Tetherd Cow Ahead

Yesterday, when discussing greenhouse gas emissions targets with the State Premiers, [tippy title=”¹”]It is a curious situation here in Australia, that while the Federal Government is Right Wing Conservative, all the States are under Left Wing Progressive governance. Apparently people think it is a good idea to have their immediate situations managed by thoughtful people, but are happy to have the country as a whole run by idiots. Go figure. [/tippy] The Weasel made the following comment to the press:

“Jobs and economic prosperity is more important than ideology and emissions targets”

Leaving the atrocious grammar aside, this statement goes a long way towards illustrating what a short-sighted dullard this man is.

He really thinks that Global Warming is just a question of ideology! Like whether or not you think Australia should be a Republic; a matter of opinion. Translating the above: John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, does not believe the conclusions of the entire scientific community that the world is facing a serious, real climate event of catastrophic proportions.[tippy title=”²”]It is blindingly obvious, therefore, that all his recent new-found ‘concern’ for Green issues is not because he thinks they have merit, but because he is, once again, lying in order to get votes. Why are people so stupid that they can’t see this[/tippy]

My God. His stupidity is breathtaking.

Let me tell you something Prime Minister: all the economic prosperity in the world is going to mean diddly squat when there’s no water left and you’re suffocating in a haze of carbon dioxide.

It doesn’t matter how much I hate him, there seems to be room for even more hate. I strongly condemn him and all he stands for.

___________________________________________________________________________

¹It is a curious situation here in Australia, that while the Federal Government is Right Wing Conservative, all the States are under Left Wing Progressive governance. Apparently people think it is a good idea to have their immediate situations managed by thoughtful[tippy title=”³”]Well, relatively speaking. You have no choice but to drop your standards when discussing politicians’ merits.[/tippy] people, but are happy to have the country as a whole run by idiots. Go figure.

²It is blindingly obvious, therefore, that all his recent new-found ‘concern’ for Green issues is not because he thinks they have merit, but because he is, once again, lying in order to get votes. Why are people so stupid that they can’t see this?

³Well, relatively speaking. You have no choice but to drop your standards when discussing politicians’ merits.

___________________________________________________________________________

Here in New South Wales, Australia we are in the throes of a State election along with all the accompanying heehaw of such an event.

So last night I had a phone call from a marketing company that wanted to get my ‘opinion’ on the field. This was the conversation as it happened:

Polite Young Woman: Do you mind if I ask you some questions about the current political situation in the state?

Reverend: Not at all. As long as you ask sensible questions.

PYW: Oh… er… OK. Um, which is your preferred candidate out of Mr Transparent and Mr Translucent.

Reverend: I don’t have a preference between those two.

PYW: Oh. So shall I mark ‘Not Sure’?

Reverend: Those are my options? Mr Transparent, Mr Translucent or ‘Not Sure’.

PYW: Er. Yes…

Reverend: But I am sure. I’m sure that I don’t prefer either of those. I’m voting for The Principles Party[tippy title=”¹”]We have more of an option than just the two ‘main’ candidates, although neither of them live, apparently, in a universe which allows this possibility.[/tippy]

PYW: Well, you can only have one of those two or ‘Not Sure’. It’s which of those you prefer. You don’t have to vote for them.

Reverend: Are you asking “If I only had one life preserver and the ship was sinking, which one would I throw it to?”

PYW: I guess so. Sort of.

Reverend: [Thinks: Who made up this survey? Do they want results or do they just want to hear answers upon which they’ve already formatted policy?] In that case, I’m not sure.

PYW: [Thinks: I knew I was getting desperate when I took on this job] O-k-a-y (makes computer key clicking noise). Now, how would you describe your satisfaction with the policies of the Transparent Party currently in power: ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Not Satisfied’?

Reverend: That’s it? ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Not Satisfied’?

PYW: [Sighs] Or ‘Not Sure’.

Reverend: Why don’t you just fill in all my answers as ‘Not Sure’. It will be quicker.

I propose a different kind of tack with such surveys. It would go like this:

•If Candidate A and Candidate B were in a burning building, and you could rescue only one person would you:

A: Rescue Candidate A?
B: Rescue Candidate B?
C: Watch the building burn while playing the violin?

•Given the ineffectual policies of both the main political parties, do you:

A: Prefer the ineffectual policies currently in place?
B: Prefer the ineffectual policies offered by the opposition?
C: Think that the money spent on this survey should be used to buy everyone violins?

I’m prepared to wager that the outcome would be the same, but with my version at least we’d all have music and a bonfire.

___________________________________________________________________________

¹We have more of an option than just the two ‘main’ candidates, although neither of them live, apparently, in a universe which allows this possibility

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

This image from the great public domain resource at the Northwestern University Library

___________________________________________________________________________

Police in Broome, in northern Western Australia, are on the lookout for five stolen lamb shanks after learning the meat has previously been injected with drugs.

The lamb shanks were stolen from a bar fridge outside the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service Council in Broome.

They were being used to train Aboriginal health workers and had been injected with anaesthetic and stitched.

The officer in charge, Darren Seivwright, says 55 millilitres of the drug Lignocaine has been injected into the meat and could be fatal if consumed.

“They’re pretty easily identifiable, they’ve got stitches in them. So if someone offers you a lamb shank that’s got stitches in them, then my strongest advice would be to stay away and if you’ve already consumed them, then I suggest you get yourself to the hospital,” he said.

I’ve had some offputting meals in my travels out west, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t really need Officer Seivwright’s advice to ‘stay away’ if offered lamb shanks with stitches in them…

UPDATE: A few moments ago it occurred to me that we might have a Half a Bladder situation with this story. Specifically, why were the lamb shanks injected with anaesthetic? Think about it: trainees practicing their sutures on some lamb legs, fair enough, but what the hell were they doing injecting Lignocaine into them? It’s not like the deceased lambykin legs were going to feel any pain or anything. And if it was just to hone injection skills, why use (presumably costly) drugs? Why not just use water? Hmmm?

I think there is more here than meats the eye.

___________________________________________________________________________

Thanks to Nurse Myra for reminding me of this story (which I heard on the radio yesterday, but forgot…)

___________________________________________________________________________

I know you have all been waiting breathlessly for the second stop in the Bad Public Art Tour of Sydney and I don’t think you’ll be disappointed as we pull over here in Kings Cross just east of the city centre. Cameras on the ready?

This nine year old piece is one of the more controversial on our tour, and the controversy continues even to this day. Unveiled in 1998 to howls of outrage, sculptor Ken Unsworth’s ‘Stones Against the Sky’ quickly earned the alternative title ‘Poo On Sticks’.

There’s no getting around it. This is a monumentally ugly sculpture. If you have some idea of Unsworth’s other work, you can see what the general object was, but it has to be said that here he has failed spectacularly. In Unsworth’s defense, there was evidently an original plan for the sculpture to be sited among straight-trunked trees, and perhaps that might have mitigated the awful spectacle somewhat. Outside that context, however, it is one of the city’s more miserable artistic tragedies.

I have to admit that I am in general a big admirer of Unsworth’s work. He makes art that is whimsical, challenging and humorous and I would place him halfway along a sliding scale between Andy Goldsworthy and Len Lye. His wonderful ‘Suspended Stone Circle II’, in permanent exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, is a delightful achievement, and the illusion of the weightlessness of its large smooth river stones is at once impressive and charming.

Sadly though, ‘Poo On Sticks’ is likely to be the most widely encountered of Ken Unsworth’s creations, situated as it is in one of Sydney’s busiest centres. As I mentioned, the controversy over the piece continues. It has in recent times come under threat of urban terrorism ((A group of art students calling themselves the Revolutionary Council for the Removal of Bad Art in Public Places threatened to destroy the work. And no – I am not affiliated with this movement…)) and not too long ago it was clandestinely, and, I believe, with no consultation with the artist, given a drab coat of slate-grey paint (admittedly this does have the effect of removing the resemblance to big lumps of excrement, the boulders having been originally painted a shade of turd brown, but it does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the hideousness).

The moral to this story – when creating works for public display first ask yourself this question: “On a scale of 1 to 10, how close is my work to the physical resemblance of bodily waste?”

If you’re pushing 6, start again.

___________________________________________________________________________

Photographs ©Ginger Stick 2007 – thanks Cissy Strutt

Q: What’s the difference between John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia and a weasel?

A: One is a secretive, sharp-toothed, dimwitted opportunistic scavenger and the other is a small furry mammal.

I hate this man.

There are not many people for whom I reserve that strong a negative feeling. But I hate John Howard.

Why? Because he is (amongst other things) a small minded, short-sighted, stupid, materialistic, sycophantic little bureaucrat who through animal cunning and cynical manipulation has found himself with altogether too much power.

I hate him usually, but this morning I hate him with even more vehemence because yesterday, in a nationally televised interview, he voiced this opinion regarding Barack Obama’s announcement of nomination for the US Presidency:

‘If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.’

It took me a night’s worth of thinking to work out exactly why this distasteful pronouncement galls me more than most things he says. It came to me at about 3am:

I think John Howard really would prefer that fundamentalist radicals caused chaos in the world if a progressive black man takes control of the American Nation. So he could gloat. You can’t read it any other way. That kind of thinking is the thinking of a child, or a sociopath. Perhaps even a psychopath. No balanced, normal individual who really cares about the state of the world would make such a judgmental and odious declaration. That’s a statement that says ‘If I can’t play I hope youse all have a really bad time and lots of rotten things happen and pus comes out your nose and you die and go to hell. Nyah nyah nyah.’

It is the distasteful spluttering of a small person. It is the ungracious and disagreeable whining of a tiny intellect infected with inferior morals.

John Howard, you are a pathetic excuse for a man, let alone the leader of a nation.

Where are all the people of real principle, the visionaries, the courageous thinkers, the Statesmen? Oh how we need you right now.

___________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: To my immense disappointment, Barack Obama responded to John Howard this morning in an equally feeble way:

‘I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.’

I’ve seen children behave in a more dignified manner. Mr Obama, you should have just ignored the little turd. He’s successfully wrangled you down to his gutter-level world.

That’s what he’s good at.