Mr Angry's Sure-Fire Internet Dating Tips

Following the success of my recent relationship advice column I've decided expound on something I have probably had longer involvement with than most: internet dating. As an aside, the positive response to my relationship advice was slightly disturbing to me. How bad have inter-gender relations gotten if what I say makes sense?

Internet dating, on the other hand is something I feel I can actually claim expertise on. My first success in this area was unintentional and actually predates internet dating as such. Back in the mid-90s I did meet a lovely lady without the benefit of any organised dating sites, through the magic of text-only Internet Relay Chat (IRC). I have a suspicion this relationship happened (and worked for a while) mainly because neither of us were in the chatroom with the intention of picking anyone up.

I was such a ground-breaker that my first-born was featured in a British net magazine back in '97 because the writer was pretty sure this was the first internet baby she had heard of. Definition of internet baby: a baby that wouldn't have happened if the internet hadn't existed, i.e. the parents wouldn't have met without the net. Since the end of that relationship I have had a few less than spectacularly successful relationships launched via online contacts but, more recently, have found the love of my life through an organised dating site.

So I know of what I speak. Listen up chilluns:

Rule number one for males: Don't be an arsehole. When I tell some guys this, they think I mean they have to be smooth and charming, maybe go so far as to write love poetry. Those things will help but I mean that advice literally: don't be an arsehole. If all you do is raise your behaviour above the level of a gutter-dwelling fuckwit then you are ahead of about 97% of your competition. I have no idea what sort of a sad loser you have to be to behave the way the majority of males do in online forums (maybe it's just the most visible ones, not an actual majority) and I don't want to know.

True story number 1: I found out after spending several weeks in a particular chat room that a number of females had assumed I was female despite the fact a male icon appeared next to my nickname. Their reason for assuming this was that I had never tried to hit on them. When they found out I was actually male they got real interested in me. TIP: guys, if you can go at least three sentences without saying "how big are your boobs" it will work in your favour.

Rule number one for females: This rule can also be applicable to men but women are at the most risk. Don't say anything to someone online that you wouldn't say in a bar to a drunk, fat, ugly, hairy, smelly degenerate who was clearly an axe murderer. Most of the stories are online predators are grossly exaggerated but it doesn't pay to take risks. It's really straightforward, never give out identifying information, never say where you live and if/when you plan to meet do it somewhere public and make sure somebody else knows what you are doing. Oh, and make sure the person you are meeting knows you are taking these precautions too. It isn't being rude - it's being smart.

Rule number two for males: Be clear on what you want. If you can't handle smokers, say so. If you don't want someone with radically different political views, say so. And keep it simple - don't bother with Playboy pick-up lines. Believe it or not fellahs, every woman is an individual. What one thinks is a smooth line, another thinks makes you look like a dork. If you stay true to yourself at least you will be attracting the right sort of woman - one who might actually be interested in you. And be honest about your intentions: if you are still playing the field don't spin some shit about "looking for your soul mate".

Rule number two for females: remember that men will do anything for sex. Don't be a cocktease but don't put out as a matter of course. I think it's possible for a good relationship to come out of a first date that ends with sex but I don't think it's the most likely outcome. If it's what you truly want, go for it. But don't have sex just because you think the man won't stick around if you don't. Trust me, the guys who say that are exactly the ones who won't stick around after you have sex with them.

God, I sound like my mother.

Unisex rule number one: Don't lie. If you are overweight, say so. Use your real age. Use a recent photo. And those studio/makeover pictures scare the hell out of me. Half the time they make you look horrible and plastic and if they look good, well, you know the person doesn't really look like that. I know lots of people think if they "fudge the truth a little" they'll get noticed by someone who will ultimately look past their flaws. Bullshit. No successful relationship can be based on a lie.

Unisex rule number two: If you're not interested say so. Politely is nice, but clearly is important. Don't make up bullshit and don't simply stop responding. Do someone the courtesy of letting them know and don't leave them in doubt. "I don't think it would work out" or something similar is sufficient - you don't need to get as specific as "that hair growing out of your nose freaked me out." Saying you are being honest when you are actually being cruel means you are cruel, hypocritical and delusional. And if someone says they aren't interested in you, accept it and move on. Don't get needy/whiny/stalkery. The sooner you let that person go the sooner you can find someone who is interested.

True story number two: To round off, something that should have gone in the previous relationship rules post but I forgot. Although I think this is more a female tendency than a male one (I've certainly had it done to me and I haven't actually seen a man do it) I'm making this a unisex rule. Don't tell you partner what they do and don't like. How it happened to me was I ordered a particular meal at a restaurant and my (then) girlfriend (now ex) said "You don't like that."

I know what I fucking like OK?

It's perfectly OK to say "I didn't think you liked that" or "I thought you told me you didn't like that" or even "Do you know what's in that?" (I had to save a friend from ordering Steak Tartar at a French restaurant once - he had no idea it was raw mince). But if you say "You don't like that" you are clearly saying "You are a moron. What the hell are you thinking? Clearly I need to control every aspect of your life and never let you make another decision again."

That my dear readers is a one-way ticket to dumpsville - population: you. (Thank you Homer Simpson)

News of the Stupid

I thought I might provide you with some news items about stupid people in the news recently in Australia. Stupid people always makes angry, usually because of the impact they have on other people but also because, well, they're just so fucking stupid.

There is a cavalcade of stupidity coming from the government and public servants over Australia's first military fatality in Iraq. Last month Private Jake Kovco died in Baghdad - he wasn't a combat casualty; he was shot in the head with his own pistol while two other soldiers were present. The first stupidity was from the Defence Minister passing comment on the cause of death before he actually knew what happened. It went from "he was cleaning it and it went off" to "we don't know exactly what happened" include some strange statement about how it appeared the gun wasn't in his hand when it went off.

The media were their usual charming selves; they hounded the family of the soldier and engaged in considerable speculation about what happened including, obviously, the possibility of suicide. Like the family didn't already have enough to be upset at. Mind you, some statements made by the soldier's mother in the days immediately after his didn't help limit speculation. She made very strong statements to the effect that he definitely wouldn't have committed suicide and dropping the gun and getting accidentally shot in the head sounded like bullshit. My reading of what she was saying was that she thought one of the other soldiers was responsible.

The second bit of stupidity was when they shipped back the wrong body. Nice one, dickheads. And now, this week, the report on his death was "lost" and ended up in the hands of a particularly obnoxious radio shock jock. It seems the investigator, Brigadier Elizabeth Cosson (I'm not an expert on Australian military ranks but Brigadier is right up there - she's not a cadet), left a CD containing the draft report in a computer at the airport lounge. This guy was obviously cursed.

A different bit of government stupidity follows on from the story I blogged about earlier this week on violence in remote aboriginal communities. It has become, predictably enough, a political football with the responsible minister making strange claims like there was an organised paedophile ring involved that the police "knew" about but wouldn't act on. The police, also predictably enough, called bullshit on the minister and said he didn't know what he was talking about. Anyway, at least it looks like it can't be swept under the carpet any more. You never know though, stories move out of the spotlight and get forgotten quickly. And aborigines really are treated like shit in this country.

Another story with a bit of phrasing that I found stupid involved an explosion at a munitions factory. This was a rather big explosion that unfortunately killed three workers and reports so far tend to include this gem of wisdom: "the cause of the explosion is not known." Call me crazy but I think it might have something to do with all the fucking explosives.

And in a case of "if he was dead he'd win a Darwin award," last night a young motorcyclist was lucky to survive a crash. He wins a major stupid award for his effort: police saw him riding at night without a helmet so moved to pull him over. He sped off and police say they didn't pursue him for safety reasons. They did, however, find him soon as he had crashed through a barrier, injuring his leg and sustaining minor head injuries. It turns out he's a 19 year-old learner and he'd been riding a 600cc motorcycle when the law limits him to a 250cc.

So... we have a 19 year-old learner on an overpowered motorcycle. Not wearing a helmet. At night. Who speeds off when the cops spot him. He obviously is incapable of riding the bike because he crashes. And the lucky bastard comes out with relatively minor injuries. If you ask me, he had the fucking head injuries before he got on the bike.

The Copyright Police

The Australian Government proposed some new copyright laws this week and at first I was quite excited because they seemed to be making some commonsense decision. The two standout decision were to make it officially legal to transfer music you own legally between devices (e.g. CD to MP3 player) and to "time-shift" TV programs, i.e. record them and watch them later.

It makes sense to officially legalise behaviour that almost everybody does (do you know anyone who's never recorded a TV show to watch later?) But then comes the stupidity: the law is going to include a proviso that you can only watch the recorded show once. What the fuck is that about? Who could possibly think that's a legitimate restriction? Well, the production companies for a start. I continue to be amazed by how both film and music studios seem to think the best way to maximise their profits is to fuck around their customers. But this seems stupid on more than one level - how could the "one viewing rule" possibly be enforced? Here's where the paranoia begins...

A proposal that's been defeated in the US (although the studios and the corrupt politicians they have bought keep making attempts to revive it) is known as the "broadcast flag". What this essentially means is the studios want every broadcast on TV to include an electronic "flag" that controls what you can do with that show. This can only work if every device that can receive a signal (TV, recorders, PC with TV receiver card) can read the flag AND BE LOCKED INTO OBEYING THE DICTATES OF THE FLAG. And that was the purpose of the proposed Broadcast Flag law - make every device compliant with this control and make any non-compliant device illegal. Australia seems to be staring down the barrel of an even worse truckload of restrictions now courtesy of a bunch of wankers called DVB.

So what this law seems to be opening the door to is a future of electronic devices that you buy but have no control over. Your TV, your recorder, you PC - none of these things will be under your control. And your old devices simply won't work. The goal is to make you pay again and again and again for content and to severely limit how you can choose to enjoy content you have paid for.

The constant justification for this is "the internet is full of people stealing our content!" And that's true. The internet is full of people who, by any reasonable legal definition, are stealing content. This is often presented as the end of an argument but really it's only the beginning. There are two key points that entertainment industry hacks seem to constant gloss over, twist or flat out lie about.

One: A significant portion of these people are getting content online that they can't get legally . The "owners" of the content aren't making it available in any convenient, realistically priced way so a lot of people don't believe they have a viable alternative - they go online and download it free. You want a parallel? In the early days of video, because of paranoia over piracy movies were for rental only - not sale. If you could buy one it cost about $100 so nobody much was interested. Then someone finally bit the bullet and started selling videos for $20. Lo and behold, a totally new multi-billion dollar revenue stream appears.

Two: Making up a figure for the amount of music and movies that are being traded online then attaching a dollar amount to that (usually somewhere in the billions) and saying that is what the studios are losing is a flat out fucking lie. Lies, damn lies and statistics. What that figure (however accurate it may or may not be) represents is the commercial value of the property if all the downloaders had paid for it. The studios did not lose that money because they never had it. The vast majority of that content (my unscientific conservative guess would be over 80%) is stuff that the downloaders were never going to pay for. If they have to pay, they'll do without.

I've gone on record before stating I don't want people to steal content. But I get really angry at these greedy, incompetent, clueless companies claiming the high moral ground and saying they have the right to tell us what we can and can't do with products we acquire legally. If they have their way, they'll totally kill innovation in the name of protecting their bottom line. The irony of it all is they're holding a gun to their own head and they appear to be too fucking stupid to realise it. These are the same people who fought tooth and nail to ban the VCR because it scared them. Luckily for them they lost because it created a whole new revenue stream that gave them billions of dollars they otherwise would never have received.

So here's my simple, fair proposal. Make content available to consumers how they want it and whenever they want it. And once we pay for it IT'S OURS! Don't tell us you can dictate when we watch it. Don't dictate where we can watch it. Don't dictate how often we can watch it. And don't tell us we can't watch it on different platforms. If I've paid for it I should be able to watch it on whatever new player comes along. Go after people who are ripping off your content for commercial gain and leave us alone in our own homes.

These greedy fucks don't seem to have any concept of fair play. But why the hell can't they see how much money they would make if they did it right? They have example after example from history of how new technology creates new revenue for them - what's so fucking hard to understand? All their effort at the moment seems to be focused on fucking over people who would willingly pay for their product if they were given a fair deal. Turn honest customers into criminals - real fucking smart.

They are dinosaurs and they will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Politically Correct

I have some real problems with the concept of political correctness. The most ardent advocates for it on the left and the most ardent opponents of it on the right both make me angry. What makes me really angry is that at its simplest, what is described/derided as political correctness is being nice to people, trying to make everyone feel valued and included.

This straightforward and worthwhile concept ends up being railroaded by people who have their own agenda to pursue. It seems anything can start of good and be twisted into something sick and wrong. It's fair to say there are examples of language mangling done in support of political correctness that descend into madness. In some extreme cases it seems the desire to not say anything offensive devolves into not saying anything at all.

Having a point of view isn't wrong by definition. It's when you insist on the primacy of everything you think to the absolute exclusion of contradictory views that you end up in trouble. Except me. Everything I say is right. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if the left-wing political correctness conspiracy expounded by the right existed in any serious way, they'd really hate me.

And that's where I think the most common version of the political correctness bogeyman falls down. Try searching the net for politically correct and you aren't going to find a lot of sites pushing you to conform to PC edicts issues by our left-wing overlords. You're going to find a bunch of right wingers foaming at the mouth about how they're being oppressed. The fact that they are mostly white and mostly male should not, of course, colour your opinion of how hard their lives might be. There are also many non-white and female opponents (and non-white females, helloooo Michelle Malkin) but the driving force behind this is politically aggressive right-wing white males.

You could be forgiven for thinking the notion of political correctness was invented out of whole cloth by these rabid knuckle-draggers. I find it amusing how quickly these braying fools bury themselves without seeming to realise it. One proclaimed the horror of not being able to offend people, he was being crushed by the necessity to "avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly." Yeah, that's a fucked-up goal right there. If I can't abuse every passing faggot, nigger, chink, dyke, retard or cripple, life isn't worth living.

Speaking as a card-carrying member of the loony left, I will admit that I take some trouble to not be gratuitously offensive to people based on race, gender or sexual preference. Oh shut up, I do so. Sometimes I probably go too far and spend too much time walking on eggshells. But I know the value of a good joke (I differentiate between a good joke and a joke intended solely to humiliate someone). And I know the value of stating uncomfortable truths when appropriate. You want to see a right winger oppress your right to speak freely? Try any of the following:

• Question the integrity or intelligence of George Bush
• Question the moral and/or strategic value of the Iraq invasion
• Question the strategic/political/monetary/moral value of unquestioning support of Israel
• Question any aspect of christian-centric worldview
  

Hypocrisy always pisses me off and that fact that PC is pushed as the ultimate evil by people who basically control the world... well, that crosses over from irony to fuckwittery.

The reason I bring this up is that I think that the majority of real PC behaviour on the left (as opposed to insane imaginings of PC dictatorships) comes from being worried that any acknowledgment of the failings of a particular minority will be blown up by the right to condemn all minorities. "Yes, many aborigines have substance abuse/addiction problems and don't have jobs" becomes "All abos are lazy, dole-bludging alcoholics". "Yes, that Mexican was an illegal immigrant who murdered someone so we would have been better off if we had stopped him from getting into the country" becomes "All Mexicans are murdering illegal immigrants and we should throw them all out and build a wall."

Last night ABC's "Lateline" (that's Australia's ABC) program ran an interview with a Crown Prosecutor (that's district attorney in US speak) from central Australia. She was speaking out against the culture of violence and sexual abuse that is prevalent in many aboriginal communities. The stories she told were truly horrible (don't read the transcript linked to above if you are easily upset), the worst imaginable tales of sexual abuse, assault and murder. The cultural norms she has observed seem to protect the offenders at the expense of the victims and she sees little effort, or even will, to change the situation.

It must have been hard for her to come forward, not only because they were horrible stories to have to tell. What I think came across as the most difficult part of her decision to raise these issues was the fact that this will almost certainly be taken up by tabloid muckrakers and racists as evidence that "it's all the abos' fault." There is a world of difference between saying that aboriginal people have to take responsibility for making changes in their community and saying white people have no responsibility in the matter.

But we all know how opposed right-wingers are to the stifling of public debate. Any evidence you have that they try to crush anyone who opposes their view is all in your imagination.

Working With Animals

No, I'm not a vet. I work in an office. Theoretically with grown-ups. Suits, ties, the whole shebang. So why is it that people at this supposedly refined end of the workforce are such filthy fucking animals?

If I was working with, say, inmates in an asylum for the criminally insane rather than white collars "professionals" I'd have lower expectations. But for fuck's sake, what the hell is wrong with these people? Why do people think it's reasonable to leave a trail of filth and destruction in a space they are sharing with other humans? Is there a part of their brain that is missing? Do they have some sort of mental blinkers in place that let them go:

"When I walk away I can no longer see this filth I created. Therefore it no longer exists and I don't have to worry about it."

Or are they simply stupid? Is it a goldfish memory problem - forgetting things 5 seconds after they happen? By the way, I know the concept of goldfish having a 3-5 second memory span has been thoroughly debunked, but how did someone even come up with that concept? This is what I picture: they told a goldfish "Your name is Ralph" then waited five seconds and shouted "Hey Ralph, come over here!" When Ralph didn't respond they assumed it was because he had forgotten his name. Science triumphs again!

Forgetting about goldfish (get it?), let me catalogue the sort of behaviour that makes me so angry:

The kitchen sink: Every workplace has some sort of kitchen area, even if it's only a place to make tea or coffee. And every workplace has people who dump their crap in the sink instead of cleaning it and putting it away. Knowing full well that the following statement is totally sexist: YOUR MOTHER DOESN'T WORK HERE! And of the off chance you mother does work here she has given up on cleaning up after you. Do it yourself goddammit!

And if you happen to be lucky enough to have a dishwashing machine in your workplace, that doesn't solve the problem either. The filth-beasts do one of two obnoxious things in this scenario: they still throw their stuff in the sink instead of the dishwasher or they literally throw their stuff in the dishwasher instead of stacking it properly WHICH MIGHT ALLOW EVERYBODY ELSE TO PUT THEIR FUCKING DISHES IN AS WELL YOU IGNORANT BASTARDS!

And that isn't even the really troublesome end of the spectrum. Feel free to skip the next couple of paragraphs if you are easily disgusted. Now we get into how filthy people can get in a workplace toilet. We are beyond simple issues of etiquette here. I've listed various toilet rules you should respect to be civil, the following are things you have to obey simply to be human.

Toilets are stinky gross places where horrible pooty things happen. There's no getting around that. But what the fuck is up with supposed human adults leaving shit-stains on the seat? Skid marks on the bowl are bad enough but nobody seems to clean those off. But the seat? What sort of animal leaves shit stains on the seat for the next person to find?

And worse still, THE WALLS?!?!?!?!?!?! This has happened in multiple workplaces I have occupied. Every now and then, somebody smears shit on the walls. What the fuck is going through someone's mind when they smear shit on walls? The seat has a sort of logistical/accidental element that may excuse it but the walls is a deliberate act! Despite the fact smearing shit (or snot - that happens more often) on walls is unforgivably disgusting - it doesn't make sense! So you got shit on your hands, so what? What do you think the fucking paper is for?

I have to admit one of those "loss of innocence" moment in my life was when a female cow-orker complained of this happening in the female toilets. Men are almost universally of the opinion that women are wonderful clean creatures while men are smelly and disgusting. Girls don't fart or poop. That's our illusion and we're happy with it. To hear that this basest level of behaviour is exhibited by women as well as men... it was almost too much to bear.

Right, I'm going to have my lunch now.

Relationship Advice From Mr Angry

I have been asked previously why I've never had angry rants about any of my exes or women in general. Obviously things have happened in previous relationship that have made me angry (that's where the "ex" part comes in) but it isn't something I wanted to focus on in this blog, for a number of reasons.

First, I don't want to sound all whiny and embittered, a common pitfall for either gender when railing against insane exes (and I'm sure we all agree: all our exes are insane, otherwise they would still be worshipping us). Second, although I do this blog anonymously it isn't impossible that one of my exes would find out and recognise themselves. This would be bad for two reasons: one, I have no wish to restart old fights, two, some of my exes are dangerous psychotics and I don't want to re-motivate them to hunt me down.

A brief note to any exes who read this and work out who I am: you are clearly not the psychotic one, she's not smart enough to track me down on the net, no matter how much she tries.

So rather than saying what makes me angry about relationships, I offer the following pieces of advice, divided along gender lines where appropriate:

Rule #1 for males: It probably is your fault, so just accept it. Jokes aside, the range of male behaviour that would not even be noticed by the majority of other males can actually be quite affronting. Remember: just because you don't think it's offensive doesn't mean it really isn't offensive.

Rule #2 for males: It is almost impossible to over-communicate. Throughout history, the vast majority of relationship issues have spiraled out of control because a male didn't say something he assumed was understood.

Rule #1 for females: Internalising emotions doesn't mean you have no emotions. Men have a tendency to internalise, it rarely helps a man in life if he's overly expressive. Just because he doesn't talk about his feelings doesn't mean he doesn't have feelings.

Rule #2 for females: Decide what you like/want in a man and go for that type of man. Don't for the love of the baby Jeebus pick a man and then try to change him. Rough, tough macho men are unlikely to develop a sensitive, emotional side. Quiet, introspective men are unlikely to change into rugged outdoorsmen. Make everyone's life easier and DON'T TRY TO CHANGE MEN! Pick the right type in the first place.

One thing women should never say to men: in the rare circumstance where a man perceives that you are upset about something and he asks "what's the matter?" Don't say "Nothing's the matter." Don't do it. Never. No matter how angry you are. Say "I'm too angry at you to talk to you now" or "I'm too upset right now" or a simple "I don't feel like talking right now, we can talk later." But don't say "nothing". This is pointless and counterproductive for two reasons:

One: the man knows you are upset and gets pissed off when you brush him off like that. He thinks to himself: "Last damn time I ask her how she's feeling." And you'll wonder why you don't "connect" any more.

Two: the man thinks you're telling the truth and wanders off thinking everything is A-OK. Men are notoriously lacking in emotional sensitivity. If you luck into a scenario where he senses that you are upset, grab the opportunity with both hands. If he's the type who believes you when you say "nothing" he'll never notice your feelings again. If he does sense anything he'll assume he's wrong because you told him he was wrong last time. And it isn't really fair to be upset at him when his only flaw was to believe what you told him.

One thing men should never say to women: "When is the baby due?" Seriously. Never say this. No matter how sure you are she's pregnant. Because once you say this to a woman who turns out not to be pregnant, there's no recovering. You are forever condemned to the "ignorant male" category.

I realise I'm only talking about heterosexual relationships here. This isn't because I'm making any judgement on the value of gay relationships - I'm merely sticking to my areas of expertise. What the hell do I know about being gay?

Attracting Sick Deviant Sex Pervert Bestiality Enthusiasts

I know I blogged just the other day about the weird/funny search terms that are directing people to my blog but a few that have popped up since then that have been... well, judge for yourself:

"what to do when your (sic) fucking angry" - welcome friend, take a seat. Sit and learn.

"get angry every night drink" - well, get angry every night blog is my recipe for mental well being. Lay off the drinking, son.

"proper use of the word irony Mr. Angry" - someone actually looking for me! That's nice.

There were several more variations on 365 days a year so it seems as if my rather arbitrary blog name is good for driving some unintended traffic. People looking for hot blog topics (like Stephen Colbert) seem to be directed through technorati, the general search engine stuff seems to be very... general. That information may or may not be useful to anyone.

And now we get to the search string that made my day: "right way to hang toilet paper". YES! Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes! Somebody what seeking enlightenment AND THEY FOUND IT! It makes all my blogging worthwhile to know I've guided one questing soul on the right way to hang toilet paper.

Oh and then there was "STRANGLE ME WHEN YOU FUCK ME" Yes, the search was all in caps. Makes the perv seem even more freaky. I don't know what these "hot wet sex with nubile teen perky blonde lesbians who are doubtless barely legal" seeking individuals think when they land on my blog but I'm hoping I provide them with some brief diversion in their one-handed web surfing.

And I hope they tell their friends.

Playing Politics

I posted recently on how one of my biggest problems with the drug policy of most governments is that they are based on lies. I think this is the same problem with politics. Everybody knows politicians are lying. Everybody knows politicians don't believe most of their own public pronouncements. All they're doing is saying what they think will appeal to people so they can go ahead with whatever it is they want to do. They're playing politics.

And then there are the "gotcha" moments. You catch Bush out in a lie. Another Kennedy goes drunk driving. Cheney shoots someone in the face. In short, your opponent does something that, according to the rules of the political game, you can get them on. It doesn't matter that the "gotcha" may not actually be important. It may have nothing to do with the political process, it may not reflect on your opponent's performance or their ability to do the job.

But it's an opening dammit! Who cares if it's trivial? Let's make them look bad so that we, by comparison, look good. It's far easier than doing something that's actually good. A recent example in Australia was the revelation that the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) paid around $300 million in bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime in order to be able to sell wheat in Iraq. This was, of course, before the invasion and such bribes were a breach of UN sanctions. Oh, and they were bribes. Paid to a psychotic to whom we were publicly opposed. I think Uday owned the trucking company that scored most of the swag.

And it's a total non-story. Every company and government involved in any transaction was paying bribes. Halliburton seems to be funneling away billions to who knows where. And this $300 million was Australian money, which means it's worth about $7.50 in American money. Or a handful of shiny beads.

But the opposition party (Labor - our equivalent to the US Democrats) went on and on about how outraged they were that this happened and spent ages trying pin down whether any government ministers could be proved to have explicit knowledge of what was going on. Everybody knows Labor didn't really give a shit - exactly the same would have happened if they were in power. All in all it was a good thing - those bribes allowed billions of dollars worth of wheat to be sold to Iraq. God forbid people should end up with food.

It's simple: of course the Prime Minister knew and of course the Foreign Minister knew. $300 million isn't a line item that can be made to vanish in Australian accounting. It might not even be noticed in a real economy but even a cursory glance at the books here would reveal it. But you're never going to prove it.

So what's the end result of all this sound and fury? Nothing. It never caught on in the public mind. Then we had a miracle rescue of some trapped miners and everybody has well and truly forgotten about the AWB. The political process is cheapened again and everybody gets a little more cynical.

I didn't know how I was going to end this post at first, then I read this article on Salon.com. There are some people who aren't ignoring what's going on in the political process. There are some people who are fervently intent on bending it to their way of thinking and damn what anybody else wants. And those of us who stay cynically detatched from the meaningless political games might wake up one day to a nasty surprise.

Why Warner Brothers May End Up Killing BitTorrent

A nerdly angry post today. One thing that never fails to make me angry (I've posted about it before) is when big companies screw over ordinary consumers in the name of "copyright". I love writing and I would love to earn a bajillion dollars through some creative endeavour. Obviously I need some level of protection for work I create or the only money I'd ever make from this sort of work would be from donations. At the simplest level, the idea of copyright and patents are good things in a capitalist society.

Essentially, this sort of proposition (at its best) is a type of bargain. You, the inventor, are given a certain set of protections for your creation so you can make money out of it which will encourage you to create new things which may in turn inspire others to create so they can similarly profit. Eventually your invention will be put into the "public domain" which means anybody can copy it and/or modify it then re-sell it without giving you any money. The wheels of commerce turn. Where this all goes wrong (and this is going to make me sound like a commie) is when big companies (or greedy individuals) get in on the act. They see massive commercial potential in saying I own that and controlling your access to whatever "that" may be.

Over the years these big companies (through politicians they have bought and paid for) have extended copyright and patent terms with the simple goal of trying to prevent things from ever returning to the public domain. It's a simplification, but essentially a true statement, to say that the driving force behind the continual extensions of copyright terms in the USA is Mickey Mouse. By any historical standard, Mickey Mouse should have been public domain years ago. We could all be making our own Mickey cartoons and, if we were good enough at it, making pots of money.

On the face of it, many people think that sounds fair enough. Disney should be able to protect Mickey Mouse - I don't want my kids getting confused by the existence of a Mickey porn film. The arguments against copyright are complex and I won't go into them here; but here's a simple reason why it's wrong. The entire Disney empire (Mickey included) is based on other people's work. All their big movies are public domain stories, by their own standards they make their millions by "stealing". To be polite, their arguments for copyright are disingenuous and hypocritical. To be a little more direct, they're a bunch of two-faced lying fucking thieves.

So, I'm about 500 words in and I haven't mentioned Warner Brothers or BitTorrent. Who are they and what do they have to do with each other? Okay, Warner Brothers = big publishing company, ditto for them everything I said about Disney. BitTorrent = very clever software for distributing and downloading large file over the internet. I won't bore you with the technical details (geek out with a Google search on BitTorrent if you want to know) but essentially BitTorrent solves the problem of large files (e.g. full-length movies) taking a long time to download, even over broadband.

Warner Brother have just announced a deal where they will be using BitTorrent to distribute movies online. This is in contrast who uses BitTorrent to download pirated copies of everything under the sun via Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks. This legitimisation of BitTorrent has been coming for a while, BitTorrent's founder, Bram Cohen, has been working towards cutting this sort of deal with a big studio for more than a year. On the surface, this is a good thing. A big studio is finally facing the reality of the net being a distribution platform. BitTorrent is getting some deserved recognition as a valuable tool with legitimate uses.

So why do I think this could kill BitTorrent?

It all depends how it plays out. Warner Brothers have not released a lot of details yet. How much will they charge? What digital rights management (DRM) will be applied to downloads? In short, how are they going to screw us, the consumers? Rumours so far (and, being rumours, these could turn out to be completely wrong) are that downloaded movies will cost the same as a DVD and have a lot of restrictions placed on them. Restrictions like you can't burn them to DVD, you're only allowed to watch them on your PC. And you can't move them to other devices; not your 2nd PC or laptop, not your iPod and not your PSP. While throwing in the "rumour" disclaimer again, based on the historical behaviour of the big studios, this double-barrel blast of cost and restrictions is likely to be the way things turn out.

In business terms, this is doomed to fail.

Who is going to pay the price of a DVD with no physical media and a bunch of asinine restrictions on what you can do with a movie you purchased legally? The idiocy of this approach is mind boggling but the record of movie and record studios in recent times is a combination of stupidity, lies and greed. So I don't hold out high hopes for this deal. Making the download cheap but with a bunch of restrictions might work. Making a download a similar price to a DVD but including a bunch of restrictions might work. But there is no way offering a consumer a shit product at a shit price is going to work.

So what happens when it doesn't work? Well, maybe they'll get smarter and offer a better option. I'm not holding my breath. More likely they'll say it failed because the net isn't a viable legal delivery system, there's no point in trying to make it legal, let's keep suing our biggest fans instead of giving them what they want.

It seems obvious to me that there is someone in Warner Brothers who is forward-thinking enough to see how many billions they could make if they do this right. But I'm just enough of a conspiracy theorist to believe that there are stupid, greedy people who see this as an opportunity to kill BitTorrent by "proving" it can't work. And I think the greedy fuckwits outnumber the smart people.

Funny Search Results

One of the things I do while obsessively trying to broaden my blog readership, spread the angry meme and take over the world is check to see what search terms land people on my blog. Predictable enough, many of the searches include some variant of "angry" but some of criteria that result in search engines pointing people here are more intriguing, if not downright funny.

No surprises that writing about Stephen Colbert in the last week has been good for attracting readers although this has more been the case with blog aggregators like Technorati than search engines like Google. I hope I haven't been too cynical on this front - the longer pieces I've written have been heartfelt and I've kept the jokey littering of Stephen Colbert keywords and tags to a minimum. Except then. That double reference to Stephen Colbert was a little gratuitous. So was that. Anyway, join the Church of Colbert.

Some other search terms that have given me a smile (or puzzled me) are:

"Words to use when angry" - I hope they meant angry words to use for venting, they're in the right place for that. If they were looking for calming words, they're shit out of luck.

"How to calm angry teenagers" - ummm, sorry, you fucked up there. I'm no help to you on that front.

"Why does a year have 365 days?" - this one threw me for a while. Then I worked out it was from the blog title. There were four variations on this so I suspected this may have been some sort of school project somewhere. If that was the case, those kids were probably all suspended for visiting an obscene site.

"guys fucking parents" - oooookay. I really don't think I want to meet that person.

Search engines are weird.

Stephen Colbert Nude Sex Teen Orgy Porn

I was reading Mutant Cat's blog and decided I could one-up her on the attention grabbing post title.

So aside from silly search engine manipulation games, I wanted to alienate some readers today. Well, actually I don't really want to alienate readers but I suspect my angry rant today can't help but put some people offside. The reason is statistically, it's a safe bet that at least 25% of people reading this blog are smokers and there's no nice way to say this: smoking is really fucking stupid.

I recognise that the previous sentence is technically inaccurate: there are potentially many nice ways to say smoking is stupid. Fucked if I can be bothered coming up with one though.

Smoking is expensing, stinky, disgusting, insulting and offensive to people around you, destroys your quality of life and ENDS UP FUCKING KILLING YOU! Usually in a slow, painful, disgusting manner. There is no rational defence to smoking. It isn't a personal choice that you should have the right to. Unless you want to limit your smoking to a closed room somewhere AND NEVER FUCKING DO IT IN PUBLIC WHERE I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT! Seriously, if you want to assert your right to smoke do it in your own home and don't interfere with my fucking right to breathe!

And fuck the idea of smokers' rights! What about axe murderer's rights? Axe murderers kill way less people than smoking (like, several million less) but the law is all over axe murderers. The best I can hope is that bans on smoking in public places continue to spread. Count yourself lucky smokers, axe murderers aren't even able to indulge in the privacy of their own homes without "the man" getting all up in their face.

The only downside to banning smoking in public is that prohibition gives it an aura of rebellion. To really fucking stupid people. I might add that these stupid people are often very intelligent in almost every other aspect of their life but they make this one really dumb choice. I remember a quote from Timothy Leary where he said something along the lines that when he was once told it was illegal to smoke in an airport, he blew smoke in the person's face saying he was "proud to be a criminal". And if I'd been there I would've been proud to smack him in the fucking mouth for saying something so irredeemably stupid.

If you want to make me really angry, proclaim that you're a radical lefty while smoking. Yeah right, you're radical. While supporting some of the biggest most corrupt corporations on the planet who kill people with their lies, coerce third world farmers into growing the cash crop of tobacco rather than food that might actually keep people alive and refuse to accept their moral responsibility for marketing a product whose sole side effect is death. There is no safe level of smoking.

The only justification I'll listen to from a smoker is "I got suckered into smoking and now I'm hopelessly addicted to this disgusting habit and I'm incapable of giving up." Anything else is bullshit. And the only justification I'll accept from someone who insists on screwing up public spaces with smoking is "This is a suicide attempt - I want you to strangle me."

Of Phones and Phone Companies

One of my readers, Dr Nazli, suggested to me that mobile phone phone reception was worth getting angry about. I certainly agree but I wasn't sure how to approach it as the subject of mobiles feels like it has been done to death. I ruminated for a while, and the more rum I drank, the angrier I got. I tried to explain to the police officer that the rum drinking was absolutely necessary but he seemed to have his own opinion on the matter. The consensus is - we'll let a judge sort it out.

Which has very little to do with mobile phones.

The development of mobile phone services in Australia, and telecommunications generally, has been a bit weird. Not unique, but from what I read it's certainly been different here to many other developed nations. We had a big incumbent government-owned telco (now knows as Telstra) who up until recently (the 90's) ran the entire phone service as a monopoly. At the time I thought this had some pluses and some minuses but in retrospect it seems to have been a shitload of minuses that totally outweighs the pluses.

One of the pluses is coverage being mandated by law where there may not be any commercial incentive to provide coverage. In short, Australia is a big place with lots of empty or almost empty spaces. Phone companies can't make money providing service to people in really remote areas unless they charge them about a million bucks so, unless you're Ayn Rand, it's kind of fair to subsidise rural communities. Another plus is that as new companies entered the market they were forced to make their services totally compatible with other providers. I've heard in the US there can be quite severe connectivity problems between providers and text/sms is basically a no-go.

We don't have that problem so sms has been a big thing here for years. They rates we get charged are absolute bullshit but there is a bit of an issue with the fact that economies of scale that are available in Europe, Asia, and the Americas don't really exist here. As a former prime minister put it, in many ways this is "the arse end of the world." All of which doesn't tell you what I'm angry about.

I've had problems with mobile reception, in fact there's some weird anomaly with my apartment building being this huge old structure with thick walls that cuts off my mobile reception almost completely when I'm at home. But that's never made me particularly angry. What makes me angry is the constant self-interested lying by phone companies. From what I've seen, this problem is world-wide. A few local examples:

It used to be illegal to buy or sell phone handsets that weren't provided by Telstra. This ban was couched in terms of safety and while there are some legitimate safety issues, it was largely bullshit. It was little more than artificial market control and it helped nobody - not even Telstra when you look at the explosion of services available now.

When faxes were new, Telstra convinced everybody you needed a "special" phone line for them. You couldn't use an existing phone line - you had to pay for another line to be installed and it was more expensive to run. More bullshit.

In the early days of the net we came perilously close to having timed local calls "to stop internet users from overloading the phone system". The idea put about by Telstra and the government minister was that people were connecting to the net and (shock, horror!) staying connected for a really long time which would ultimately result in you not getting a dial tone when you picked up the phone because all the lines were busy. BTW, sucks to be you if you do have timed local calls where you live. If this had gone through, it would have strangled internet growth and cost billions in lost business opportunities and productivity. It never went in and surprise, surprise, the phone system never ground to a halt.

Sometimes you have to protect morons from themselves.

We still have really low broadband penetration because it's too fucking expensive. And you'd think by now phone companies would realise how valuable the net was to them and they'd stop fucking around with it. If you want evidence of how depressingly greedy telcos are world-wide, spend a bit of time on the Electronic Frontier Federation's web site, specifically look at the issue of net neutrality.

These scumbags are trying to screw up the internet for everyone while lining their pockets, all the while saying it's their right. Crooks and liars.

What are you lookin' at?

You know those moments when you make eye contact with someone inadvertently, then you hold it too long so you end up having a conversation that goes:

"What?"

"What?"

"What?"

"What?"

Yep. One of those days.

Not Without My Foreskin

Where do my blog ideas come from? Sometimes from the most innocent of beginnings - I'm sure some of the people involved in conversations with me would be mortified at the blog postings that come out of my casual chats. Last weekend was no exception. A perfectly normal conversation that somehow got around to circumcision that made me exclaim "Oh my god, do you know there are losers out there who obsess so much about being circumcised that they go to a huge amount of trouble to 'reclaim their foreskin'?" Nobody else had heard of this or was interested in discussing it further.

A blog post is born.

It strikes me as absurd and perhaps more than a little sick, that in a world so full of problems and injustice, some men can treat the fact they were circumcised as one of the biggest travesties of modern life. Hey guys, you're free to wish it had never happened to you, your free to pursue your weird foreskin-extension programme, but don't you think you should get a bit of fucking perspective?

I will go on record as saying circumcision is unnecessary. I don't think anyone's built a compelling case for a medical need or even significant benefit for circumcision. Some people have tried - Dr John Harvey Kellog (yes, the cornflakes inventor) proclaimed: "The remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision." Yeah, nice one Dr K. I'm circumcised and, not that I'm of the opinion that masturbation needs to be "cured", I can safely assure the good doctor that he was off the mark with that idea.

Actually, the best pro-circumcision argument I've ever heard comes from gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage who says, gay or straight, circumcised boys will get more blowjobs. The line forms over there fellahs.

So it's perfectly possible to mount a good case that circumcision is unnecessary. I just think you're undermining your case when you say things like "these doctors... have blood on their hands from torturing and mutilating thousands of baby boys." Oh, and forming associations like the International Coalition for Genital Integrity, the National Organisation to Halt Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) and Brothers United For Foreskin (BUFF) might make you feel important, but to rational people it makes you look like a dork.

And the solution these obsessive types have is sometimes surgical but most often a stretching regimen that last for a year or two. Then these lucky men are "re-uncircumcised". I might be overly suspicious but after doing research on the web sites for these "fauxskin" evangelists, I got the creepy feeling this was just a bunch of guys who wanted to stretch and contort their dicks and are dressing this fetish up as a noble cause.

I'm sure these foreskin evangelists will say that I, as a circumcised male who doesn't give a shit, am in denial. But excuse me if there's a few injustices I want to sort out before I bother with "the crime of circumcision".

Milestones

A few things I can't be angry about:

I do this blog on both Blogger and Wordpress. The content is identical - I'm trying to decide which software I prefer. Not only am I leaning towards Wordpress because of some of its features, but since around the 400 visitors mark the Wordpress blog viewings have been growing at around twice the rate of this one. Yesterday I hit three milestones with the Wordpress blog: over 1000 total viewings, more than 100 viewings in a single day (for the first time) and more than 200 comments total. Even after I deleted the comment spam. Small potatoes in the big world of blogging but I feel good this morning. I love each and every one of my readers! On both blogs. If I add them together I guess I'm approaching 2000 views which is pretty cool.

One thing I'm sad about:

I just found out that Grant McClennan of the Go-Betweens died on Saturday night. They were a great band, not may favourite but McClennan was responsible for on of my all-time favourite song lyrics:

The white moon comes out
Like a hole in the sky
The mangrove goes quiet

They were at their height in the 80's (in my opinion) although they had reformed six years ago and seemed to be getting some mainstream attention lately. So how can I explain them for you kids who never heard of them? Put it this way: without The Go-Betweens there is no Belle and Sebastian.

I promise to write an angry post later today. I think it will be about foreskins.

The Church of Colbert

One week on and Stephen Colbert is no less a god and the US media and right wingers are no less a pack of weenies. So I have decided to make it official.

I am convening the international inter-faith non-demoninational Church of Colbert.

He is the god of all who want to stand up to bullies and the patron saint of bravery. You don't have to renounce any other faith to join the Church of Colbert just take the daily challenge:

Did I do anything today that measures up to facing down the president of the United States and calling him a lying sack of shit to his face?

I know for myself the odds are the answer will always be no. But keep trying. Maybe you can do better.

Angry at Blog Advertising?

Yes dear readers, there's a question mark in that heading and it's deliberate. There is certainly some blog advertising that makes me angry but it doesn't make me angry by definition. I'm not planning to put advertising on this blog anytime soon but, hey, if I ended up with a million readers I'd want to try and screw some cash out of the situation. I can't imagine using anything much more intrusive that Google Adsense unless of course I come up with some Mr Angry merchandise like "I sodomise wallabies and I vote" bumper stickers.

I've seen some personal blogs where people go a bit hard at the "monetising" idea - to the point where you can't work out if there's any actual content on the site. Often there isn't, it's a whole page of ads but it takes you five minutes to work that out. Virtually every big blog has advertising and they handle it different ways from relatively understated to horrifically intrusive. What got me thinking about this was reading a blog called 37 Signals where some people were getting really vitriolic about advertising in their comments. It surprised me that people could still get so worked up at the concept of advertising so I thought I'd ask my eminently intelligent readers for their opinion.

For an example of a big blog that has lots of advertising done in a way that I think is acceptable look at BoingBoing. Not to everyone's taste but I think it's OK. For an example of badly done ads look at the Dilbert blog published by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. I'm not going to link because his site spawns pop-ups and pop-unders and annoying fucking flashing ads and I don't feel like inflicting that on you. Go check it out if you want. It's easy to find. Scott Adams is rich and popular and often very funny and as far as I'm concerned he's sending a big "fuck you" to his fans.

He doesn't need to have advertising this abusive, he could make a fortune out of text-only ads because, simply put, advertisers would pay whatever he asks in order to reach his readers. On top of that, he's been guilty in the past of advertising products like "free" cursors and screensavers that install spyware on your computer. Call me crazy but I think all advertising decisions have a moral dimension and it really sucks when you have the opportunity to make better decisions and you make really crap decisions.

So what do you think dear readers? Is advertising on a blog acceptable? Are there any limits? Enlighten me.

Angry at Drug Policy

I'm veering into local politics today, although there's some application to the wider world. Most afternoons as I drive home from work I listen to Triple J on the radio. For non-Australian readers Triple J is a little hard to explain, I'm not sure of any international equivalents. It's a nation-wide, non-commercial, youth-oriented network. It's government owned so it's paid for out of tax dollars not advertising which means they can be a lot more "out there" than mainstream stations. They have a half-hour current affair program called "Hack" that runs Monday to Friday at about the time I'm usually driving home so most days I listen to it.

The stories they cover can be quite interesting and lately they've run a few stories on some unusually intelligent seminars being held on the topic of illicit drugs. One was an academic forum that dared to raise the topic of "people do drugs because it's fun". The other was a government inquiry that seemed to be headed by a conservative politician who actually wanted some honest insight from young drug users about their experiences and some input on what might work in the realm of education/enforcement/harm minimisation.

I'll tell you what's always made me angry about drug policy here (and most overseas drug policy we hear about) - it's based on lies. And young people know it's lies. They know "old people" and authority figures (parents, teachers, cops, politicians) lie to them all the time. You see an anti drug campaign saying "ooo drugs are bad, you'll ruin your life, take drugs once and you could die from an overdose." You look around and see in real life lots of people are doing drugs with no apparent problems. It's easy to find evidence that prohibition doesn't work, that corrupt cops and politicians are involved in the drug trade, that alcohol and cigarettes cause way more damage to society than illegal drugs. So you come to the obvious conclusion:

They're all talking shit and I shouldn't listen to anything they say.

When you know most of what you're being told about the risks of drug-taking is bullshit, it's a short leap to thinking everything you're being told is bullshit. "I don't have to listen to anything they say because it's all crap, I can do speed and ecstasy all weekend for years on end with no side-effects and give up whenever I want." And so these young, immortal people put themselves in harms way because it's so fucking hard to get some honest advice on what you should and shouldn't do. Your parents say "don't do any drugs ever" and your friend say "let's do drugs all the time" and, well, your friends are way cooler than your parents and you don't wanna look uncool so what way do you go?

Duh!

I have a slightly unusual history with drugs. I didn't do them at all in school or college. College was a bit of a struggle because I went to major party college where people were doing drugs all the time. I was probably offered drugs for free a couple of times every week while I was at college. I also didn't drink alcohol at all while I was at college. My excuse - I was weird enough without artificial additives. Truth be told, I was more than a little worried how I would behave. Anyone reading this blog might notice I have... strange thought processes. I have always been this way. I was more than a little worried how far I might go off the rails if I took drugs.

I did get into drugs and partying in my 20s, not in a particularly excessive way but I had a lot of fun. I decided to stop altogether when my first-born arrived. I hated the idea that there might come a time she was dependent on me and I couldn't help her because I was fucked up on drugs. It was strange to me (ironic?) that some people who applauded this decision were pretty serious drinkers and of course they couldn't help their child if they were drunk. Back to the central hypocrisy issue I guess.

Anyway, my honest drugs policy? Listen up kids:

Most people do drugs because it's fun. There are lots of other reasons people take drugs; painful experiences (physical or emotional), feeling desperate, as a response to abuse, that old standby "peer pressure" (although I think this is hugely over-emphasised by those damn old people). But if you ignore the fun factor you aren't being honest.

Most people who do drugs don't get addicted. Some do, and addiction is really fucked. It's perfectly possible to recover from addiction but you probably will fuck up your life in the meantime. There are levels of addiction. Some drugs are worse for addiction, as in you're more likely to get addicted and the effects of addiction are worse. The warning signs: if you're saying things like "I can't have fun without drugs (or alcohol)" or "I have to take way more than I used to just to get a buzz" you're in trouble. Stop. Simple as that. Stop taking them for a while. You get two good effects: one, your body recovers and you might realise you don't actually need to take them any more. Two, if you go back to using after a while it will be more fun. Sorry if that upsets anyone but it's true.

Despite the scare tactics bullshit it is actually possible that a single dose of drugs can kill you, or at least put you in a really bad situation. Quite frankly, a lot of people who take drugs are filthy fucking skeezes or at least halfway decent people who act like filthy fucking skeezes when they're on drugs. If somebody is trying to coerce you into taking drugs and you're not sure - don't do it. It's more than likely anybody who tries to pressure another person into doing drugs is a rotten piece of shit (and to indulge in a stereotype here, I'm thinking mainly of males coercing females). Be safe. Think things through. Don't do drugs alone. Make sure you're with people you can trust. And, like a designated driver, have a designated "clean and sober" person - the one who stops you from choking on vomit and calls the ambulance when it's necessary.

Anyone who takes drugs and is honest knows they can fuck you up. The thing that makes me angry is that authority figures won't admit it's possible to have fun with drugs without fucking up. And so the natural rebellion of youth kicks in. I've seen first hand examples of people descending into smack addiction, having full-on psychotic breaks from speed/amphetamine abuse, damage their brains with acid and well, everyone's seen the pathetic stoner fuck-up who smokes too much dope.

So my policy is that if you're honest about everything (drugs can be fun!) then the health and safety message (drugs can fuck you up!) is more likely to get through. Because it's bloody obvious the current approach isn't working.

Double Standards in Health Advice

Today I'm angry at my ear specialist for doing the exact opposite of what ear specialists (or doctors generally) always tell you to do. And for inflicting incredible pain on me. You see, I've troubles recently with an ear infection which spooked me because I had to have major ear surgery as a teenager to fix a previous infection and this was looking like it could be a return bout of those problems. And I'd really rather not go deaf. Or have my head collapse as my brain is consumed by some evil infection monster.

So, off to the doctor I go! A round of antibiotics and eardrops later - the infection is gone. Hurrah! But I don't want to take risks so I see a specialist to make sure there's nothing worse going on. The good news is it looks like all is basically OK. The bad news is he says there's a bunch of gross smelly crap in there (I wish he wouldn't use such big scientific words - it was so hard to understand him) and he has to clean it out.

I know what's coming now. This is what happened to me as a teenager. When an ear specialist cleans out your ear it means sticking this long skinny pointy thing (again with the scientific terms!) right in there EXACTLY LIKE THEY TELL YOU NEVER TO DO and scraping stuff right off the surface of your eardrum. Which really fucking hurts. And because it's your ear canal being worked on you get the bonus of disgusting sound effects.

So he wedges my earhole open with some sort of metal funnel then goes to work on me while looking through a microscope. He warns that I shouldn't move because if I move even a millimetre it goes out of focus. This I take as a not-so-subtle threat: "Piss me off and I'll jam this spike right through your fucking brain." So I'm trying not to move or scream even though these are the natural reactions when someone goes spelunking in your head with sharp objects. Occasionally, when it really hurts, I make a pathetic grunt which is my manly way of saying "I hope this isn't going to go on for much longer because I'm about to start crying like a little schoolgirl."

Finally it's over and he even has the temerity to show me all the crap he scraped out and complain how gross it is. Listen buddy, you chose to spend your live probing people's face-holes; don't blame me when you find something gross.

What's in a Name?

OK, I've had enough with the cynical exploiting of the fact that Stephen Colbert is the number one topic in the blogosphere at the moment. I've said all I need to about Stephen Colbert. Just because mentioning Stephen Colbert means that new people might find my blog I'm not blogging about Stephen Colbert today.

Stephen Colbert.

What I really want to blog about today is how some parents make me angry because of the stupid names they choose for their kids. Now, a lot of people will say names are a personal thing and there is no right and wrong. To a degree, they're right. Names are personal - for the kid. I have a simple rule when choosing kid's names: will it get the kids beaten up at school? This is not even a recent problem - anyone remember Johnny Cash singing "A Boy Named Sue"? If you can't honestly answer that the name isn't going to result in noogies and swirlies for years on end, then you're staring down the barrel of a cheap-ass nursing home. Kids will get their revenge, it's only a matter of time.

But if you really want to make me angry, spell a name wrong. My daughter has a traditional Irish name that a lot of people seem to have a real fetish for spelling wrong. They don't spell it "differently", they don't spell it "creatively", they aren't being "individual" - they're wrong! I could spell "chair" as "Khaiyre" and that wouldn't make me creative - it would make me a bad speller.

It's bad enough calling a kid Salange, Jayleen or Shaniqua (all real names of people I've met) but spelling names wrong is opening up a world of pain. These sorts of names don't make your kid "memorable" to people, at least not in a good way. People don't remember made-up names and they don't remember how to spell misspelled names. People will end up having conversations about that go "And how about whatshername, you know, Weirdy McWeirdname."

And you get to look forward to a lot of christmases alone wondering why your kids never visit. It's because they're in bars abusing their stupid fucking parents for ruining their lives. And they're looking for the shittiest, most disease ridden nursing home in the world to lock you away in.

To end on a light note: have you ever met someone with a funny name and you realise the parent probably didn't consider it was funny? Because their parent's minds weren't as twisted as yours? I went to school with a girl called Kerry Hunt. If that isn't funny to you, look up spoonerism on Wikipedia.

The Colbert Report and The Daily Show

After my earlier post on Stephen Colbert making George Bush his bitch, I spent a while ruminating. And I realised there was something else I was angry about. Why is it that the only source of honesty and real insight in American media is from a fucking comedy show? How is it even possible for public discourse to sink so low that the most intelligent, incisive take of current affairs is from a bunch of funnymen? (I'm not absolutely sure but I think most if not all of the cast of these shows are men)

I don't understand how those sad, pathetic, toadying jellyfish masquerading as journalists in the US media can look at themselves in the mirror.

We're slightly spoiled in Australia because along with the commercial drivel we have the flawed but reasonably objective and intelligent news and current affairs services of ABC (about a billion miles removed from the American ABC) and SBS. Mind you, we are cruelly abused by the total lack of the Daily Show and Colbert Report.

I want to highlight two particularly good clips featuring Jon Stewart (host of the Daily Show) that you can find on Youtube (and probably other places but I find it easiest to find videos on Youtube.)

A quite famous piece that is not actually from the Daily Show is when Jon Stewart appeared on CNN's "Crossfire", ostensibly to promote the Daily Show book America - Democracy Inaction. In a move not totally dissimilar to what Colbert did to Bush, Stewart took the show's hosts off-guard and went for their throats. The format of Crossfire (it's been taken off air now - maybe because Stewart made them look like idiots) was two talking head bickering over current events. One was a loudmouth right wing dickhead wearing a bow tie and the other supposedly represented the left but was a pathetic weenie (right wingers feel free to say this is a fair representation of all lefties - my witty rejoiner is "fuck you in the neck with a butter knife").

Instead of getting some free publicity Stewart spent time upbraiding them for what a travesty and a waste their show was. In his words, he wanted them to "stop hurting America." They were completely incapable of dealing with this - he totally showed them up for the chumps they are. Search for it with the keywords "Jon Stewart CNN Crossfire" and you'll find it.

Another piece you can find is the Daily Show's first broadcast after the terrorist attacks of September 11. The show didn't broadcast for a week or two after the attacks (I think most people were finding it more than a little difficult to think of laughing at the time). It was clearly difficult for Stewart to do the show and it is a bit difficult to watch but it's incredibly moving. Use the keywords "Jon Stewart Daily Show September 11" to find it.

What watching this brought back to me was the intensity of feelings at the time, I'd almost forgotten that. At the time I thought it was actually possible some good might come of the attacks. I hesitate to even mention good in relation to those barbaric acts (pick whatever the worst eternal punishment offered by your belief system may be - that's what these scum are experiencing now). There were actually two positive things I thought might come of all the pain and sadness.

One, the people and politicians of America might come to understand what's known quite well across Europe, Africa and much of Asia: political and military decisions can have very personal repercussions. And sometimes you can suffer terrible, terrible losses from attacks on your own soil. I think places that have been largely spared destructive international wars on their own soil, like Australia and America, can be very detatched from that possibility.

The second thing was that it seemed like this was such a terrible, previously unimaginable thing that everybody was going to pull together. Differences would be forgotten and decent people would pull together for mutual support. It was strange that something so sad could generate such positive feeling. And then Bush and his cronies went and fucked it all.

Watch the clip. It will break your heart.

Fair and Balanced

I commented in a recent post how right-wing wack-job Michelle Malkin had been subjected to a bunch of stupid racist and sexist insults after posting personal contact details for some protestors on her blog. This sort of response is completely unnecessary - if someone's a shrieking truth-denying nutbag there's no need to bring issues of race or gender into it.

The right got all up in arms about this disgraceful behaviour. Good for them. I wonder if they'll be as even-handed with their outrage towards right-wing fuck-knuckles who attack someone on the left? Ever wondered who the 32% are who still think Bush is doing a good job? Check out this example of the moral superiority of the right:

Peace Takes Courage - The 32%

Angry at Stephen Colbert

I am soooo angry an Stephen Colbert today. Angry because I can't see him on TV and angry because he has more guts than I'll ever have. Now, non-US readers may need some background, so here it is:

Stephen Colbert gained fame on the Daily Show, which is an amazingly funny spoof news show and also possibly the only trustworthy news source on US television. And I can't damn well watch it in Australia because nobody screens it not even the 70 cable channels I pay and this pisses me off soooooo much. But anyway, Colbert now has his own spin-off show, The Colbert Report. Which I also can't watch. fuckshitpissbuggercockbite

In this show, Colbert achieves the seemingly impossible task of creating a character with his own news/talk show who is more ignorant, self-obsessed and in denial of truth than Bill O'Reilly. Oh, and the fucking cable service here shows Bill O'Reilly. So I can subject myself to 24 hours of Fox News but can I watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? Nooooo. God hates me.

If it wasn't for Youtube I'd never get to see any of this. But Youtube got blocked at my workplace which may or may not be directly related to me watching gigabytes of Daily Show clips and 70-odd episodes of Red vs. Blue during my lunch hours. I am totally getting broadband at home so I can see all this stuff via BitTorrent.

Anyway, Colbert's in the news a bit at the moment because he performed at the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night. This is a cute little event where Washington journalists, the president of the day and a few notables get together and have a good old laugh. There are normally some good natured jokes at the president's expense and he laughs along to show what a great guy he is. But last Saturday, someone booked Stephen Colbert as the main performer.

This is either the work of an idiot or an evil genius. Possibly an idiot, because if they thought Colbert was going to go easy, they were dead wrong. Possibly an evil genius because they knew what Colbert was going to do and they let him loose. Either way, I reasonably sure that the person who booked him is unemployed today. There's a transcript at the end of this post, it's long but it's worth reading.

What Colbert essentially did was rip W and the gutless media new arseholes. And he did while standing only metres away from Bush. And I assume a bunch of secret service agents. Who had guns. And were probably a hair's breadth from whacking him. I am in absolute awe of this man. The guts required to face off the president of the United States is almost beyond my comprehension.

Lord knows, nobody else has done it.

The real travesty is that the mainstream media are almost completely ignoring this. They keep showing Bush being pally with this look-alike and not even mentioning Colbert. The message: the prez is a great guy who can take a joke, there is no dissent, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. When it is mentioned the comments are along the lines of "Colbert crossed the line" and "The president wasn't laughing/was offended."

I hate it when people go in for overblown hyperbole about the power of the internet in general and blogging specifically, but it was reasonably accurate when a poster on the Huffington Post said "Back before blogs and C-Span, we wouldn't even know about it"

The thing is, he didn't get a lot of laughs during the performance and I'd say there are two reasons for this. One, he was also attacking the pathetic, spineless media who made up most of the audience and two, it must have been really uncomfortable to sit in the same room as Dubya while this was going on. read the transcript and decide for yourself if it's funny:

"Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin, I've been asked to make an announcement. Whoever parked 14 black bullet proof S.U.V.'S out front, could you please move them. They are blocking in 14 other black bulletproof S.U.V.'S and they need to get out.

Wow, wow, what an honor. The White House Correspondents' Dinner. To just sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face.

Is he really not here tonight? The one guy who could have helped. By the way, before I get started, if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. Will be right over with a cocktail.

Mrs. Smith, ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Mr. President and first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it's my privilege tonight to celebrate our president. He's no so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brain backs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the fact (police). We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look it up, and that's not true. That's but you looked it up in a book.

Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert report, I speak straight from the gut, ok? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the no fact zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term.

I'm a simple man with a simple mind, with a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists.

My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to see how "the Washington Post" spins that one tomorrow. I believe in democracy. I believe democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out in plastic for three cents a unit.

In fact, ambassador, welcome, your great country makes our happy meals possible. I said it's a celebration. I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's yogurt. But I refuse to believe it's not butter. Most of all I believe in this president.

Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. 32% means the glass -- it's important to set up your jokes properly, sir. Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

Folks, my point is that I don't believe this is a low point in this presidency. I believe it is just a lull, before a comeback.

I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." The president is Rocky and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world. It's the 10th round. He's bloodied, his corner man, Mick, who in this case would be the Vice President, and he's yelling cut me, dick, cut me, and every time he falls she say stay down! Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky he gets back up and in the end he -- actually loses in the first movie. Ok. It doesn't matter.

The point is the heart-warming story of a man who was repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't.

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite powered car.

And I just like the guy. He's a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will.

And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story, the President's side and the Vice President's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.

Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the affect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home.

Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction.

Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.

Now, it's not all bad guys out there. Some heroes, Buckley, Kim Schieffer. By the way, Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to be on my show. I was just as shocked as everyone here is I promise you. How is Tuesday for you? I've got Frank Rich, but we can bump him.
And I mean bump him. I know a guy. Say the word.

See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld.

Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble, don't let them retire. C'mon, we've got a stop loss program, let's use it on these guys. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle. C'mon.

Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier.

Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.
Justice Scalia's here. May I be the first to say welcome, sir. You look fantastic. How are you? (imitates hostile gestures Scalia was reported to have made)

John McCain is here. John McCain John McCain. What a maverick. Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you wasn't a salad fork. He could have used a spoon. There's no predicting him. So wonderful to see you coming back into the republican fold. I have a summerhouse in South Carolina, look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light.

Mayor Nagin is here from New Orleans, the chocolate city. Yeah, give it up. Mayor Nagin, I would like to welcome you to Washington, D.C., The chocolate city with a marshmallow center. And a graham cracker crust of corruption. It's a mallomar is what I'm describing, a seasonal cookie.

Joe Wilson is here, the most famous husband since Desi Arnez. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said. I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife, Joe Wilson's wife. Pat Fitzgerald is not here tonight? Dodged a bullet.

And we can't forget man of the hour, new Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Secret service name, Snow Job. What a hero, took the second toughest job in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq. Got some big shoes to fill, Tony. Scott McClellan could say nothing like nobody else.

McClellan, eager to retire. Really felt like he needed to spend more time with Andrew Card's children.

Mr. President, I wish you hadn't made the decision so quickly, sir. I was vying for the job. I think I would have made a fabulous press secretary. I have nothing but contempt for these people. I know how to handle these clowns. In fact, sir, I brought along an audition tape and with your indulgence, I'd like to at least give it a shot. So, ladies and gentlemen, my press conference. "

After this Colbert ran a video. Go look on Youtube, I'm sure you'll find it.

Isn't it Ironic?

Now, any regular readers will know I have a bit of a thing about proper language usage. And if you don't know that, go read my archives. Are you back? Good. As I was saying, I think proper grammar, word usage etc. is important. I even get a little worked up about it sometimes. Dare I say... angry. Not as angry as some people, like this chap who wrote this piece for McSweeneys.

I read that when it was published back in 2003 and I've never forgotten it. Way better grasp of the nuances of English than me. Funnier too. And angrier.

One of the many things that has the capacity to make me angry is misuse of the term "ironic". I don't get too worked up because I'm not too sure I always use it accurately. The simplest dictionary definition is "An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning." In other words, the literal meaning of your words is the opposite of what you intend to convey. But you also get into Socratic irony and dramatic irony and it really gets complicated. I actually did research for this piece (besides reading McSweeneys) and found a piece, via Wikipedia, that is both an excellent explanation of irony and a lot of fun to read. It's much better researched than anything I could do and also funnier.

Guardian Article: The Final Irony

Suffice to say, people are almost always wrong when they say "isn't that ironic?" More often it's simply a coincidence or bad luck. For instance, Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" doesn't contain a single example of true irony (is that ironic?)

Anyway, believe it or not, the whole reason that I started struggling with the proper use of irony was that I was thinking of George Bush. I am continually appalled at the shit he gets away with. Being a lefty, I start from a default position that a right-winger is going to piss me off but Bush even betrays traditional Republican values. Not that I'm a fan of many traditional Republican values but it freaks me out that he pisses all over their core tenets like fiscal responsibility and small government and all the while he has these rabid cheerleaders asserting he can do no wrong. Any pity the traditionalist who speaks up about this betrayal. The goon squad are all over them, branding them disloyal and unpatriotic.

You could be a dyed-in-the-wool lifelong Republican but if you question the glorious leader, his slavering minions will rip you limb from limb. And I get more than a little spaced at how quickly the baying mob can flip from championing a particular commentator to publicly eviscerating them because they dared to question Bush. Not matter how self-evident their observation is, like, ummmm... he's a fuckwit.

To be fair, I can't nominate a conservative who actually called Bush a fuckwit. I'm reading between the lines.

But there are signs Bush's most ardent supporters might ba about to turn on him. It isn't about lying, it isn't about screwing up Iraq, it isn't about encouraging torture. It's about immigration. Bush seems like he's actually about to do something halfway decent regarding the millions of (mainly Mexican) illegal immigrants in the US. In an acknowledgement that the economy is essentially dependent on these workers, he's trying to find a reasonable compromise. And his "base" are turning on him over it.

So that's the point of this whole screed: Bush spends his whole tenure committing a seemingly endless cavalcade of incompetent and illegal acts and gets a free pass. He attempts to do one halfway decent thing and his shrieking cheerleaders turn on him.

Is that ironic?

Hang Them All!

Let the punishment fit the crime, I say. In line with this, I will now identify a dangerous and clandestine group who are threatening to undermine the very fabric of society. The only punishment fit for these people is public hanging. Their crime?

Hanging toilet paper the wrong way around.

You may have thought this was simply a matter of choice. That there was no big difference between the toilet roll with the paper hanging over the front or dangling from behind. You couldn't be more wrong. This is one of those fundamental issues that can shake the very foundations of society. This isn't a situation where allowing a different point of view is a good thing; this is a case of right and wrong.

Sometimes different is good. I would go so far as to say most of the time difference is good. It's one of those things that makes life more interesting - all the little differences between people. For instance, saying you are only going to wear red for a year an/or showing up to an awards ceremony with what appears to be a white swan wrapped around you is good. Quirky, arty, interesting. Hanging toilet paper the wrong way is not "different". It's wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

The important part of this issue is that it isn't a casual occurrence. I have identified the actions of a clandestine group going around hanging toilet paper the wrong way. And they try to poison the minds of others. Sometimes they'll say "it doesn't matter which way you hang the paper," other times they'll go so far as to say "this is the right way." And the poor innocents duped by them have no idea how they're being manipulated.

I recently suffered an invasion of the influence of these miscreants in my own home! Periodically, I would discover that toilet paper was hanging the wrong way at my house even though (it should go without saying) I always make sure to hang it correctly. At first I thought they were sneaking into my home when I was asleep or at work to mess with my head. But then I saw the pattern. These paper reversals coincided with visits from my girlfriend.

Surely she couldn't be one of them? A deep cover agent sent in to undermine my life from within? When I pointed out to her what had happened with the toilet paper she had no idea she'd even been doing it. How sick is that? They'd infected her with some sort of post-hypnotic suggestion so she didn't even realise she was doing their bidding.

It's interesting to note that vampires have this power of mind control. I'm not saying that everyone who hangs the toilet paper the wrong way is a vampire; all I'm doing is putting the idea out there for your consideration.

Thankfully, the situation is now remedied. My girlfriend has been successfully de-programmed and my household toilet paper is secure. So now the bastards are coming at me from another angle.

My workplace, like many, uses bulk toilet paper dispensers. But this dispenser comes straight from the mind of Satan himself! It is constructed in an evil fashion that means if the toilet paper is hung the correct way the dispenser won't work. These sick bastards have won a government contract that lets them fit out workplace toilets in a way that advances their sinister and depraved goals.

Are there no depths they won't sink to?