Come on/confess your confusion

There have been many around the internet in the last week allegedly trying to draw “lefty feminists” out of their evil lairs regarding the “revelation” that Kevin Rudd went to a strip club in New York, four years ago.

This is, in my opinion, a win-win for conservative commentators. If “women of the left” are unavailable for comment or equivocal in their commentary, then they are supporting the sex industry. If women of the left are damning of Rudd’s participation in a trip to a “gentleman’s club”, then they shouldn’t support his leadership (or so the argument might go).

The problem with this contention is that it assumes that the so-called “women of the left” (of which I would consider myself to be one) have a unified position on the issue of:

a) sex work
b) constructions of sexuality and gender
c) differing social standards for politicians vs. “regular people”
d) whether or not men’s attendance at clubs such as ‘Scores’ is a de facto policy position on the right or wrong of sex work
e) Kevin Rudd, FULL STOP.

My hesitance is that my own view about these issues is far from clear.

On one hand, I believe that women should not be reduced to objects of sexual desire for the financial gain of men.

On the other hand, I don’t think I’m in a position to make judgments about what women might do to earn a living.

On one hand, I think that the patriarchal nature of our society has perpetuated and, in some cases, exacerbated the exploitation of women involved in sex work.

On the other hand, there are women who enjoy what they do, earn a much higher wage than they would do in any other role they are skilled to do, and work in a safe environment over which they have control.

And if you start from the basis that all sex work is inherently exploitative, then it's hard to see how any of the men in our lives might be excused from attending a strip joint (or indeed, any women).

The reticence of women engaging on this issue might, therefore, be less about their unwillingness to judge Kevin Rudd, and more about their unwillingness to judge other women - which I would have thought is a quality worthy of praise, rather than condemnation.

The Hypocrite Blues

I have been trying to figure out what it is that defines my musical taste. Everyone likes to think that they are eclectic. I am under no such illusion. My musical taste is largely defined by where I was and what I was doing at any particular time. So, because I happened to be tangentially related to the music industry there for a short time, my list of bands/artists I like might be a little different to others people’s, but I don’t consider myself any kind of cutting-edge explorer of the bounds of musical sophistry (which is just as well, considering that I freely admit to liking the Hoodoo Gurus).

In my car at the moment there are four CDs:

Broken boy soldiers - The Raconteurs
The best of The Cure – The Cure
Get thee behind me Satan – The White Stripes
Try whistling this – Neil Finn

These seem to be all related to one another in some way to me, but perhaps that is my predilection for seeing linkages where there are none.

I’m also aware that there are some major hypocrisies going on in my musical taste, at least to the casual observer. I am guilty of that classic sin: not liking something that appears almost identical to something else. An outward example of this would be some one who likes The Vines but dislikes Jet. Or likes Anthony Callea but dislikes Guy Sebastian*.

Here are just a few of my musical inconsistencies

Like: Dave Grohl
Dislike: Billy Corgan

When Foo Fighters was released, I promptly forgot about Nirvana. Not one year later, not having lovingly stored my Kurt Cobain memorabilia to one side. One of the things that drew me to Foo Fighters was the revelation (per Rolling Stone, I think) that Dave Grohl had written and performed the whole album. I recall raving about this to some one, who promptly noted Billy Corgan does exactly the same thing. And yet, I hate the Smashing Pumpkins. More specifically, I hate Billy Corgan (inasmuch as anyone can hate some one they have never met). I can only surmise that it was Dave Grohl’s happy-go-lucky manner and enormous teeth (and the fact that his songs didn’t all dwell on death and depression despite his contemporary experiences) that won me over.


Like: Bonnie Raitt
Dislike: Janis Joplin

I love Bonnie Raitt. I’m the first to admit that she’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I do like her. I blame my dad – who is what you might call an enormous fan. For some reason however, and to the endless irritation of others, I do not like Janis Joplin. Not even in my “wow man, music was made prior to 1980” stage in late high school could I get excited about her (not that I told many people this at the time). The Doors also leave me quite cold, except for a very occasional listen to ‘Riders on the Storm’.


Like: 1970s Split Enz
Dislike: Frank Zappa

Prog rock. It was an interesting time, wasn’t it*? The vast majority of it, very simply, not for me. I love Split Enz and their silly spoon-playing nonsense and over-burdened instrumentation. Frank Zappa, on the other hand…. I know there are those who argue strenuously (and Mr Fix is one of them) that the deeply misogynist lyrics are satire or black humour. Pardon me if I can’t get past it. Just can’t.

Like: Turin Brakes
Dislike: Travis

For the record, it’s probably not Travis’ fault I dislike them. It’s only that by the time I got to this end of the Brit-pop thing I’d really had enough and couldn’t possibly shoe-horn in any more. My brit-pop collection resembled Mr Creosote at the end of a long meal, what with all that Teenage Fanclub and Blur. So while they may be perfectly lovely, the crowded shelves could not accommodate another British melodic popster offering. So sorry about that.

Have you noticed any similar foibles in your own taste? Or are you more successful than me at maintaining a coolsie music vibe?



* I do not find myself inspired by any of these “artists”, although Grizzlewick quite likes The Vines’ cover of ‘I’m Only Sleeping’ on the ‘I Am Sam’ soundtrack.

** Not that I would know, as I wasn’t born then.


PS Also, for those of you who were following it, this morning I broke my Dead Salesmen drought by singing ‘Shoe’ in the shower. Very loudly. Then I segued into ‘Wings of Desire’ before becoming distracted by thoughts of Wim Wenders.

Happiness/More or Less?

I have been thinking about happiness.

I have noticed that several people recently seem to have advanced the thesis that people living in abject poverty are happier than people with a secure job but living under the oppression of materialism.

I doubt this. I would agree that there are other things on the mind of the homeless than the random acquisition of possessions like plasma screen televisions. But is this strong enough evidence to suggest that some one living without fixed address, reliable income or access to basic services has a better grip on his life than materialistic “childless couples”?

One of the things the middle-class like to do is to put forward the argument that “we are all the same” when it comes to the pursuit of happiness. It makes us feel better about not being rich, and better about not doing more for the poor.

It is a mistake to feel this way – because happiness, while relative, is not the only factor we should consider when assessing the strength of our communities or the individuals therein.

Homelessness and poverty may not be key determinants of happiness, but they are key determinants of health and wellbeing. To suggest that it is acceptable for people to be homeless if they are perceived to be “happy” is like saying that a woman who doesn’t leave an abusive partner deserves to be beaten.

Learned helplessness (the condition of feeling one is unable to alter their position in life) differs from healthy acceptance (for example, coming to terms with a disability or a mental health issue), and should not be construed as such.

Similarly, there is a strong emphasis on the notion that “money doesn’t buy you happiness”, and therefore one should worry about the psychic health of the wealthy. I’m not saying that isn’t a concern. But if we concentrate on happiness as a key indicator, again we deny the fact that, while the wealthy may not be happy per se, they certainly will have no trouble finding adequate healthcare, housing, or support services. Nor will they face the same issues of institutionalised discrimination that are meted out to the destitute, because while money might not buy happiness, it can certainly purchase power, privilege and respect.

There is too much emphasis in our society on keeping people in their place by feeding the perception that they are perfectly happy where they are. We want people to “pull themselves up by their boot-straps”, but we don’t want them “taking our jobs”.

We want refugees to be offered a home but we don’t want them living in our street.

We want to save the environment, as long as we can still build a home on the water’s edge using rainforest timber.

Happiness is a poor indicator of our society’s health, because anyone has the capacity to be happy, even in the most desperate of circumstances. While I applaud the notion that simplifying our lives might bring us more joy, I will not accept the thesis that the majority of those in desperate poverty are happy to be so.

A recipe for a "get-along scene"

I turned on the television the other night (I think it was a Sunday, but it’s hard to be sure), and heard a familiar song, one played to me frequently as a child by my hippy-music-loving parents.

The song was “Melting Pot” by Blue Mink (although wrongly attributed to Boyzone, Culture Club and a variety of other cover versions). Here are the lyrics of the original song:

Take a pinch of white man
Wrap him up in black skin
Add a touch of blue blood
And a little bitty bit of red Indian boy*

Oh like a Curly Latin kinkies**
Oh Lordy, Lordy, mixed with yellow Chinkees***, yeah
You know you lump it all together
And you got a recipe for a get along scene
Oh what a beautiful dream
If it could only come true,
you know, you know

What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough enough enough to take
The world and all its got
And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee coloured people by the score

Rabbis and the friars
Vishnus and the gurus
We got the Beatles or the Sun God
Well it really doesn't matter what religion you choose

And be thankful little Mrs. Graceful
You know that livin' could be tasteful
We should all get together in a lovin machine
I think I'll call up the queen
It' s only fair that she knows, you know, you know

What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough enough enough to take
The world and all its got
And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee coloured people by the score

Now notwithstanding the extreme (and I mean EXTREME) hippy factor of the lyrics, it’s a Boomer generation anthem of multiculturalism and tolerance. It reached #3 in the UK charts.

So what the hell is it doing as an advertisement for FREAKING MAGGI FLAVOUR BASES?????

They have had to alter it a bit, but instead of paying some struggling singer to re-record it, they have just EDITED OUT THE BITS THEY DIDN’T LIKE. For example, they wanted to include a reference to whatever god-awful excuse-for-a-curry powder they included, so they just blanked out the “red” in the Indian line. WHO DOES THAT????

I’m also wondering who the target market for this advertisement is, exactly? If my parents are anything to judge (boomers) by, they won’t be inspired to run out and buy a 60 cent sachet of powder on the strength of this song. And meanwhile it’s not like it inspires any kind of warm feeling for anyone under the age of 50.

What’s next –

Neil Sedaka’s ‘Breaking up is hard to do’ as a Family Relationships Centre jingle?

Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech used to spruik bedding products?

Whoever it was in the Maggi Kingdom who thought they were being oh-so-clever…you weren’t. You are ruining my childhood memories with your foolish interpretation that the ONLY THING WE NEED TO DO TO ACHIEVE CULTURAL HARMONY IS TO EAT MAGGI PRODUCTS.

* penny drops *

Of course.

Why didn’t we think of this earlier?

SOME ONE GET THAT ADVERTISING EXEC A SPOT ON THE UNITED NATIONS, THIS MINUTE.

I'm looking at YOU, John Howard.


* don't be tricked into thinking that "red Indian" is an acceptable usage here

** or "kinkies" here.

** or "chinkees" here for that matter. They were trying, people. And it was the 60s.

Lo...the depths of hell were frozen over....

....and then there was Facebook.

what's the frequency kenneth?

I’ve been thinking a bit about ethics after two separate incidents.

The first was a woman at a conference I recently attended, who posed the question:

“is it ethical to plant a rose?”

as a means of generating discussion about what kind of country we want to live in.

Secondly, Chesty LaRue’s post on whether or not it is scabby to pick up change from a train platform got me to thinking about whether picking it up (or not) was part of a greater moral code, or merely related to etiquette.

Ah ethics. It is a vexatious topic, isn’t it? Everyone struggles with the individual impacts of various activities, but it is possible that sometimes we don’t think about the everyday things which may or not be ethical, depending on your viewpoint and the level to which you are prepared to live a life you consider “ethical”.

Similarly, you can take ethics to a logical conclusion that makes other people uncomfortable – is that ethical?

So I’ve been wondering….is it ethical –

1. to own a cat?

2. for that matter, to own any pets at all?

3. to grow flowers rather than food?

4. to buy and consume chocolate when the chocolate industry perpetuates third world poverty?

5. to spend more money on a mobile phone bill each year than you give to charity?

6. to only undertake volunteer work that is “fun”?

7. to buy your kids branded toys?

8. to buy your kids branded anything?

9. to BUY anything, particularly if you don’t strictly need it (my semi-new knee high boots come to mind)?

10. to conscientiously recycle when you know that the recycling goes straight into the tip?

11. to tell people to f-ck off when they lecture you about your overseas-travel related carbon foot-print while they maintain three investment properties?

Suspect the last one isn't polite, if not strictly unethical. But if I carbon-trade and only go overseas every now and again, should my friends' first response to the news that I am contemplating a trip to South East Asia really be "tsk tsk tsk dude what about the environment"?

Poets, priests and politicians/Have words to thank for their position

I’ve been reading ‘Eats Shoots and Leaves’ by Lynn Truss. It’s quite a strange thing to see one’s pet peeves turned into a book about punctuation. The inability of most people to use apostrophes correctly, for example, drives me absolutely bonkers. On the other hand, I’ve had to drag some of my older colleagues kicking and screaming to the world of full-stop-less abbreviation (e.g. AMA vs A.M.A.). And the use of excessive exclamation marks (and the commencement of sentences with “And”) is a phenomenon I have gladly embraced.

The English language, as it’s often been said, is a strange thing.

For every rule, there’s an exception. For every exception, there’s another exception. For every painstakingly* created literary image there’s “OMG PM me! @TEOTD i CRS lyk punk28shun rulz”**.

I have been known to chuckle to myself over wrongly applied punctuation. More to the point, I’ve been known to carry around examples of wrongly applied punctuation with me and drag it out of my bag to stop passers-by, illustrating my displeasure with jabbing hand-gestures and raised voice. The Liberal Party’s promotional gear prior to the last Victorian election was a case in point – some bright spark put inverted commas around all of their key initiatives, making them seem like ironic observations as opposed to plans for the future***.

Spell-check programs haven’t helped. They seem to think that everyone who speaks English is American. And woe betide anyone who doesn’t pay attention as it auto-corrects, as anyone who has ever typed a document with the word “Gillard” in it may have found out. Or anyone who uses the phrase “woe betide”.

But let’s not pretend that the new era of online language is the first time people have ever mis-spelled or mispronounced words.

As a child, my mother used to think that Medallion (as in “Medallion cough syrup”) was pronounced “med-a-led-a-led-allin”. She thought this right up until the moment she suggested that my grandmother should buy some "med-a-led-a-led-allin" for her younger brother.

My friend MW, who is a constant source of delight but struggles to remember proverbs, once asked her university lecturer if she was “barking up the wrong tree without a paddle” in a first year essay on anatomy. I for one think this is an acceptable usage - because if one is barking up the wrong tree, one probably does not have a paddle.

Another friend used to think that “pedestrian” was pronounced “pede-STRAIN”.

And because I don’t like to catalogue the mild embarrassments of others without landing myself in it at some stage, I am proud to announce that this week I learned that Appletise is pronounced to rhyme with "appetise". Not, as I had thought, apple-tease. Luckily for me, I didn’t have to pronounce the word wrongly to find that out. So, you know, bullet dodged. On the other hand, I’ve just told everyone on the internet what a dick I am (UPDATE: its gets worse. Ms Bloom reliably informs me that the product I am thinking of is apple-TISER, although there is also a product called "appletise" made by another manufacturer).

Our language is supposed to be evolving. I appreciate this. It leaves plenty of room for Grizzlewick’s use of the word “automatic” as a verb to become a cutting edge word usage. Surely it’s only a matter of time before some one utters the phrase

“We used to undertake this task with a cumbersome manual process. But now, we just automatic it”.

Or not (fragment, consider revision).



* and one would be advised not to get the author of this book or notable literary personages started on the difference between “pains-taking” and “pain-staking”.

** “Oh my god, private message me! At the end of the day, I can’t remember stuff like punctuation rules”

*** With this in mind, I’m expecting an pointed “HAY DONT LYK IT Y DONT U GO X A TREE SUCKAH” response at the end of this post.

Julee Cruise has stupid hair, even for 1990 - NOW WITH PICTURES

"don't hate me because I have stupid hair,

hate me because I am a no-talent bum"

Random thoughts about Twin Peaks

1. It is more likely that I got the constant urge to offer people a "thumbs up!" sign from Dale Cooper than it is that I got it from anyone else (say, for example, Paul Hogan).

"promoting Tibetan independence since 1990"

2. I like the log lady.

"my log has something to tell you"

3. The fashion! Also, how is it that anyone thought Lara Flynn Boyle more attractive in the teen years than Sherilyn Fenn?

Lara Flynn Boyle vs...

....Sherilyn Fenn = no contest

4. James Marshall = nob. Also how does a 17 year old with a drunken mother and a deadbeat dad have a pristine Harley Davidson?

"I don't know gigglewick.

Perhaps I can sing a stupid song while fantasising about my dead girlfriend's cousin

who is sitting next to my current girlfriend who is my dead girlfriend's best friend?"

5. This whole series is worth watching just for the David Duchovny cross-dressing DEA agent, Denise.

wheet-woow etc

6. No matter how many times I have seen this show (including our current viewing the count is around five total run-throughs) I still find the BOB the evil spirit dude endlessly frightening. Tears prick the back of my eyes just seeing his face. Therefore I will post no pictures of him. I just found one and freaked out.

*shakes fist at David Lynch for ongoing psychological damage*


*hits 'play' on series 2.....*