape for the Middle East that cannot possibly mean anything but bad news for all our interests in the region. In the process of so doing, they are causing one of the biggest humanitarian crises in the last hundred years, one which is threatening to destabilise the EU and playing havoc with the balance of power in the Middle East and North Africa. We could not have picked a worse time to suddenly go ‘hands off’ on the land between the two rivers. And the greater tragedy is yet to come. No sane or informed analysis of the situation can possibly see this situation sorting itself out in a way that is acceptable to us. There are three alternatives, really.

  1. ISIS fizzles itself out, leaving a huge and chaotic power vacuum in the region, ripe for someone even crazier to fulfil. Again.
  2. ISIS firms up its territory, acquires heavier military capabilities and becomes a nation that we have to deal with as a player in the region.
  3. ISIS continues as is and, after an indeterminate period of time, hits the threshold of the amount of human displacement and atrocity that the West is willing to tolerate, and we once again invade the territory.

My big fear is that option three is by far the most likely. Given another decade, as our military commitment is incrementally increased on the back of continuing atrocities and immigration pressures, we are going to reach a tipping point where the public will eventually see that full-scale invasion is the only possible solution. The problem is that, by then, it may very well be exponentially more difficult to effect what could probably be done quite easily today.

Waiting for ‘the people’ to realise what’s at stake and what should be done could be fatal. Our governments need to act decisively now. The opinion of the public, while important, is predicated mainly on ignorance and, most importantly, ignorance of what is actually at stake if the current order in the Middle East is allowed to implode. It’s not just morality that’s at stake here – we in the West are all heavily invested in the fate of the region surrounding the ISIS anomaly – we always have been and always will be. We can’t just give up on the idea of ‘going back in’ just because it’s too difficult to explain why we should. The results of losing out to these lunatics are potentially catastrophic to us.

Sure, it’d be nice to pat ourselves on the back for creating a true post-imperial world, but the reality is that, whether we like it or not, this is going to have to wait. The replacement for the West’s soft, hard or any other kind of power in the Middle East cannot be allowed to be an Islamic State of this kind. The only real choice here is whether we intervene decisively now, or wait until thousands more lives and billions more in treasure have been spent pretending that a limited air campaign and proxy fighters are ever going to be enough to resolve the situation.

Why are defence officials predicting a 20 year conflict? It’s because they know that this covers them for failing to present a real solution in the face of governments that don’t want to hear about the only effective one.

 

Why Isn’t the World More Disney?

Children make us see the world differently, largely by ruthlessly hijacking our televisions and replacing our normal cultural input with talking animals and plucky, courageous teens doing unlikely things in garish colour and at great volume.

Despite this, watching children’s television is usually a fairly uplifting experience. The world is presented as an ultimately just place, with powerful people who stand up for ‘the little guy’, bullies getting their comeuppance and true love springing improbably up out of every corner. The values that we see displayed are unequivocal and absolute:

Justice

Fairness

Compassion

Generosity

Love

While all this can get a little sickly, there are good reasons to be in favour of it. The idea that these are the values that will inform the lives and moral attitudes of our children is a heartening one, and, within reasonable limits, it behoves us all to encourage this kind of ethical propaganda. It does, however, raise a few questions.

Why, if generations of children have been brought up with such excellent moral tutors, is the world such a greedy, unjust, selfish and violent place?

Does the moral education provided by entertainment have any effect at all?

If these lessons are being taught to children literally from the cradle, why do so many of us grow up to be such unconscionable pricks?

I’m afraid that there is only one possible answer, and it isn’t a comfortable one. The only logical explanation for the distance between ‘Disney’ and reality is that children learn far more about morality and the world from actual adults than they do from the television. We can expose them to as much media and entertainment as we like, but the real conditioning of their behaviour is achieved by imitation. It is to be expected, therefore, that when it comes to imitation, children are going to choose real people for their subjects, as much as their fantasy lives might indicate that they are, deep down, destined to become Dora the Explorer.

So, why is the world such a greedy, unjust, selfish and violent place?

It’s because we generally behave as if this is perfectly acceptable.

I’m sure that the vast majority of people, on an individual level, are wonderful. Okay – nice, then. Tolerable? Let’s go with tolerable. In any case, very few parents that I have observed directly teach their children to be selfish little bastards – for one thing, most children need no instruction whatsoever in that regard. So what is it that perpetuates the disgusting state of affairs that we now live in? It is the example of acceptance that we set. Whatever we may say, do, or consent to watch, children are freakishly good at picking up on certain truths, and the one that they seem to be picking up most from us is that we’re okay with things as they are.

Sure, we have our daily two-minutes’ hate whenever we read the Telegraph or watch current affairs programs. Sure, we complain and rail against the state of just about everything and everyone that hoves into view. But, most importantly, we most of us don’t appear to do a damn thing about any of it. It is this that informs our children, more reliably than anything else, that no matter how bad things are in the world at large, there is neither a duty nor a need to try in any way to fix them.

So long as we have the mortgage paid, food on the table and inexhaustible reserves of inane conversation, our responsibility to civilisation and the planet has been more or less fulfilled. I can guarantee that this attitude is keenly perceived and absorbed by the forming minds around us, our example overriding any more didactic attempts at ethical instruction.

I hear you say: “That’s all very well, but how do you propose we fix it? And, more importantly, do you seriously think the average parent has time for activism? What kind of feckless idiot are you?” Which would be fair enough. What I would suggest, though, is that we just try to maintain an awareness of the following two questions:

Am I living my values?

Are those values such that I would like to pass them on to my (or anyone else’s) children?

If we can all remain conscious of these two things as we go about our daily lives, we may actually be able to achieve an incremental gain in the direction of a better world.

 

 

 

A media release from the Australian Christian Lobby

MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release
_____

The Australian Christian Lobby has questioned the wisdom of a campaign by some Australian corporations supporting a change to the definition of marriage.

“I just wonder if they have thought about how legislating a family structure which causes children to miss out on one of their parents is fair,” ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said.

In order to keep his position internally consistent, Mr Shelton then also called for legislation to force married couples to have children, and to ban marriage for couples who don’t want children or who have children from previous marriages, and to ban unmarried couples from having children, and to force married couples without children to get divorced, and to ban divorce. When asked how he would both ban and require divorce, Mr Shelton shouted “OMG THAT TREE LOOKS LIKE JESUS!”, and ran from the room.

When he returned, Mr Shelton went on to say, “This debate needs to move beyond politically correct ideology to a mature and open debate. Men have pee-pees and women have hoo-has, and that’s all there is to it. Furthermore, you’re all poopy-heads, and I will now close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears until you leave”.

Noting that the Football Federal of Australia had also backed the campaign, Mr Shelton wondered where this left the tens of thousands of Australians who play soccer but also believe a child should be raised by their mother and father. “I wonder where this leaves the tens of thousands of Australians who play soccer but also believe a child should be raised by their mother and father,” he wondered. “Mexico? Aruba? That place where all the refugees come from? Even if it leaves them exactly where they were before, playing soccer and believing a child should be raised by their mother and father, I’m pretty sure they all stand around during games thinking about children not being raised by their mothers and fathers instead of thinking about whether they’re in an off-side position, and it will make them sad to think that the governing body wants to change the definition of marriage, and much sadder than the thousands of gay, trans and intersex players who stay in the closet because they think the governing body and society in general won’t accept them. I just really feel for them.”

“The corporates involved in this latest campaign really are not showing very much tolerance to those in the community who have a different view about marriage and the rights of children,” Mr Shelton said. “Of course, if the FFA came out in support of my own personal view of marriage, that would be fine.”

When asked whether he understood the meaning of irony, and whether it was intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance, Mr Shelton yelled “POOPY-HEADS!” and ran from the room.

END OF MESSAGE

Another open letter to Fred Nile

Dear the Honourable Reverend Mr Fred,

People are always picking on politicians. Take Tony, for example. No please, take him. I think you two would get along great. He thinks women sit around ironing all day dreaming up new ways to withhold sex from the men. There must be tens of bigots who agree with him, but you knight one racist monarch and everyone has a hissy fit. I don’t think that’s fair the Honourable Reverend Mr Fred.

People have been picking on you a bit lately, too. Like when you recently re-married, and everyone went nuts. Sure, you lost your wife, which was bad, but four hours later you found a new wife, which was good. She’s also a lot younger than you, which is good, but she’s too old to have children, which is bad. But it means you won’t have any more children, which is probably good. Now I’m not saying that it was too soon to re-marry, or that she’s too young for you, or that biologically-childless marriages should be illegal, but I found the whole thing repulsive. What a stroke of luck, then, that my opinion on your relationships is completely irrelevant, and you could just do what you wanted. Isn’t that nice?

Then you said that the only man in the Lindt cafe siege was the man with the gun, and everyone went nuts again. Which is just silly. Sure, it hurt a little to know that I wasn’t actually a man. But on the plus side all I need to do is be charged with murdering my partner and sexually assaulting six women and then take a whole bunch of people hostage with a gun, and my manly manliness with be restored. So it’s not all bad.

Finally, you’ve started your political campaigning. And some genius, who is probably you, since I can’t imagine there is more than one genius in your party, came up with this, and posted it to your Facebook page:

In nature...1

I’m tempted to think there might be more than one genius at your party, however, since someone else has since taken it down. Which is a shame, because reading between the lines, I think it was a really good message:

In nature...2

You are absolutely right, the Honourable Revered Mr Fred – equality is a social construct. Being a genius, you would have also noticed that the society you live in is not only itself a social construct, but is filled with lots and lots of other social constructs. Things like parliaments, and preferential voting, and scamming your way into a lifetime pension with only 2% of the vote, and religion, and marrying a much younger post-menopausal woman four hours after your last wife died. You know, all the things that don’t exist in nature, but have been maliciously thrust upon you against your will. It’s just not fair.

Well that’s all from me, the Honourable Reverend Mr Fred. I have to go and eat someone a lot smaller than me. Not eating people a lot smaller than me is a social construct. And I know how you hate those kind of things.

Yours sincerely,

Tim

In which Bill Muehlenberg writes a book that is the same as his other book but with a very different title so you have no idea it’s the same as his other book

Once upon a time, Bill wrote a book. Then one day, he wanted to write another book. But writing books is hard. So he came up with the brilliant plan of writing the same book all over again, and changing not one, but two words in the title, so everyone would think it was a new book. The result is [Insert bad word] Relations – The [Insert bad word] of Homosexuality. And it’s brilliant.

Now, let me say from the outset that I haven’t read this book. But I’m going to review it anyway. Why? Because I can. And why can I? Because that’s what Bill does. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from Bill, it’s that I’ll turn gay if same-sex marriage is legalised. And that cardigans are awesome. Oh and that we can make judgements on books and movies without reading or watching them. Take his review of Dinesh DiSouza’s film, America, and the book that it’s based on:

I have not seen the film as yet, and my copy of the book is still coming in the mail. But we know enough about the volume to say this: it is a stirring defence of America and a powerful critique of our current POTUS who is doing all he can to destroy America.

Or his review of Noah:

Some misguided Christians claim I must experience this film, otherwise I cannot speak to it. But I haven’t had firsthand experience of a satanic church service either – so what? There are plenty of things I can rely on others about, and/or I don’t need to experience myself.

Or his review of Cory Bernardi’s book:

Now I don’t happen to have a copy of his book as yet. But I know Cory and I know what he stands for so I can imagine pretty well the sort of stuff he says in his book.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! Isn’t that handy? I can just review things without reading or watching them! Such a time saver.

Anyways, Bill’s book. It’s amazing. Kind of like carrotless-vomit, or a piece of poo shaped like a 1979 Corolla, which are both also amazing. I mean, it has footnotes. FOOTNOTES! And as everyone knows, footnotes are a sure sign that the author knows his stuff [1]. And the more footnotes an author uses [2], the better his argument [3].

The best part about the book, however, is the creative title. It’s very different to the title of his previous book, to indicate that the contents are also very different. Strained Relations – The Challenge of Homosexuality… it just has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? Oh sorry that was his first book. Strained Bumholes – The Problem with Pooftas is what I meant to say. Oh no wait that was the working title. Dangerous Attractions – The Threat of My Own Personal Fear of Being Gay is an awesome title. Or it would be, if it ever made it out of Bill’s subconscious [4]. Thaaaaat’s right, now I remember the title of the book I haven’t read that I’m reviewing [5] – Dangerous Relations – The Threat of Homosexuality.

I wonder how long it took him to come up with that title. I mean, thesauruses can be tricky [6]. I can just imagine Bill, sitting there in his study in his cardigan and brown corduroy pants, saying “Pablo! Stop massaging me and fetch me that book that tells me what words mean the same as other words! And no, you cannot put your shirt back on”. And he flicks through to “strained”, and wonders aloud… “Hmm… Tight Relations? Stiff Relations? Hmm. Pablo! What do you think of Stiff Relations?” [7]

This method appears to have worked for the actual book, too. Take this passage from Laboured Relations [8]:

Gay people are bad. They make me sad. But being a bigot makes me glad.

And now compare it to this, from Nasty Relations [9]:

Gay people are crappy. They make me unhappy. But being a fanatical religious zealot makes me dance in the streets with joy [10].

See how easy that was? And how awesome? I mean, the book practically writes itself.

Anyway, the important thing to remember is that gays are bad, and Bill needs twelve dollars and seven cents to tell you that gays are bad. If that sounds like a lot of money, that’s because it is – he tells us gays are bad every day on his blog. FOR COMPLIMENTARY.

Sorry, I meant for free. These thesauruses are tricky.

P.S. I have posted this review to Amazon. I encourage anyone who hasn’t read this book to do the same here.
_____________________

EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES TO SHOW THAT I AM SMART
[1] Like this one.
[2] Bill uses lots.
[3] Not really, I’m being sarcastic.
[4] Cough cough… Ted Haggard.
[5] Because I can.
[6] Not for normal people though, obviously.
[7] Yes these are actual synonyms.
[8] aka Strained Relations. Laboured is a synonym for strained, see.
[9] aka Dangerous Relations. Nasty is a synonym for dangerous, see.
[10] But not in a gay way.

Too: Steve Noyce, Re: Todd Carney

Hi Steve,

My name is Tim, and I’m writing too you too share my thoughts on your recent sacking of Todd Carney.

I should first point out that I’m not a particularly huge fan of the Rugby Leagues, as the scrums are just to fiercely contested for me. Every time I see one I think “OMG they look like they’re actually pushing this time”. It’s very stressful. I’m also not a fan of oceanic mascots for land-based sporting teams. Sorry, Steve, but a shark just isn’t believable. They can’t move backwards, for starters. And I hear they get quite emotional at the sight of blood. Assuming, that is, that they haven’t just suffocated a few seconds after kick-off. Armadillos are land animals, though. And I’m quite good at drawing armadillos. Well, I’m good at tracing them. I’d be happy too trace you a new mascot if you like. His name could be Adillo and he could be accompanied by a speech bubble that says “I’m Adillo”.

As for Todd Carney, well… I don’t know him from a bar of soap. Sorry that’s probably an exaggeration. I’ve never met Todd personally, but I’ve seen photos, and he doesn’t look to much like a bar of soap, so I think I probably would know him from bar of soap. Although I guess it if was dark and the soap was a life-sized replica of Todd Carney, then maybe I’d have too ask them both a few questions too make sure. Whatever. The point is I’d never wash myself with Todd Carney. Not with his mouth anyway, as it’s probably full of urine.

Which brings me too the subject of my letter.

As much as everyone has been asking what was going through Todd’s mind when he pïssed in his mouth, I want too know what was going through your mind when you sacked him for it. Do you remember when you were a kid, and you went too the bubbler on a hot day, and the water came out warm at first, and you let the water run on your hand for a while so you knew when it was cool enough too drink? Well I do, Steve, so naturally my first thought was “Why didn’t Todd piss into his hands first?” I didn’t want too play the blame game though, so I stopped wondering that and just hoped that he hadn’t had any asparagus for dinner. Then I decided that he probably just likes too recycle.

But what were you worried about? What concerned you so much that you felt you had too end his career? Did you think his poor aim at the urinal would affect his kicking game? Because if you did, I think I should point out he wasn’t aiming at the urinal, he was aiming at his mouth. So his aim seems pretty good, and you should probably let him kick more. Then maybe you’d stop coming last.

Oh sorry, I just saw your media release! Let’s see if it sheds any light on your motives. You sacked him because you are

committed to building a successful club, a club with strong values and a club which sets and respects high standards in all aspects of its operations and activities.

Is it a shame thing, Steve? Has he brought the Sharks into disrepute? Will people start showing less respect too a bottom-of-the-ladder team that has never won a premiership and was fined $150,000 for salary cap breaches and $1,000,000 for the use of illegal supplements, just because a single person pïssed in his mouth while not at work? Now that I think about it, do you think that maaaaaaybe you might have more reason too terminate your own contact?

Or is it a role model thing? Are you worried that hordes of impressionable young children will start skipping off too the urinal every time they’re thirsty? Because if you’re worried about role models, Steve, there are bigger issues too worry about. For example, you might have too start sacking people who throw to many forward passes. Or who punch another player. Or spear tackle. Those are some pretty heavy issues, Steve. And I haven’t even mentioned the most heaviest.

You may have noticed the odd grammatical error in this letter (if you haven’t, look again, they’re not to hard too find). They make the letter quite difficult too read, don’t they? But it’s not my fault, Steve, it’s Todd’s.

You see, Todd is a huge role model, and has a profound impact on the actions of all impressionable Australians. Well I’m an impressionable Australian. And I saw Todd’s tattoo.

Todd Carney tatt

So yeah, now I write like an idiot, and anyone else who’s seen Todd’s tattoo writes like an idiot to. That’s the real danger here, Steve. People can pïss in their mouths all they like, and they only harm themselves. But bad grammar… bad grammar is infectious, and just to annoying too tolerate.

Think about it, Steve. Take a stand against bad grammar and media hysteria and hypocrisy. Re-hire Todd, make him fix his tattoo, and sack yourself.

Take it from someone who doesn’t care about Rugby League, or the Sharks, or Todd Carney – it’s the right thing too do.

Yours sincerely,

Tim

Miranda Devine is a fücking idiot

Well, she is. But don’t worry – I’m not being Mirandaphobic, because “fücking idiot” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You see, a few weeks ago, a rugby league player called one of his opponents a “fücking gay cünt”. The NRL then suspended him for lack of creativity homophobia. Miranda was outraged:

There was no problem with the players trying to punch each other. No problem with the foul language. No problem with the sexist c-word. But woe betide the player who ­offends the gods of homosexuality. Let’s get one thing straight. “Gay” no longer just means “homosexual”. The word has changed meaning over the last decade. Young people use “gay” to mean lame, or dumb or stupid, as in: “That’s so gay.”

I don’t know who the “god of homosexuality” is, but I think it might be Jesus, since he not only seems to be the one making all the gay people, but can rock a tunic and sandals like nobody’s business. In any case, it would seem that according to Miranda:

  1. Yes, “gay” does mean homosexual; but
  2. It also means “stupid”; so
  3. It’s not homophobic.
  4. P.S. Calling someone a “cünt” is sexist.

That’s all fine, but how does it make Miranda Devine a fücking idiot? Well, to make things easier for us, Miranda claimed that calling someone a “cünt” is sexist. And that allows us to say this:

  1. Yes, “cünt” does mean vagina; but
  2. It also means “fückwit”; so
  3. It’s not sexist.
  4. P.S. Calling someone “gay” is homophobic.

Ergo, Miranda Devine is a fücking idiot.

Now, at this point, you may be thinking that I’m being Mirandaphobic. But you’d be wrong. You see, dear reader, words can change their meaning over time. And since I started this post, “fücking idiot” no longer just means “a person of colossal stupidity” – it now also means “a person of Devine-like intelligence, capable of both making an argument and defeating it in the same paragraph”.

Which means I’m off the hook.

But she’s still a fücking idiot.

On political correctness

I hate “political correctness”. Even the name, “political correctness”, is politically correct. We should just call it what it actually is – lying.

You see, words are important. How could I write these words and how could you read these words if words didn’t exist? You couldn’t, because neither of us would know what words were, because words would be non-existent. And non-existent things don’t exist. So, yeah, it’s pretty good that words exist.

But while the existence of words is important, the meaning of the words is also important. Actually, the meaning could be even more important than the existence. But I haven’t thought about it a lot, so I’ll just say they’re equally important, and call it a tie. Not one of those ties that you wear around your neck, obviously, because that makes no sense. Maybe I’ll call it a draw instead. A draw is like a tie. But not one of the ones you wear around your neck, obviously. See what I mean? The meaning of words is important. Things can get very confusing if you’re not clear on the meanings of words. That’s why I always use the right words for things.

Why can’t people be like me, and just say what they mean? I just want to call a spade a spade, and so should you, unless you’ve named your spade “John”, in which case you may call it “John”, although I should tell you that “Doug” is a much better name for a shovel. But whatever. The way you people dance around the truth with your silly euphemisms is just ridiculous. I think it’s time we all started being a little bit more honest.

Like when I see a woman feeding her child in public, I say “Would you mind tït-feeding that human parasite someplace else?” Imagine the confusion if I said “breastfeeding”, or “baby”. She might have thought I was asking her to stop feeding chicken to the girl from Dirty Dancing, and then she’d be confused, and I’d still be grossed out by her selfish act of infant nourishment. That’s what we call a lose-lose situation. And I much prefer win-win situations. Or win-lose situations, where I’m the winner, and you’re the loser.

And for god’s sake, don’t say “vision-impaired”, “intellectually-challenged” or “executive assistant”. Just say “blind”, “spastic” or “secretary”. Because that’s what they are. Likewise, don’t tell your wife you want to “make love”. Love isn’t made of anything, so it’s impossible to make it. Fücking isn’t impossible though, so do that instead. And don’t tell your colleagues you’re “going to the bathroom”. Not only is there almost certainly no bath at your work, but everyone knows what you’re really saying, so you might as well just say it: “I’m going to the shïtter to play Angry Turds.” Don’t say “I’m sorry for the loss of your mother”. They haven’t lost her, she’s inside that coffin over there, with a scarf covering her tracheotomy, slowly decomposing. Don’t ask your seven-year old daughter “Is it itchy down there?” Just tell her to stop scratching her cünt. Don’t say “gender-neutral”. Say “freak”. Don’t say “African-American”, “Japanese” or “Jew”. Say “nigger”, “nip” or “kyke”. And FFS, don’t say “gay”. Gay means happy. And yes, they all usually look quite happy. I can be happy too, but I’m not a faggot.

And if you happen to be at a funeral for a vision-impaired, intellectually-challenged, transgender, homosexual African-American executive assistant who died from smoking-induced lung cancer, and you get the urge to make love to yourself in the bathroom, just be honest and say “Well I guess that blind spastic freakish gay nigger secretary got what it deserved. I’m going to go fück myself in the pïsser.”

Sure, you might upset a few of the funeral-goers, but that’s their problem. You’re just telling the truth, and protecting your right to free speech.

And as an added bonus, I’m sure they’ll be happy to tell you to go fück yourself.

An open letter to Cory Bernardi

Dear Cory,

Man, if only I had a dollar for every time I started a letter with “Dear Cory”. I’d have at least three dollars now. I wrote my first “Dear Cory” to Cory Haim to tell him how much I loved The Goonies. My second “Dear Cory” was also to Cory Haim, to apologise for confusing him with Cory Feldman. At that stage I probably should have written to Cory Feldman to tell him that I loved The Goonies, but I found the whole thing quite embarrassing, so I didn’t. I can’t confuse you with those Corys though – you weren’t a famous actor in the 80s, and Cory Haim doesn’t write awesome books like you do (because he’s dead), and Cory Feldman was married by MC Hammer. Were you married by MC Hammer? I don’t think you were, because then you would have written a book about how awesome it is to be married by MC Hammer, and how it doesn’t undermine the sanctity of marriage at all.

Anyway, I haven’t bought your book yet, because it’s $27, and I already gave all my money to Hillsong. But even though I can’t buy it, I won’t download it illegally, because that would be wrong. As my married biological parents always said, “It’s wrong to download shït books using BitTorrent”. That’s one of the things that I love about my married biological parents – they know stuff that unmarried non-biological parents don’t. Things like “Don’t steal” and “Only deny rights to minorities” and “The floppy skin on your elbow is called a weenis”.

And that’s what it’s all about, right? The fact that children do best with their married biological parents? It’s like your identical twit Bill Muehlenberg said, when he quoted the American Sociologist, Sara McLanahan:

Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.

Like you, Bill is just “following the evidence where it leads”. It’s just a shame that it didn’t lead him to the rest of Sara’s paper, where she said that:

While living with just one parent increases the risk of negative outcomes, it is not the only, or even the major, cause of them… Low income – and the sudden drop in income that often is associated with divorce – is the most important factor in children’s lower achievement in single parent homes.

I guess that means that children might do best with their two married biological parents and a steadily-employed live-in lover named Cerise (or Pablo, I’m not here to judge). At the very least it means that, if we’re so concerned about child welfare, we should give single parents all the help they can get. What they really need are sanctimonious lectures by people who have no idea what they’re going through, but all they keep asking for is money and time and cigarettes. Actually, maybe we should ignore the bit about loss of income being the biggest detrimental factor – Sara’s a single mum herself, and she’s probably just looking for handouts. We can also ignore the part where she said “regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born”. But the rest of it supports our preconceived ideas, so it’s fine.

When did you find out that the people who raised you were your biological parents? I still remember when I found out. It was a few weeks ago, when I received the DNA test results. My life had started to fall off the rails a bit. I stubbed my toe, and I lost my Renegade DVD box set, and I had the sudden urge to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema. I suddenly realised that the best way to make myself a better person would be to confirm that my DNA came from the two most loving people I have ever known, and not some fückwits who didn’t know you shouldn’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded cinema. But it was all OK. The test results came back fine, and I turned back into a good person with lots of friends and nice furniture. It was the second best day of my life. The best day was yesterday, when I found my Renegade DVDs.

What we really need is a plan. You and Bill and I know that children do best with their married biological parents, but what are we going to do about all the weird families with shït kids? Bill Muehlenberg reckons they should be “frowned upon”, so I’ve started walking around the city frowning at parents who look non-traditional. You can tell they’re non-traditional because they have nose-rings and their kids are stealing cars. It’s a bit weird at first, but after a while you realise that it feels good to express displeasure at your inferiors. I think I’m pretty good at it, but it doesn’t feel like I’m doing enough. That’s why I’m happy you rail against abortion, too. Because if you think married biological parents raise the best kids, you should see what happens when parents have kids they don’t even want.

I really admire you, Cory. It can be tough finding rationalisatons for untenable, faith-based prejudices. These days, it’s not enough to just say “It’s true, because I cherry-picked it from the bible”. People want evidence, and it’s quite annoying.

But don’t despair. We must battle on, despite the evidence. It’s what we conservatives do best.

Yours sincerely,

Tim

Block & Roll #3 – Dishing it Out

Block & Roll 3