The other day I was at home rather late, still in my tracksuit that serves as good nightwear. Not exactly in a see-other-people mood, I'm trying to work on one of my computing assignments and get it in by Father's Day, the deadline. My terminal is labelled "Cygwin Bash Shell" on the shortcut on my laptop, and I sure as hell feel like bashing its shell sometimes when I see those errors pop up.
Anyhow, I hear a knock at the door and I decided to answer it despite my non-people-ish mood. After all, if it's a competition that I wasn't aware I'd entered and I'd just won a year's supply of Nudie Juice or something, it might brighten up my day. And if it were a member of my fa,ily who'd forgotten their keys and I refused to answer, I'd never hear the end of it. Not worth not answering!
So I went to the door, answered, and it was a lady from World Vision who started off on her obviously rehearsed spiel,
"Hi, I'm from World Vision, I don't wish to put a dampener on your day, but a child dies in this world every 3 seconds ..."
She got about as far as "I don't wish to put a dampener on your day" when the first thing I thought was "Is she apologising for coming to the door, because yes, that did put a dampener on my day. I'm in my trakkies turn pjs! And if she didn't want to put a dampener on my day, why did she knock?"
While there may be some people who absolutely jump with joy at the sight of a charity collector aproaching them, I'm not one of them, and I don't know anyone who's confessed it's one of their little happinesses. On the other hand I realise that charity collectors really believe in their causes and want to collect money for them, and they choose something which they know - or a pretty sure - will get a strong emotional reaction. For instance, dying children.
We all feel strongly about dying children. Or people with terminal cancer. Or ... well there are plenty of other things that get us sad, emotional, or angry at the state of the world.
I'm envisioning a new kind of sales approach,
"Hi, I'm Dorothy, I don't wish to put a dampener on your day, but a charity collector harasses someone for money at least every three seconds on average around the world, and I'm sure you'll agree that's totally unacceptable. We've had a wonderful response in relation to that from your neighbours, and if you'll just sign here it's totally tax deductible ..."
Showing posts with label modern manners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modern manners. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 September 2009
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Accidentally turning your Child into a Question Time Monster
Sue Dunlevy wrote this article in the Daily Tele about the difficult issue facing parents on the issue of teen drinking. And I'm not talking about my precious orange juice either, which seems not to be nearly as controversial as I thought it was.
Parents didn't always want to let their kids drink alcohol, preferring them to stay on the wholesome sugar-not-alcohol infused options as long as possible. At least it just kept you up all night watching cartoons and dancing rather than spewing in the toilet. You got fat rather than dizzy on overdoses of juice, Coca Cola, and really big home made chocolate milk shakes.
Anyhow, keeping them off the juice - I mean the alcohol, which for some reason is often nicknamed juice - for as long as possible, was desirable to many, but it also meant possibly getting put down by your kids.
Ms Dunlevy said that none wanted to experience the withering put down Frances Abbott gave her father, Tony Abbott:
“What would you know, you’re a lame, gay, churchie loser,” Frances Abbott told her Dad when he offered her some advice.
"Clearly she is a young woman who has learnt her parental handling skills from watching Question Time." - wrote Ms Dunlevy
There, I think, Ms Dunlevy has a good point. What the heck are pollies thinking at Question Time - except maybe a bit of nostalgia from school years when they got to call others name and brawl a lot. "Mr Speaker" is just another name for "teacher"?
Politicians often have families and children. They're often mouthing off about family values and lamenting the lack of courtesy and respect in the community and in certain generations. Then they go and put on a great display in Question Time when they blast all that away.
OK, yes, sometimes it's funny, in the same way reality TV is funny, but basically it's also hypocritical, so if you really think about it, it's a matter of 'do as I say, not as I do' or mainly 'Yes, I lament the loss of certain things in our community and I believe that those values should be there in the community, but not for me, not at this time, because I'm privileged.'
That probably isn't an easy one to explain to some younger children and I would treat my Dad or Mum with quite a bit of contempt if I caught them at that contradiction. Maybe that's why Question Time is not on till quite late/early and isn't shown with kids' cartoons. Pollies' children cant' risk that their children might see it and ask 'awkward' questions.
Anyhow, honestly I wouldn't mind seeing Question Time being more civilised. I wonder what it would be like if people tried to conduct it in a more civilised manner. Would they have anything to say? I don't know that heckling adds that much to Question Time but is there much else to it and do they have much else? Maybe they would be stumped for words and end up walking out?
Most of the heckling seems to be name-calling, booing and yelling which seems quite inane to me, and childish, if there was some subtle mind and wordplay, clever humour and wit and interesting psychological manoeuvrings used, it would probably show some class. The fact that it seems to be "whose voice is louder" is a bit stupid. If they called it "REALITY TV: WHOSE VOICE IS LOUDER: WHO WILL LAST THE DISTANCE?" and played it with some judges' commentary over the top and a number to call for each politician, everyone would go on about how it was tacky and what a bunch of common no-talents they are. People probably still think that now, it's just the lack of a good phone no. and a catchy name and a "nasty judge" that keeps their mouths shut.
I wonder if they weren't heckling whether it's possible they would concentrate less on booing and trying to stave off booing, and more on trying to make intelligent, conscientious decisions about issues affecting the populace.
Or is that too much to ask?
Parents didn't always want to let their kids drink alcohol, preferring them to stay on the wholesome sugar-not-alcohol infused options as long as possible. At least it just kept you up all night watching cartoons and dancing rather than spewing in the toilet. You got fat rather than dizzy on overdoses of juice, Coca Cola, and really big home made chocolate milk shakes.
Anyhow, keeping them off the juice - I mean the alcohol, which for some reason is often nicknamed juice - for as long as possible, was desirable to many, but it also meant possibly getting put down by your kids.
Ms Dunlevy said that none wanted to experience the withering put down Frances Abbott gave her father, Tony Abbott:
“What would you know, you’re a lame, gay, churchie loser,” Frances Abbott told her Dad when he offered her some advice.
"Clearly she is a young woman who has learnt her parental handling skills from watching Question Time." - wrote Ms Dunlevy
There, I think, Ms Dunlevy has a good point. What the heck are pollies thinking at Question Time - except maybe a bit of nostalgia from school years when they got to call others name and brawl a lot. "Mr Speaker" is just another name for "teacher"?
Politicians often have families and children. They're often mouthing off about family values and lamenting the lack of courtesy and respect in the community and in certain generations. Then they go and put on a great display in Question Time when they blast all that away.
OK, yes, sometimes it's funny, in the same way reality TV is funny, but basically it's also hypocritical, so if you really think about it, it's a matter of 'do as I say, not as I do' or mainly 'Yes, I lament the loss of certain things in our community and I believe that those values should be there in the community, but not for me, not at this time, because I'm privileged.'
That probably isn't an easy one to explain to some younger children and I would treat my Dad or Mum with quite a bit of contempt if I caught them at that contradiction. Maybe that's why Question Time is not on till quite late/early and isn't shown with kids' cartoons. Pollies' children cant' risk that their children might see it and ask 'awkward' questions.
Anyhow, honestly I wouldn't mind seeing Question Time being more civilised. I wonder what it would be like if people tried to conduct it in a more civilised manner. Would they have anything to say? I don't know that heckling adds that much to Question Time but is there much else to it and do they have much else? Maybe they would be stumped for words and end up walking out?
Most of the heckling seems to be name-calling, booing and yelling which seems quite inane to me, and childish, if there was some subtle mind and wordplay, clever humour and wit and interesting psychological manoeuvrings used, it would probably show some class. The fact that it seems to be "whose voice is louder" is a bit stupid. If they called it "REALITY TV: WHOSE VOICE IS LOUDER: WHO WILL LAST THE DISTANCE?" and played it with some judges' commentary over the top and a number to call for each politician, everyone would go on about how it was tacky and what a bunch of common no-talents they are. People probably still think that now, it's just the lack of a good phone no. and a catchy name and a "nasty judge" that keeps their mouths shut.
I wonder if they weren't heckling whether it's possible they would concentrate less on booing and trying to stave off booing, and more on trying to make intelligent, conscientious decisions about issues affecting the populace.
Or is that too much to ask?
Thursday, 16 July 2009
A Woman by Any Other Name ...
I just watched an old movie the other day called "Tootsie". Probably a lot of people have seen it or at least heard about it. It's one where Dustin Hoffman plays an unemployed actor who's so desperate for work he dresses up as a woman to land a part in a TV serial. This of all leads to some comic moments, clashes with his personal life which of course includes his love life, and then he makes some feminist statements.
One of these is when he tells off the director at the TV station for calling him "tootsie" (as well as a variety of other names). The director there calls the men by their first names, but he tends to call the women names like "cutey" or "tootsie" as well as doing stuff like grabbing their butt and having sexual relations with a few of the good looking younger ones.
This is one of Hoffman's feminist statements and inspires some of the women to stand up for themselves.
I read on some of the IMDB comments some of the reviews for "Tootsie". In general it got good reviews. However one commenter said he didn't really understand whether being called "tootsie" was such a big deal. Was being called "tootsie" or "cutey" or "sweetie" or whatever such a big deal and was it any different from being called "pal" or "buddy" as men call each other at work and there is no real big deal made about that?
Well, I'd say that there is something different about it, but first of all, I'd like to say: What are people generally called at workplaces, do you know about, and do you think it's appropriate? First names, last names, nicknames, etc?
At my workplace it was first names except when you addressed the Judge in which case you said "Judge" or "Your honour" which was considered protocol. Naturally some people who were closer to the judges addressed the judge by his or her first name but when in doubt, title was best. Some people used to address me by my position instead of my name (but usually people from outside the building, clients etc).
Basically I think there is a certain difference, that is something like "pal" or "buddy" implies friendship and equality. You say "pal" or "mate" to someone, they can also address you the same way.
However, when a male says "tootsie" or "sweetie" or "cutey-pie" or whatever to a woman, especially to someone who is below him in rank, it sounds like a term that you would use to "pet" someone, and it makes reference to them in a way that could be easily seen as their sexuality or their looks or both.
What is most important about the situation in the movie is that the men were known by their names, but the women were given little cutesy nicknames, which separated the way they were treated, and they didn't find it favourable. (Not to mention the added fact that the man also grabbed butts and talked over women.)
All in all I think that as an isolated case, a nickname does not necessarily mean that you are demeaning someone or being out of line, but the context can determine it, and the way the nickname is chosen and used and what it could imply.
Maybe it's just easier to stick with names unless invited, boring as it may sound!
And then you've got the problem of, is it their full name or their last name plus title or do they like their name slightly abbreviated or ...
HEY YOU!
One of these is when he tells off the director at the TV station for calling him "tootsie" (as well as a variety of other names). The director there calls the men by their first names, but he tends to call the women names like "cutey" or "tootsie" as well as doing stuff like grabbing their butt and having sexual relations with a few of the good looking younger ones.
This is one of Hoffman's feminist statements and inspires some of the women to stand up for themselves.
I read on some of the IMDB comments some of the reviews for "Tootsie". In general it got good reviews. However one commenter said he didn't really understand whether being called "tootsie" was such a big deal. Was being called "tootsie" or "cutey" or "sweetie" or whatever such a big deal and was it any different from being called "pal" or "buddy" as men call each other at work and there is no real big deal made about that?
Well, I'd say that there is something different about it, but first of all, I'd like to say: What are people generally called at workplaces, do you know about, and do you think it's appropriate? First names, last names, nicknames, etc?
At my workplace it was first names except when you addressed the Judge in which case you said "Judge" or "Your honour" which was considered protocol. Naturally some people who were closer to the judges addressed the judge by his or her first name but when in doubt, title was best. Some people used to address me by my position instead of my name (but usually people from outside the building, clients etc).
Basically I think there is a certain difference, that is something like "pal" or "buddy" implies friendship and equality. You say "pal" or "mate" to someone, they can also address you the same way.
However, when a male says "tootsie" or "sweetie" or "cutey-pie" or whatever to a woman, especially to someone who is below him in rank, it sounds like a term that you would use to "pet" someone, and it makes reference to them in a way that could be easily seen as their sexuality or their looks or both.
What is most important about the situation in the movie is that the men were known by their names, but the women were given little cutesy nicknames, which separated the way they were treated, and they didn't find it favourable. (Not to mention the added fact that the man also grabbed butts and talked over women.)
All in all I think that as an isolated case, a nickname does not necessarily mean that you are demeaning someone or being out of line, but the context can determine it, and the way the nickname is chosen and used and what it could imply.
Maybe it's just easier to stick with names unless invited, boring as it may sound!
And then you've got the problem of, is it their full name or their last name plus title or do they like their name slightly abbreviated or ...
HEY YOU!
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
A Nomination for Dumbass of the Year
I was walking in the city recently and I saw a blind woman, complete with Guide dog, asking a man for directions.
He pointed to his right and said, "It's over that way, see?"
"But I can't see!" she replied.
He pointed to his right and said, "It's over that way, see?"
"But I can't see!" she replied.
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Swine Flu Alert!
My mother has a new hobby horse - each evening she reminds me about how bad the swine flu is and reminds me to wash my hands.
Now, I'm not looking to die of swine flu, but this is my view on it. Take normal precautions, be alert to symptoms and report any, there are obviously situations where people and more likely, larger groups, organisations etc may have to take stricter than normal precautions, but if it gets you and you die, well too bad. Everyone has to die sometime.
There isn't any point running around getting hysterical about it and sitting at your desk thinking that every time someone coughs it's swine flu, that you can't touch anything because swine flu is majorly infectious so what if that something had been in contact with another something which had touched something which had touched something which had touched something which had touched something which had touched ....
Life still has to go on. And if you were that hysterical about it you would have no life.
Anyhow, I was looking at what normal precautions were, and mainly people are walking around saying things like "There's this terrible thing called swine flu! Wash your hands! Cover your mouth when you sneeze and cough!"
You mean people have to have the threat of a jazzily named deadly flu before they remember that washing their hands and covering their mouth when they do a big public ATCHOO is the right thing to do?
People who don't remember this stuff are the kinds of people who ought to be wiped out, so I guess it's just another natural selection thing. The survival of the pockets of society of the more hygienic and polite.
Now, I'm not looking to die of swine flu, but this is my view on it. Take normal precautions, be alert to symptoms and report any, there are obviously situations where people and more likely, larger groups, organisations etc may have to take stricter than normal precautions, but if it gets you and you die, well too bad. Everyone has to die sometime.
There isn't any point running around getting hysterical about it and sitting at your desk thinking that every time someone coughs it's swine flu, that you can't touch anything because swine flu is majorly infectious so what if that something had been in contact with another something which had touched something which had touched something which had touched something which had touched something which had touched ....
Life still has to go on. And if you were that hysterical about it you would have no life.
Anyhow, I was looking at what normal precautions were, and mainly people are walking around saying things like "There's this terrible thing called swine flu! Wash your hands! Cover your mouth when you sneeze and cough!"
You mean people have to have the threat of a jazzily named deadly flu before they remember that washing their hands and covering their mouth when they do a big public ATCHOO is the right thing to do?
People who don't remember this stuff are the kinds of people who ought to be wiped out, so I guess it's just another natural selection thing. The survival of the pockets of society of the more hygienic and polite.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Sol Trujillo's parting shot
I thought I'd write about something else today, like about how I'm insanely thinking of having even less sleep in the mornings and catching the EARLY bus just to get to work early to impress my boss who was late to court this morning (even though he criticises ME for being late!) and also when I'm having trouble staying awake in court as it is.
But then I saw this piece on Sol Trujillo's comments on Australia. Now, let's leave apart the fact that everyone can get a bit bitter when they've been done out of a job. Especially nowadays.
Sol called Australia 'racist' and then people came back and made the usual comments about how we aren't racist and we're the most multicultural country ever with the biggest and best anti-discrimination laws ever and that makes Sol's comments 'ridiculous'.
I've heard these kinds of comments many times before, so basically, neither side is being very original though both may be extremely sincere. Or not. Having not been outside Australia much, from experience I can't give my considered opinion of how other countries rate on the 'racist' scale.
However, here's some comments I 'd like to make:
1. According to this article, India is is the most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the Asian continent. Doesn't say anything about Australia holding any record.
2. Simply because a country has lots of people from different ethnicities and nationalities residing within it doesn't mean those people can't feel and exhibit racial tension and develop racial hierarchies. They can even be legally endorsed. So 'multiculturalism' in itself isn't proof of non-racism, per se.
3. It seemed to me that some people ... and this goes for lots of other things, like health and environmental policy too ... want to say something doesn't exist as a problem just because it's not that bad in Australia. "We're not racist in Australia ... because our anti-discrimntaion laws are better than anywhere else" "We don't need to improve our carbon emissions because we don't emit as much as anyone else" blah blah.
This is a very Aussie way of thinking - I can be slack and I don't need to improve or strive higher because everyone else is worse than me. It's a very mediocre way of thinking and it reeks of people who never want to get to the head of the class. like a B-grade student who doesn't try to get an A because all his friends are getting Ds.
Maybe some child genius had the cure for cancer in Australia but figured there was no point in revealing it because their friends were just turning in book reports for Morris Bleitzman books so they threw out their analysis. I wouldn't be the least surprised.
In Australia there are racist people and there are racist social pockets and racist public figures and racist policy etc. Some people don't feel it or realise it because they aren't the ones getting the hard stick. It mightn't be as bad as other places but not acknowledging it belittles the difficulties some people have with it.
Which leads me to ...
4. Racism has a lot to do with the individual experiences.
Anyone can experience racism, but usually it's people in minority groups who get put at a disadvantage or feel a burden because of racism. Just like any other discrimination or sneering. People have always behaved differently towards groups that are different from them - that is, there have always been groups in some societies who have gotten some schtick because they've been different - looks, race, gender, disability, sexual pref, religion, political beliefs whatever.
Some people haven't felt it as badly or haven't been as negatively affected by it, or felt they've affected others badly that way. They're fortunate, and often they believe that discrimination and those 'isms don't exist and those who cokmplain about them are paranoid harpies making a mountain out of a molehill to get attention.
They could well be people who fall into a 'minority' category of one or two - "I'm a Lebanese female and I've never been harassed and no one talks to me strangely and everyone's really nice to me, I don't know what anyone's complaining about, eeveryone who believes racism or sexism exists is a whinger!"
But you've really got to find out what the other person's experience is to find out whether they've got a valid gripe ...
Maybe they do.
That doesn't necessarily mean the whole country is a nation of racists ...
However it can point to why their point of view has been coloured, and also, that their really is at least an element of racism in a country, whether you count that as a problem of the country yet or not.
Racism and any form of discrimation, harassment, bullying etc can be so personal and so hurtful I think it's somewhat insensitive to say someone is ridiculous for feeling that they've been cut down and that they've received racist slurs. How objective can this be? Though I understand why the defenders are quick to jump up and make those comments in an effort to ensure the image of the nation is protected.
P.S. If we have strong anti-discrimination laws it may be because we don't value racism ... but it also probably is pointing to the fact that there is a problem. I'm betting we didn't put the laws in there as a pre-emptive strike just in case someone happened to be racist or discriminative, but they never are.
But then I saw this piece on Sol Trujillo's comments on Australia. Now, let's leave apart the fact that everyone can get a bit bitter when they've been done out of a job. Especially nowadays.
Sol called Australia 'racist' and then people came back and made the usual comments about how we aren't racist and we're the most multicultural country ever with the biggest and best anti-discrimination laws ever and that makes Sol's comments 'ridiculous'.
I've heard these kinds of comments many times before, so basically, neither side is being very original though both may be extremely sincere. Or not. Having not been outside Australia much, from experience I can't give my considered opinion of how other countries rate on the 'racist' scale.
However, here's some comments I 'd like to make:
1. According to this article, India is is the most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the Asian continent. Doesn't say anything about Australia holding any record.
2. Simply because a country has lots of people from different ethnicities and nationalities residing within it doesn't mean those people can't feel and exhibit racial tension and develop racial hierarchies. They can even be legally endorsed. So 'multiculturalism' in itself isn't proof of non-racism, per se.
3. It seemed to me that some people ... and this goes for lots of other things, like health and environmental policy too ... want to say something doesn't exist as a problem just because it's not that bad in Australia. "We're not racist in Australia ... because our anti-discrimntaion laws are better than anywhere else" "We don't need to improve our carbon emissions because we don't emit as much as anyone else" blah blah.
This is a very Aussie way of thinking - I can be slack and I don't need to improve or strive higher because everyone else is worse than me. It's a very mediocre way of thinking and it reeks of people who never want to get to the head of the class. like a B-grade student who doesn't try to get an A because all his friends are getting Ds.
Maybe some child genius had the cure for cancer in Australia but figured there was no point in revealing it because their friends were just turning in book reports for Morris Bleitzman books so they threw out their analysis. I wouldn't be the least surprised.
In Australia there are racist people and there are racist social pockets and racist public figures and racist policy etc. Some people don't feel it or realise it because they aren't the ones getting the hard stick. It mightn't be as bad as other places but not acknowledging it belittles the difficulties some people have with it.
Which leads me to ...
4. Racism has a lot to do with the individual experiences.
Anyone can experience racism, but usually it's people in minority groups who get put at a disadvantage or feel a burden because of racism. Just like any other discrimination or sneering. People have always behaved differently towards groups that are different from them - that is, there have always been groups in some societies who have gotten some schtick because they've been different - looks, race, gender, disability, sexual pref, religion, political beliefs whatever.
Some people haven't felt it as badly or haven't been as negatively affected by it, or felt they've affected others badly that way. They're fortunate, and often they believe that discrimination and those 'isms don't exist and those who cokmplain about them are paranoid harpies making a mountain out of a molehill to get attention.
They could well be people who fall into a 'minority' category of one or two - "I'm a Lebanese female and I've never been harassed and no one talks to me strangely and everyone's really nice to me, I don't know what anyone's complaining about, eeveryone who believes racism or sexism exists is a whinger!"
But you've really got to find out what the other person's experience is to find out whether they've got a valid gripe ...
Maybe they do.
That doesn't necessarily mean the whole country is a nation of racists ...
However it can point to why their point of view has been coloured, and also, that their really is at least an element of racism in a country, whether you count that as a problem of the country yet or not.
Racism and any form of discrimation, harassment, bullying etc can be so personal and so hurtful I think it's somewhat insensitive to say someone is ridiculous for feeling that they've been cut down and that they've received racist slurs. How objective can this be? Though I understand why the defenders are quick to jump up and make those comments in an effort to ensure the image of the nation is protected.
P.S. If we have strong anti-discrimination laws it may be because we don't value racism ... but it also probably is pointing to the fact that there is a problem. I'm betting we didn't put the laws in there as a pre-emptive strike just in case someone happened to be racist or discriminative, but they never are.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Ho, Ho, Ho, Halloween!
Despite there being no tradition of Halloween in Australia, you can't blame a few kids getting it into their heads that donning a witch's hat, a ghoul's mask or some such, and dashing about with a plastic bag screeching "Trick or Treat!" mightn't be such a bad idea tonight, if there's even just one apple and a tic tac to be made out of the venture. After all, Halloween's not an Aussie tradition, but begging and opportunism is well ingrained in the Aussie psyche.
So I wasn't surprised to find a ghoul, a goblin, a witch and some other creature - not quite sure what - turned up at Maria's doorstep with not-too-threatening giggles and a very Halloweenish chant of "Nice house you've got here!"
Y'see, the Aussie version of trick or treat seems to have been adapted to suit our culture even more - instead of threatening, suck up amazingly and it'll get you further.
Impressed I was; unfortunately, I wasn't prepared. Last year two boys in zomblie clothing had turned up and I gave them muesli bars and eucalyptus lollies.
This time I was lucky enough to dig up a nutri-grain bar (at least it's got a choc-topping) and a Cherry Ripe Bar for each of the kids. I thought I'd better come up with something sweet, because they were being chaperoned by a taller witch who, while she didn't beg for sweeties, might have not been so pleasant and calm had I not given her underlings sugarcoated treats.
I hope it were enough. If I never blog again, you'll know I've been mutated into something that can't blog.
So I wasn't surprised to find a ghoul, a goblin, a witch and some other creature - not quite sure what - turned up at Maria's doorstep with not-too-threatening giggles and a very Halloweenish chant of "Nice house you've got here!"
Y'see, the Aussie version of trick or treat seems to have been adapted to suit our culture even more - instead of threatening, suck up amazingly and it'll get you further.
Impressed I was; unfortunately, I wasn't prepared. Last year two boys in zomblie clothing had turned up and I gave them muesli bars and eucalyptus lollies.
This time I was lucky enough to dig up a nutri-grain bar (at least it's got a choc-topping) and a Cherry Ripe Bar for each of the kids. I thought I'd better come up with something sweet, because they were being chaperoned by a taller witch who, while she didn't beg for sweeties, might have not been so pleasant and calm had I not given her underlings sugarcoated treats.
I hope it were enough. If I never blog again, you'll know I've been mutated into something that can't blog.
Saturday, 15 September 2007
Politically Correct Comedy
There was an episode on Kath & Kim recently where the foxy ladies waded into the election debate. Brett gets fired from work under the new Workplace Relation laws, and Kath snaps "Bloody Howard!"
I was amused to read a comment from a reader in a newspaper that asked whether comedians knew that everytime they bought into a political debate, they lost half of their potential audience, and therefore they should stay away from it. It was bad stuff. His wife had tried watching Kath & Kim, but after the Howard comment she'd been turned off for good.
It's a pretty hard life out there for comedians. I guess some whiner is going to get there next and tell them that sitcoms which extol the virtue of the rounded happy family turn off all those people who are single or who had unhappy childhoods and don't agree, and that's bad stuff, and really shouldn't be done.
So I tried drafting a POLITICALLY CORRECT SITCOM scene:
Brett: I've just been sacked.
Kath: Bloody .... I mean, not as balanced as I previously would have thought of him before you were sacked, Howard!
Kim: Mum, that's not noice!
Sharon: I'd have to agree with Kim, Mrs D. May I please have one of those low-fat, sugarless muesli cookies that's good for your cholesterol and helps lower your calorie intake and battle obesity, Mrs D.?
Kath: Ok, Sharon.
Brett: Although I was disappointed with my lot I do think that there is a lighter side to this.
Kath: Philosophically speaking I think you may be right. Perhaps I was to harsh in my judgment. Howard may be a son of a female dog but he may also be one of those floaty white things that plays harps in heaven. It's all got to do with perspective, don't you think?
Kim: I think you're right Mum. It's perspective.
Brett: Either way you can't be bitter because as a useful Australian citizen I would have to contribute by finding gainful employment not being a dole bludger.
Sharon: Way to go Brett! Gee, these cookies are good, Mrs D!
Kath: How many have you had, Sharon?
Sharon: Ummmm ....
Kim: Never mind ....
(All put arms together and sing "mateship ... mateship ... mateship" with the sounds of panpipes in the background, and Sharon's chomping)
I would say this is definitely a .... joke.
I was amused to read a comment from a reader in a newspaper that asked whether comedians knew that everytime they bought into a political debate, they lost half of their potential audience, and therefore they should stay away from it. It was bad stuff. His wife had tried watching Kath & Kim, but after the Howard comment she'd been turned off for good.
It's a pretty hard life out there for comedians. I guess some whiner is going to get there next and tell them that sitcoms which extol the virtue of the rounded happy family turn off all those people who are single or who had unhappy childhoods and don't agree, and that's bad stuff, and really shouldn't be done.
So I tried drafting a POLITICALLY CORRECT SITCOM scene:
Brett: I've just been sacked.
Kath: Bloody .... I mean, not as balanced as I previously would have thought of him before you were sacked, Howard!
Kim: Mum, that's not noice!
Sharon: I'd have to agree with Kim, Mrs D. May I please have one of those low-fat, sugarless muesli cookies that's good for your cholesterol and helps lower your calorie intake and battle obesity, Mrs D.?
Kath: Ok, Sharon.
Brett: Although I was disappointed with my lot I do think that there is a lighter side to this.
Kath: Philosophically speaking I think you may be right. Perhaps I was to harsh in my judgment. Howard may be a son of a female dog but he may also be one of those floaty white things that plays harps in heaven. It's all got to do with perspective, don't you think?
Kim: I think you're right Mum. It's perspective.
Brett: Either way you can't be bitter because as a useful Australian citizen I would have to contribute by finding gainful employment not being a dole bludger.
Sharon: Way to go Brett! Gee, these cookies are good, Mrs D!
Kath: How many have you had, Sharon?
Sharon: Ummmm ....
Kim: Never mind ....
(All put arms together and sing "mateship ... mateship ... mateship" with the sounds of panpipes in the background, and Sharon's chomping)
I would say this is definitely a .... joke.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Brought to you by The Sydney Morning Herald's Sunday Life, and D. Morgan, Esquire
The article "The Best Mates I've Never Met" disturbed me. We mistake these confessions and narcissistic displays for intimacy. We're treating each other as freak shows and fleeting entertainment. Everyone is too busy delivering their opinions and emotions to reflect on anything at length or listen attentively to anyone else or check the facts. If blogging makes you part of a community, why are bloggers sitting in front of computer screens alone? I can understand why it is a lifeline for people who are isolated by geography. war, age, illness, disability or carer's duties but I wonder if we should spend less time talking about ourselves to strangers and more getting to know our neighbours.
D. Morgan
Wollstonecraft, NSW
(Watch out, Wollstonecraftians, there's a D. Morgan out to get to know you all. That is, if John Howard, your friendly neighbourhood politician, doesn't get there first with some hefty hand-shaking.)
I found this in a Letters to the Editor section of the magazine, and the following thoughts tumbled out:
1. "If blogging makes you part of a community, why are bloggers sitting in front of computer screens alone?" - This sounds like "if those girls are having fun why don't they go to nightclubs, instead they stay at home and read books?" question. Answer - because they're having a different kind of fun from you. Doh!
2. WE mistake ... WE'RE treating each others as freaks ... What the heck are you doing D. Morgan? Don't automatically include me in it! - You need my explicit permission! - While I'm not high on my orange juice, chocolate binge or a good blog post!
3. It's so nice to know that blogging is what makes you a narcissistic pontificator, incapable of listening, rather than your personality. And no other medium does this - not even a Letters Page to the Editor.
4. And my neighbour couldn't be a complete stranger. (or a narcissistic pontificator who doesn't listen.)
D. Morgan
Wollstonecraft, NSW
(Watch out, Wollstonecraftians, there's a D. Morgan out to get to know you all. That is, if John Howard, your friendly neighbourhood politician, doesn't get there first with some hefty hand-shaking.)
I found this in a Letters to the Editor section of the magazine, and the following thoughts tumbled out:
1. "If blogging makes you part of a community, why are bloggers sitting in front of computer screens alone?" - This sounds like "if those girls are having fun why don't they go to nightclubs, instead they stay at home and read books?" question. Answer - because they're having a different kind of fun from you. Doh!
2. WE mistake ... WE'RE treating each others as freaks ... What the heck are you doing D. Morgan? Don't automatically include me in it! - You need my explicit permission! - While I'm not high on my orange juice, chocolate binge or a good blog post!
3. It's so nice to know that blogging is what makes you a narcissistic pontificator, incapable of listening, rather than your personality. And no other medium does this - not even a Letters Page to the Editor.
4. And my neighbour couldn't be a complete stranger. (or a narcissistic pontificator who doesn't listen.)
Thursday, 15 March 2007
A Beginners' Survival Guide To Sam And The City
Blogger Lexicon Harlot sprayed orange juice over her keyboard at the reading of it, and I say that enough's enough. Anything that causes a waste of orange juice is worth a protest over. The Sam And The City blog on the Sydney Morning Herald website, darn it.
'Lexi caused a dangerous juice spill, stumbled and fell, simply by reading about 'chivalry' and the 'biological clock' - but that's tame to a seasoned blog patron of SATC. Read Lexicon's post here.
Bloggers' Guide To SATC
1. Do not know the meaning of, but be prepared to recognise, the words 'intone', 'opine', and 'hilarious'. These are used frequently, discretely, indiscriminately, and out of context.
2. Be prepared to play blog poker. That means something along the lines of using the 6-digit security code provided by SMH each time you post, and announcing it as part of your post, and cheering if you got doubles or triples of any number. This, many bloggers who consider themselves highly intelligent, think of as very witty.
3. Announce whenever you get 999999 as your security code as proof that whatever you post must be correct, or that you are going to have good luck that do, or whatever you feel like. This is also considered very witty, despite the fact that 999999 must be one of the most common computer generated security codes to get.
4. Try to be the first person to post on a blog topic. Don't say anything relevant, write "first post?" or "Hey, first post, too bad I don't have anything to rite! hehehehee!"
Since the blog takes a while to update, this ensures that there will be a string of about six posts like that on each blog before anything on topic is written. It's also pretty good to write "No you didn't get first post" in answer, to string this out a little, ensuring that anyone reading the blog will have to scroll down about two screens before they actually start reading anything relevant. Again, many posters consider this extremely witty. Even though this ritual has been going on for over one year, approximately 5 days per week.
5. There are several posters who love stirring and criticising others, quite personally, but puerilely attack you for the same. Expect to read a lot of "I know you are but what am I"s or attempting-to-be-witty-sarcastic-put-downs.
6. Don't tell anything to a blog-poster you can't risk being posted - especially if you've met them at a blogmeet and they drink way too much. The "what goes on off the blog, stays off the blog" doesn't always stick, especially when people are angry - or drunk.
7. If anyone asks you your astrological sign ... oh, this applies to how you'd deal with anyone asking you your astrological sign in person. Sorry.
'Lexi caused a dangerous juice spill, stumbled and fell, simply by reading about 'chivalry' and the 'biological clock' - but that's tame to a seasoned blog patron of SATC. Read Lexicon's post here.
Bloggers' Guide To SATC
1. Do not know the meaning of, but be prepared to recognise, the words 'intone', 'opine', and 'hilarious'. These are used frequently, discretely, indiscriminately, and out of context.
2. Be prepared to play blog poker. That means something along the lines of using the 6-digit security code provided by SMH each time you post, and announcing it as part of your post, and cheering if you got doubles or triples of any number. This, many bloggers who consider themselves highly intelligent, think of as very witty.
3. Announce whenever you get 999999 as your security code as proof that whatever you post must be correct, or that you are going to have good luck that do, or whatever you feel like. This is also considered very witty, despite the fact that 999999 must be one of the most common computer generated security codes to get.
4. Try to be the first person to post on a blog topic. Don't say anything relevant, write "first post?" or "Hey, first post, too bad I don't have anything to rite! hehehehee!"
Since the blog takes a while to update, this ensures that there will be a string of about six posts like that on each blog before anything on topic is written. It's also pretty good to write "No you didn't get first post" in answer, to string this out a little, ensuring that anyone reading the blog will have to scroll down about two screens before they actually start reading anything relevant. Again, many posters consider this extremely witty. Even though this ritual has been going on for over one year, approximately 5 days per week.
5. There are several posters who love stirring and criticising others, quite personally, but puerilely attack you for the same. Expect to read a lot of "I know you are but what am I"s or attempting-to-be-witty-sarcastic-put-downs.
6. Don't tell anything to a blog-poster you can't risk being posted - especially if you've met them at a blogmeet and they drink way too much. The "what goes on off the blog, stays off the blog" doesn't always stick, especially when people are angry - or drunk.
7. If anyone asks you your astrological sign ... oh, this applies to how you'd deal with anyone asking you your astrological sign in person. Sorry.
Saturday, 9 December 2006
Find Me A Waitress ...
‘Waitstaff’. One of those words that ought to be stripped and whipped and shamed from public usage.
Whatever happened to ‘Waiters’ and ‘Waitresses’? No one nowadays seems to want their genitalia acknowledged in their job, except for nurses, who are quick to tell you whether they’re a “nurse” or a “male nurse” (I vote for ‘nurser’ and ‘nursess’). Has gender become a dirty word recently? Out yourself and be proud, I say.
A friend said to me recently, “When someone tells me they’re going to be ‘Chair’, I feel like saying, ‘Can I sit on you?’”. I empathise. Except I don’t have an overwhelming desire to sit on people as he does, for which reason he shall remain anonymous.
Every time I hear the word ‘Waitstaff’, I expect this.
Person: … waitstaff …
Staff Member: I’m waiting, what next?
Person: … waitstaff …
Staff Member: Ninety-two kilos, but I’m planning on losing some.
You can’t even tell an ancient but somewhat classic fly-in-my-soup joke, as calling out “Waitstaff, waitstaff, there’s a fly …” seems far too idiotic for words … which may be the reason why the word was introduced in the first place.
Whatever happened to ‘Waiters’ and ‘Waitresses’? No one nowadays seems to want their genitalia acknowledged in their job, except for nurses, who are quick to tell you whether they’re a “nurse” or a “male nurse” (I vote for ‘nurser’ and ‘nursess’). Has gender become a dirty word recently? Out yourself and be proud, I say.
A friend said to me recently, “When someone tells me they’re going to be ‘Chair’, I feel like saying, ‘Can I sit on you?’”. I empathise. Except I don’t have an overwhelming desire to sit on people as he does, for which reason he shall remain anonymous.
Every time I hear the word ‘Waitstaff’, I expect this.
Person: … waitstaff …
Staff Member: I’m waiting, what next?
Person: … waitstaff …
Staff Member: Ninety-two kilos, but I’m planning on losing some.
You can’t even tell an ancient but somewhat classic fly-in-my-soup joke, as calling out “Waitstaff, waitstaff, there’s a fly …” seems far too idiotic for words … which may be the reason why the word was introduced in the first place.
Orange Juice Snobbery
‘Tis a sad world indeed. Each time I go out (on the rare occasions I do) I am subjected to an excruciatingly lengthy wine list, with, as an after thought, and sometimes not even then, a toss-away, a throw-away line “soft-drinks and juices available”. I tell you, as a non-wine-drinker, I stand up for my drink of choice. I matter.
Why should only alcohol imbibers have the fun of being able to turn up their noses in insufferable arrogance to the world and be shown bottles before they deign to order a drink at a restaurant? Why should only wine drinkers be able to be able to have a little wine be poured for them into a fluted glass and swirl it about in their mouths and talk about it having "good structure" or actually demand to taste 50 wines, make themselves quite tiddly, but refuse to order any of them and actually not pay for a bottle (a trick if I ever knew one)? Do you think I don’t know which juice to order with the pumpkin risotto and which to order with the grilled fish and what goes better with a roast lamb (depending on if it’s rare or well done)?
Blindfolded, a good Juice expert can tell a Dewlands from a Berri from a Just Juice and would be revolted if any of that Home Brand nonsense was served up at their table. They can tell instantly whether you’ve actually added water to dilute it and make the juice go further – or whether that’s just a melted ice cube.
An Orange Juice Snob can tell a Freshly Squeezed from one with even a few Artificial Colours and Flavourings simply by a sniff. And what percentage Artificial Sweetener. The difference between 5% and 6% and 7% can all be detected within a nanosecond. And which valley the orange orchard comes from – no two orange orchards taste alike. It pains me when a delicious entrée is killed off by the wrong orange juice, really it does.
I have been to restaurants and seen a person order the fish and is about to partake of their orange juice. I know it will not bring out the flavour of their fish, and my Orange Juice Snobbery comes to the fore. I find it my Civic Duty to rush over to their table – sometimes knocking over waitstaff (a disgusting word, but we'll get to that later), but it’s all in a good cause – to shriek “STOP, Oh don’t DO this terrible thing to yourself!” and instruct them on the basics of orange juice drinking, and order for them the correct juice. Some tell me I should leave well enough alone, and if people order what they enjoy, I should let them enjoy their own choice.
But I am inflexible. I know, as an Orange Juice Snob, I would not enjoy the meal, and therefore, it is unthinkable that others could enjoy the meal too. Invasion of space and bumps and bruises that ensue or not, I know I have brought one more small light to the dark world of ignorance, and that pleases me. I’ll keep on informing people of what ought to be their choices, based on my superior knowledge.
Wherever I go, I am armed with my Go Green bag filled with Orange Juice samples and pamphlets of Orange Juice Suggestions – a good way to impart my knowledge on others, and a good excuse to take swigs almost anywhere and anytime in the guise of educating others. I write all off as a tax deduction, of course. It’s now a full time job.
Orange Juice Snobbery Rules!
Why should only alcohol imbibers have the fun of being able to turn up their noses in insufferable arrogance to the world and be shown bottles before they deign to order a drink at a restaurant? Why should only wine drinkers be able to be able to have a little wine be poured for them into a fluted glass and swirl it about in their mouths and talk about it having "good structure" or actually demand to taste 50 wines, make themselves quite tiddly, but refuse to order any of them and actually not pay for a bottle (a trick if I ever knew one)? Do you think I don’t know which juice to order with the pumpkin risotto and which to order with the grilled fish and what goes better with a roast lamb (depending on if it’s rare or well done)?
Blindfolded, a good Juice expert can tell a Dewlands from a Berri from a Just Juice and would be revolted if any of that Home Brand nonsense was served up at their table. They can tell instantly whether you’ve actually added water to dilute it and make the juice go further – or whether that’s just a melted ice cube.
An Orange Juice Snob can tell a Freshly Squeezed from one with even a few Artificial Colours and Flavourings simply by a sniff. And what percentage Artificial Sweetener. The difference between 5% and 6% and 7% can all be detected within a nanosecond. And which valley the orange orchard comes from – no two orange orchards taste alike. It pains me when a delicious entrée is killed off by the wrong orange juice, really it does.
I have been to restaurants and seen a person order the fish and is about to partake of their orange juice. I know it will not bring out the flavour of their fish, and my Orange Juice Snobbery comes to the fore. I find it my Civic Duty to rush over to their table – sometimes knocking over waitstaff (a disgusting word, but we'll get to that later), but it’s all in a good cause – to shriek “STOP, Oh don’t DO this terrible thing to yourself!” and instruct them on the basics of orange juice drinking, and order for them the correct juice. Some tell me I should leave well enough alone, and if people order what they enjoy, I should let them enjoy their own choice.
But I am inflexible. I know, as an Orange Juice Snob, I would not enjoy the meal, and therefore, it is unthinkable that others could enjoy the meal too. Invasion of space and bumps and bruises that ensue or not, I know I have brought one more small light to the dark world of ignorance, and that pleases me. I’ll keep on informing people of what ought to be their choices, based on my superior knowledge.
Wherever I go, I am armed with my Go Green bag filled with Orange Juice samples and pamphlets of Orange Juice Suggestions – a good way to impart my knowledge on others, and a good excuse to take swigs almost anywhere and anytime in the guise of educating others. I write all off as a tax deduction, of course. It’s now a full time job.
Orange Juice Snobbery Rules!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
