Bigmouthery

America - First Impressions.

2012-02-07T01:35:00.002+10:00

Vasquez Rocks, Agua Dulce, Ca.

People have America all wrong. I've been here just over two days and have yet to see an amber wave of grain. Nobody's been watching from ramparts either. Their flag is still there though...and how.
People overseas do have America all wrong though. I kinda knew this without having to visit, but I'm here so some first impressions:

Coming into the country is by no means Orwellian. Our entry point was Honolulu and while you do have to fill out a card and have your fingerprints electronically scanned, the process is quick (once you're through the queue) and the Customs people are extremely friendly. No body scanners, no latex gloves in your tenders.

The captain on American Airlines flights (or ours anyway) lets you watch the constant loop of NBC promotional material without interruption. But their audio program needs a comedy channel. Qantas gives you a sammich or a meal, depending on the length of your flight. They also give you a pillow. AA lets you choose if you wanna use your blanket as a pillow. And they make food available, at a price. When you get of a flight on every airline I've been on, the flight attendants give the perfunctory 'goodbye....goodbye...thanks, goodbye, goodbye..." as passengers exit. For some reason I love this part of plane travel. On AA the dude looked right past me as I gave him hurriedly muted thanks.

Compared to home, things are really inexpensive. Perhaps that should read 'AUSTRALIA, you're getting RIPPED OFF.' People are still up in arms about petrol prices here, but they're something like 50c a litre cheaper. Food's cheaper. Alcohol and cigarettes are WAY cheaper. Yes, I know, cigs and booze should have high tax to pay for health care and act as a deterrent to addiction, but how's our health system right now. It's inarguable that Americans have health care issues and most mentions (online anyway) of public health care will lead to cries of socialism before you can finish the sentence, but Australians are being taxed up the wazoo and it's obvious that that money's virtual theft. (I just re-read that sentence; people will be calling me a Ron Paul supporter soon.) I do believe in the state i.e. us making sure people don't fall through the cracks and there's no doubt that paying $6 instead of $5 for a pack of Marlboro or $17 instead of $16 for a LITRE of vodka & throwing that dollar into health care could make a huge difference. It's not Jed Bartlet economics by any stretch, but it's about as well as I can do.

Again, it comes as no surprise to Australians that our service levels suck. We should be infamous the world over for it. We're not, because we're completely inured. A nice hello from a checkout chick or prompt and service at a cafe makes our day. In America it's the norm. It's actually a little startling at first.

I'm sure that this does not apply nationwide, but in LA, if you want a good coffee, you'll probably only get it at someone's house. If you go through a drive-thru, for God's sake order the small combo meal. I had a medium thing from Carl's Jr on the way home from the airport and the size of the drink was bigger than a large at home. And the burger looked like it could have eaten me. I'm on a promise to eat an In'n'Out double double burger before we head east (they're an LA-only place) and frankly, I'm a little afraid.

LA in winter is very similar to Brisbane, if a little cooler at night. I was under the impression that a pall of smog would brown up the sky even on clear days. Not true. It's a crispy candy blue, in winter at least. Summer, I'm told, it gets a little poopy.

In a mild irony, I'm missing a good chunk of news around the primary season here. People are saying it's Romney's despite the fact that there's still a ways to go. Beige vs beige.

When in LA, two places are a must. Farmer's Market/Grove & Greystone, the former residence of the Doheny family and filming location for bits of There Will Be Blood and the major location for Eraserhead.. It's a wonderful old mansion and grounds with a fantastic view of the city.

There are still things I'd like to do. Go to Ralph's and buy milk with a cheque, just as the Dude did in Big Lebowski. That's the main one. Actually, I'm thirsty, so I'm off to do that now.

Update: I went to Ralph's. Everyone is so polite. Even the guys stacking shelves give you a "morning, sir" as you pass by. The lady at the checkout was very nice too. She even recognised my accent and said, "G'day". Only thing is, she used it as a farewell. Tip for Americans: we only use it as a greeting. It's like me saying 'how ya doin'' as I was walking away.

Bigmouthery in America!

2012-02-03T09:37:00.001+10:00

Bigmouthery turns into a travel blog for the next four weeks as I take you through the great south west of the United States of America. Stay tuned for sporadic updates about all our adventures in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The ULTIMATE List: The One Best Song of All Time!

2012-01-14T22:38:00.002+10:00

Internet lists. They're huge. Movies, books, albums, travel destinations, nose hairs...they're almost as popular as porn, and because of their arbitrary nature, are normally followed by hundreds of comments by people who feel slighted that their favourite missed out. The internet needs a shake-up, fuckers...and this is how you do it..

Call it a list. Have one thing in it. Brook no fucking discussion or argument. Walk away. So here it is: the best song in the history of the world...end of story. You agree with the objectivity of the choice and believe the song to be without peer. Ladies and gentlemen...the One Best Song of ALL TIME!!!

11 - One Louder.

2012-01-02T11:26:00.000+10:00

Normally I love writing the New Year blog entry. It provides a chance to say thank you to people who loved, supported and tolerated me all year. It offers a chance for reflection, hopefully without straying too far into the mawkish. And it's nice to put a year to bed.

This year I haven't felt the same enthusiasm. It has nothing to do with the people who loved, supported and tolerated me. They were many and they are great. I just spent a few minutes listing names before realising that it would take a lot longer than the ten minutes I can spend writing this. The lack of enthusiasm lies squarely on my shoulders. There were re-connections I made in 2010 that I failed to solidify in 2011. There were attitudes I didn't have that I should have had (or vice versa) and there were distractions that I used as excuses. A lot of good stuff happened in 2011 and I am really grateful for it. One event above all makes the year a major life success. But I'm still left with the feeling of personal failure for not taking certain actions, for avoiding certain people out of fear of their mood towards me, for leaving 2011 knowing I did not attack life with the same zeal with which I so clearly began it.
If some of the above seems vague or abstruse, good. It means that you're not in this loop. Those who are will know. I'm happy to say they're few, but they are too important and I have failed them.

That said, I look forward to 2012, to new challenges, scenery and people. I look forward, in a way, to the major uncertainties that await in the next couple of months. And despite appearances to the contrary, I'm even looking forward to the challenge of finally leaving the boy behind.

Happy New Everything.

Nxx

Ron Paul - Dr StrangeLib.

2011-12-30T18:00:00.004+10:00

In the first Bigmouthery post covering the 2012 election, I described Ron Paul as a "pretty nice fella" and stated that the main reason he won't end up as President is the fact that, at 76, he's too old. He's also a minarchist libertarian in a political party still ruled by big government neo-conservatives. I avoided defining libertarianism, Paul's chosen ideology, except to say that "some bits are okay, some bits are dubious and some are downright kooky". The post was a synopsis of candidates, and libertarianism, like every other political stance, is wide open to equivocation, fracturing and historical shapeshifting, so I left it there.

It's easy to see how people on both sides of the political fence may be attracted to facets of libertarianism. Conservatives like the idea of fewer taxes and liberals like the idea of more weed, that's the stereotype, right? And after 10 years of blowing shit up at a loss, everyone can get behind a non-interventionist foreign policy.

But Ron Paul is starting to gain a level of superficial credibility he doesn't deserve, so it's time to take a look at the kooky.

Ron Paul's popularity has increased since the last election thanks to the rise of the Teabaggers and the Occupy movement. The Teabaggers (who can reasonably be generalised as a right-wing group) are attracted to the Friedmanesque economic aspects of libertarianism. The Occupy movement (who can reasonably be called left-wing) are attracted to civil libertarianism. The reason that two disparate groups (within as well as without) are so similarly inclined is due to a shared disaffection with a bloated two-party system locked in an orgiastic and incestuous relationship with corporations and the media. It's no surprise then that their neophytic, hopeful cherry-picking of the bits of libertarian ideology they find attractive has not brought them to a place of shared ideological ground. Both are sick of corporations, but righties are still righties and lefties are still lefties. Both are suffering from the delusion that some form of libertarianism represents a valid 'third way'.

My personal view of libertarianism is that, taken to its logical conclusion, it would result in the dismantling of central government, which in turn would lead to a society run by the feudal, corporate or gangster-like rich. In other words, pretty much what we have now, but worse. And just like a dreamy communist in 1911, a libertarian cannot produce an example of a successful model in 2011. If you want to try making an agrarian bio-dome of libertarian society, go ahead. I'll watch. I won't pay though. Who will?

There's no denying that the systems we have in place right now are far from ideal. Government is huge, ineffective, aggressive, invasive and controlled by estates that have no business loitering like foaming hookers outside every door. Fundamental change is necessary, but libertarianism is a retrograde step. In short, the systems currently in place are preferable to the nebulous, irresponsible, backward-thinking libertarian alternative.

Heading into the Iowa caucus, Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian in a Republican suit, is better placed than ever to make a bit of a dent with his plan for America. He has more money this time around and as everyone who follows US presidential elections knows, big money means more support. This time, Gramps is a player.

But if you're a moderate conservative or a disaffected liberal or a loopy smash-the-economy-truther-Zeitgeist-head or just a sober independent balancing on that rickety fence scared to fall, consider Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism closely and realise that when it comes to actual civil liberties, the weed thing is pretty much all he's gonna give you. Let's see where he stands:

Paul hides behind 'States' rights' as an excuse to abnegate responsibility at a federal level, which effectively means that:

He doesn't believe in equal rights for homosexuals, believing marriage to be a church-related issue only.

Is strongly pro-life.

Does not believe in a right to privacy.

Would scrap the Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior departments as well as slashing funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Defense.

He also believes that prayer in school is important, denies evolution & climate change.
Oh, and he believes the US was founded as a Christian country and rejects the idea of separation of church and State.

It doesn't take long to find this stuff. It's quite clear the man relies so heavily on the Tenth Amendment that it's a wonder why he'd even want to be a part of a federal government. The man's been around the political traps for 35 years and has yet to ease out the clutch on this ideology. If you can't get things moving after all that time, you aren't a viable candidate for the office of President of the United States.

By the way, I haven't even touched on the new (read: old, but back in the spotlight and getting heavy traction) issues around a series of newsletters published by Paul in the 1980s and 90s. Let's take a peek.

Business Insider

Ron Paul has been in the game, either as a member of the GOP or the Libertarian Party, for a long time. Back in the day, he and his people put out a series of newsletters with names like Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Survival Report and Political Report. Among other things, the newsletter says that the LA riots only stopped when it came time for blacks to collect their welfare money, Martin Luther King seduced underage girls and boys, 95% of black men in Washington DC are criminals...and that's just the stuff to do with race. He also implies that the federal government created the AIDS virus and that society was better off when homosexuality was hidden.

The newsletters were published first-person, with no byline. The comment about AIDS appeared in a direct mailout and has Paul's signature appended. As you might imagine, Dr Paul's response to the newsletter issue resurfacing has been predictable:

He didn't write them, he didn't always read them, and he disavows them.

So what?

If we're to believe any or all of those three claims, it doesn't prove that Paul is not a racist, homophobic conspiracy nutburger. It doesn't prove he is, either, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not. Problem solved, right?

Well, no. The material, regardless of authorship, went out under Ron Paul's name. So that makes the man almost pathologically incompetent. If you can't control the content published in a crappy little newsletter, you shouldn't be considered a viable candidate for the office of President of the United States.

And he's too damn old.

How Red is Iowa?

2011-12-29T13:32:00.000+10:00

Real Clear Politics

The Iowa caucus is less than a week away. In the 2008 Presidential race, Obama took Iowa comfortably, not too much of a surprise given he took the Dem caucus in a walk and his opposite number John McCain's was walloped by Mike Huckabee (among others) in the GOP battle. History shows that conservative Iowans like their conservatives a deep shade of red.

Nationally, Newt Gingrich is still up a couple of points on Mitt Romney, with Ron Paul a distant third. But in Iowa, Paul is now the front runner, albeit by the tiniest of margins.

The GOP has a bunch of bona fide hard-righties in Bachmann and Santorum and that's keeping the Iowa race tighter than one might expect. Both of 'em are polling close to double figures, at Gingrich's expense. Newt is suffering. As soon as he hit the lead, everyone started running negative at him, plus his team is still in a shambolic state. He doesn't have the signatures to make the ballot for the Virginia primary, a sure sign of disorganisation (Rick Perry is in the same boat). Newt's dirty money dealings are also starting to gain traction. That he took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac is really starting to bite. He's also under attack in Iowa and elsewhere from a non-aligned (but pro-Romney) PAC called Restore Our Future, who have opened up both barrels. And I haven't even mentioned his divorces.

A lot of Iowa Republicans simply haven't decided who they want, although it's fair to say that those candidates with a whiff of RINO on 'em don't stand a chance. So for those guys, it boils down to where they place going into New Hampshire on Jan 10. If Romney does well, it'll do him wonders going into NH, which he has virtually already locked away.

Here's the state of things right now: Huntsman may as well already be gone. Santorum and Bachmann have no chance, despite their constant bleating. The man that everyone (myself included) loves to write off is not only still hanging in, he's on the rise: Ron Paul.

But what the hell is Ron Paul? He espouses libertarianism, the political ideology that, if you cherry-pick well enough, means that everything will be alright for everyone forever. YAYYY! Tea Partiers rejoice (no taxes!), the Occupy crowd hoot (legal weed!) and everyone's happy that government will be tiny and America will stop going around being the world's protector/cop/thug. Wow...it's a Zeitgeister's wet fucking dream. But it's a load of horseshit...and in the next edition I'll tell you why.

Google Maps - LA to Dallas

2011-12-27T11:20:00.002+10:00

My girlfriend and I are going to America next year. Part of the trip, we hope, will include a drive from Los Angeles to Texas. There are two main routes, the I-40 and the I-10, so I jumped on Google Maps to check out which way it might take us. I typed in "Los Angeles to Dallas"...here's what Maps advised:

I started reading the 'driving directions':

Turns out that Google 'thought' I meant Dallas, Vic, a suburb of Melbourne. So it seems we're okay from LA to Tx, but I may need to buy a canoe to get home.

Merry Christmas from Bigmouthery!

2011-12-25T09:03:00.000+10:00

Tommy and Norway's Butter Crisis

2011-12-21T08:00:00.000+10:00

Continuing the theme of 'demotivational posters', here's Tommy, the Norwegian 'gentleman' who is most annoyed that people are making fun of Norway's current butter shortage.

Kim Jong Un.

2011-12-19T19:42:00.000+10:00

Christopher Hitchens (1949 - 2011)

2011-12-18T08:00:00.101+10:00

Christopher Hitchens (1949 - 2011)

It is the custom of journalists to, where practical, prepare obituaries in advance. It's a sensible thing to do in terms of workload. Someone old or infirm passes, and all you have to do is pull the file and tack on the end. Still, I've always found the idea a bit soulless. Indeed, on first learning about the practice from a journalist friend many years ago, I thought it ghoulish. So perhaps foolishly, I did not prepare anything for Christopher Hitchens, even though it was quite clear that his chances of surviving oesophegeal cancer were extremely slim.

And yet, a few months ago, when I heard that Hitch was cancelling engagements, I considered preparing something because, as he'd said after being diagnosed with Stage Four cancer, "there's no Stage five".

Reams are being written about the man and his scalpel-sharp brain, his prolific output, his skill for visceral rhetoric on the page and in debate, his ability to knock away whisky and keep going strong, his inability to be claimed as a champion by any political movement. Some have said that, floating at the top of a deep legacy will be his support for America's interventionist policy in the Middle East. He apparently even worried about that himself, yet I both hope and believe that his greatest, most resonant contribution will remain his views on organised religion.

I've read dozens of Hitch's articles and listened to/watched hours of his debates, but can confess to reading only three of his nearly 20 books (although I did read large sections of his work on Thomas Paine). I've agreed and disagreed with him vociferously. In agreement I've found myself coming over all self-satisfied, patting myself on the back that Hitch and I were on the same page. But disagreeing with Christopher Hitchens always gave me pause. He was a man universes away in terms of his intellect and lettering. He had an uncanny ability to recall facts from the vast store of his learning. And I'm a shitkicker.

Coming into contact with the work of Christopher Hitchens forced me to rethink opinions I thought were solid and when our opinions were in sync, his work forced me to try and communicate them in a more effective way.

I read God is Not Great (How Religion Poisons Everything) when it came out and in the last few months listened to Hitchens read it, not only to better absorb and understand it, but also to hear the way Hitchens communicated his arguments verbally. Impacting is too mild a word to describe the utter brilliance and sheer force of the man's mind. He was brave and unflinching in a way most people can never be, refuse to be. Youtube 'Hitchens' and you'll find a man usually locked in brutal debate, inflammatory, disruptive, determined, refusing to bow to consensus and going after sacred cows such as Mother Teresa.

Quote after quote will rise to the top in the coming days, weeks and probably months and years. One of my favourites is one that many will use to define him:

"My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass."

I knew he was going to die and still crumpled inside on reading that he'd gone. Selfishly, I wanted him around through the election season and even advised that you read everything he may write on the subject. Perhaps it was just a vain hope that he'd make it that far.

To say that Christopher Hitchens was a critic of religion is an understatement of massive proportion. He was one of the world's greatest voices against it. But the man acknowledged great contributions to literature when he saw them and regarded the King James Bible as such an example. In God is Not Great, a masterpiece of anti-theism, Hitchens tells of reading the following verse from St Paul's letter to the Philippians at his father's funeral. It seems an apt place to close here, too. Goodbye Christopher, you magnificent, wonderful, brilliant, infuriating man.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Happy 50th Birthday, Bill Hicks.

2011-12-16T23:59:00.006+10:00

Bill Hicks.

Had he lived, Bill Hicks would have turned 50 today. Happy Birthday, Bill.

A few years ago I wrote a tribute to Bill, which you can read here.

Hermione/Bella/Leia...?

2011-12-14T13:59:00.000+10:00

Jumped on the FB this morning and saw the above pic. Felt the need to adapt it, just a little:

That's better.

How The Gingrich Stole Christmas.

2011-12-14T07:15:00.000+10:00

Moments after Mitt Romney's '$10000 bet' gaffe, Newt Gingrich steals Romney's wallet.

Mitt Romney has lots of money. He also has the team in place to take him past the New Hampshire primary. He's been hovering at the top end of the polls for months and until his '$10000 bet' goof at the last debate, had kept his foot well clear of his foodhole. So yeah, let's say he's been the front runner. Admittedly, that status has been easy to claim given the opposition. Rick Perry, Herman Cain and even Michele Bachmann have taken a few nips at Romney, but they've been far outweighed by gaffes and scandals. Bachmann, who has claimed "gaffe-proof" status, has dropped to the back of the pack. She has made numerous gaffes, the biggest probably that she said she's gaffe-proof. Rick Perry comes across like a drunk gatecrasher and Herman Cain dropped out. The defining characteristic of the last few months of polls and hourly debates is that no-one seems to want any of these guys as their president. Until now.

For the first time in the Republican contest for the presidential nomination, it looks as if a real front runner has emerged. Six months ago the only reason people were talking about Newt Gingrich was because his campaign staff had just resigned en masse. He was struggling to raise money funds and his race, such as it was, looked over. He was polling in single digits as recently as last month. Two weeks out from Christmas and Gingrich is still under-resourced (one story has it that the phones in his New Hampshire office are still to be connected), yet the ol' Beltway warhorse has become the first clear front runner of the campaign.

Newt is up by at least 10 points, mainly due to ennui. He's not saying anything spectacular or promising the world. He's not winning people over with looks or charisma. Gingrich's main strength right now is the weakness of his opposition. In a barrel of dead fish, pick the one with the least cloudy eyes, even if it stinks.
The other stinkers rounded on Newt at last weekend's debate (the 300th that day). They've also started singling him out for attention in their ads. This can only mean one thing: they're scared. Having failed to gain traction by running positive on their own records and aspirations, they're all turning hard negative on the most man in the bunch. And it looks as if they're failing.

If Gingrich can hold a healthy lead into the New Year, we can start using the words 'front runner' with more confidence. Then the real money will start to flow and most of it will flow towards the man that people believe will win. As candidates drop off (expect that to happen right after Iowa and New Hampshire) and Newt's coffers fill, he'll be able to cherry pick staff from other campaign teams.

It all sounds like a done deal, huh? Obama v Gingrich, let's get ready to grumble? Not so fast.

As a senior DC veteran, Gingrich has a lot of skeletons, both personal and political. His philandering ways have already been tossed around like so many teenage girls at a bunga bunga party, but the personal stuff doesn't appear to be hurting Newt, so far. It seems that if the skeletons have had a little time to go brittle, it doesn't matter. It remains to be seen if the same can be said of Newt's financial wheelings and dealings. His ethics violations are well-known, but also in the dim and distant past. Is there more to uncover? House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi has hinted that there's plenty of dirt to dig up on Newt. Of course, there's probably plenty to dig up on Nancy as well, so maybe she'll back off.

Okay, that's it for presidenty stuff for a bit, unless something juicy happens. I'll be back with something of a more artistic flavour soon.

The 10 Best Election Campaign Websites.

2011-12-11T10:21:00.004+10:00

Bigmouthery's Election Headquarters

So, you fancy yourself as an armchair political pundit for next year's big election dealie? Or you don't...but want to? Need instant access to news that a presidential candidate is: wiping their butt hundreds/shagging interns/the Antichrist? Look no further (actually, look further) than Bigmouthery's list of the ten best 2012 campaign websites. Read these and you'll soon have the confidence to pretend you know what you're on about.

Before we start, it's helpful to be aware of the following: some of the websites listed below identify as non-partisan, some don't. It doesn't matter what they claim, accusations of bias will always be thrown up. It's the internet, after all, a huge projectile hangover-y vomit flecked with dots of gold. It's your job to pan the shiny stuff out of the puke. So, put a peg on your nose and let's get siftin'!

1. Real Clear Politics

Quinnipiac says that Candidate X is up by five, but Fox calls 'em neck and neck and Rasmussen doesn't care as long as a Democrat is being punched in the balls. Even Hillary's. There's so much polling data out there, how can you make sense of it all? You can't, but Real Clear Politics is your best bet. It's an aggregator of all the major polling data, plus a selection of articles and opinion pieces from a wide range of sources. In 2008, RCP was my first port of call every day and 2012 will be no different. Hands down the best polling data site on the intyblort.

2. FactCheck

It may shock you to learn that some politicians have been known to tell fibs as a way of making themselves look good and their opponents look bad. I know. Fuckin' WOW, right? Get this: some media outlets have been known to do the same thing. Now you've picked yourself up off the floor, go have a play at FactCheck, a site dedicated to weeding out political untruthery. They've also just set up FlackCheck, a site devoted to truth in political ads. Now, even sites like this can't be taken at face value, despite their wealth of info. So another to check out is:

3. Politifact

Politifact's brief is very similar to FactCheck's, but has the added advantage of a Truth-O-Meter for every candidate, as well as statements made by various pundits, outlets and commentators. It'll tell you whether someone's been telling the truth or whether they've been lying so badly that they have "pants on fire".

4. VoteSmart

If there were only one place for the average American voter like Jimmy Drywall and Mary-Anne Applepie (or if you're so liberal you demand token representation of diversity, let's call them Juanita Astronaut and Mustafa...Baseball) to turn to for their info on the candidates, Project Vote Smart would have to be the spot. I've ~~wasted~~ enjoyed hours poring over everything from quotes to finance records. It's a fantastic voter resource and a very useful tool for the aspiring James Carville or Mary Matalin.

5. FEC

In the last post, I touched on how much money is involved in getting these alleged alien lizards into power. A lot. The FEC records who gives what to whom and is charged with the task of enforcing laws around campaign finance. Not in the slightest bit exciting, yet its appearance on this list is crucial, given that a lot of people worldwide have lately been ruining the grass in parks because they see too much of a bleed between Wall Street and the Beltway.

6. Five Thirty Eight

Nate Silver was the sensation of the 2008 presidential tilt (if you exclude, y'know, that Obama guy). The statistician and political analyst correctly predicted 49 of the 50 states, missing Indiana by 0.9%. His 'political calculus' blog is now hosted by the New York Times, which of course has led to claims of bias (see intro) I suppose you could say that Silver is America's Antony Green (I just did). Definitely worth reading.

7. Commission on Presidential Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates is effectively the producer and researcher for each official debate. You won't be needing this one for a while, mainly because we're at the stage where GOP candidates are turning down unofficial debates hosted by the pouting coconut Donald Trump. However, when things get serious, the CPD will come into its own, though it won't form part of your daily routine. That said, debates are a huge part of the campaign. One slip and a you're a goner. Even if you want to watch them just to see how utterly contrived they are, debates make for great viewing. My favourite moment? 1988 - VP debate between Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle.

8. Newsmax

No-one will mind allegations of bias with the next two (unless they really do think Fox is 'fair and balanced', in which case, tighten the lid on their sippy cup and send them on their way). Newsmax is your go-to site for conservative opinion. A number of GOP heavy hitters and insiders write for obviously right-leaning site, so if you're looking for wide-ranging and often insightful conservative perspectives, Newsmax is stop 1. Also consider The Drudge Report and Breitbart if you're looking for openly rightie views.

9. Huffington Post

Same shoe, other foot. Or something. Anyway, The Huffington Post is unashamedly liberal in its outlook. If it isn't, it should be. Packed with opinion, sometimes written by your favourite Halllyyywood mooovie staaaahhhs, HuffPo is a Dem's wet dream. For more liberal sites, check out The Nation and TPM. Also read whatever Christopher Hitchens is saying, wherever he's saying it (usually Slate, sometimes Vanity Fair).

10. Mediaite

Mediaite keeps an eye on the people keeping an eye on the election. With so many different outlets spewing so many obviously biased views, it's great to have one site where you can watch these overpaid, bouffant screamers make utter tits of themselves. Media agencies wield an immense amount of power. For those of us outside the US who yearn for access to the daily thrust, parry and wank of the campaign, Mediaite is a great place to have a coffee and a laugh (but almost definitely not a wank).

For now, that's that. As the election draws closer and we lose the Santorums, Bachmanns and Huntsmans in the coming days, and Super Tuesday signals that we're moving towards the pointy end (a 10 month long pointy end, mind) of the campaign, more sites will pop up and if they're worth sharing, I'll share 'em. Till then, happy hunting!

Bigmouthery's Guide to the 2012 Presidential Election - Part 1 - Challengers.

2011-12-04T08:22:00.004+10:00

Missing from photo - some other guy.

Ah, the US presidential election. It's a time when ordinary Americans, Americans who believe in the precepts of the Constitution, come together, with sobriety of mind and hope in heart, and vote for their head of state, government and commander-in-chief. Or...it's a three year, multi-billion dollar dickfight waged by already very rich people funded by major corporations to choose the least insane of the bunch and give them a standing brief to maintain the status quo for at least four years. Tch, cynical. But if you place cynicism on a sliding scale, there are those who believe that all or most of the people involved at the sharp end of presidential elections are shape-shifting reptilians. So, y'know...shut up.

The next election is just under a year away & next month the Republican contenders in the battle to face-off against incumbent Barack Obama will enter the 'primary season', from which one will rise and the rest will be summarily executed, or go back to making loads of money for doing very little, or something, I'm not sure what happens.

Future entries will cover some of the machinations of campaigns, which will hopefully provide some context for the apparently harsh 'style-over-substance' nature of what is to follow. But for now, here's Bigmouthery's look at the main contenders.

1. Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney

Mitt was governor of Massachusetts for a term in the mid 00's. He ran for the top job in '08 but came unstuck when attacked on his two bulbous Achilles heels: a record as a 'flip-flopper' and his Mormon faith. These two issues remain as his opponents' best chance of eating into his lead and, because he's the current frontrunner, we're starting to see them surface once more. His virtually gaffe-free performance thus far speaks to the discipline of a team driven to keep him on message, and visible only on their terms. In a controlled media environment, very little can go wrong. It remains to be seen whether the party views him as too much of a RINO (Republican in Name Only) to pitch him against Obama. In fact, he may have just ceded first place to:

2. Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich
(Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Newt's been around a long time. He was the House Speaker during part of Clinton's presidency and is considered one of the more moderate choices for the GOP, though only hardcore righties would call him a RINO. Dems have long used the smear that Gingrich filed for divorce while his wife was on her deathbed with cancer, but it's never gained much traction, mainly because it's not true. It is true that Newt has screwed around a bit and it's also true that he used patriotism as the excuse. Screwing around's no crime, but as we know with the aforementioned Bubba, Americans love and despise salacity in almost equal measure. He's also wormed his way out of a few sticky ethics problems in the past. Considered no chance only a few weeks ago, Gingrich appears to the new man to beat and is already being called the Comeback Kid in some circles.

3. Herman Cain

Herman Cain
(Photo: Gage Skidmore)

It's often said that we need politicians who aren't mired in the incestuous and bureaucratic world of the party room, or in the case of America, the Beltway. State governors and non-politicians who run for office try to use their 'outsider status' as a ploy to reinforce the idea that they'll not be at the beck and call of lobby groups. That's all very well, but they should at least pretend to have some knowledge of the world around them. Business tycoon Herman Cain doesn't, and seemingly revels in that insularity, as this video shows. Worse, in October the former head of the Godfather's Pizza chain had multiple claims of sexual misconduct levelled at him. He shrugged 'em off with apparent success, dropping some numbers but staying in the mix. However a revelation in the last few days that he had an 13-year affair with a woman and gave her money for "bills...and various things" will almost definitely mean that we'll soon be saying 'bye bye, Herman'.

(Since writing this part of the entry last night, Herman Cain has pulled the pin.)

4. Ron Paul

Ron Paul

Ron Paul strikes most people as a pretty nice fella. He's also politically astute and does not appear to cave to special interest groups. Problem is, he's a libertarian in a conservative party. There are too many types of libertarianism to define within this paragraph what it actually is. Suffice it to say, some bits are okay, some bits are dubious and some are downright kooky. As a minarchist, Paul fits in the middle somewhere. But that's the only place he fits. What really makes Paul unelectable is...he's too damn old. By Nov next year, he'll be 77. If McCain was too old at 70, who'll vote for this guy? He's polling better than I expected, and he's now running hard negative on Gingrich. Some people think Ron Paul is an extremist nutball. But our next few candidates make him look like Billy Moderate from Soberville.

5. Rick Perry

Rick Perry
(Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Oh Rick. What happened? It was all going so well! As recently as September, Texas governor Rick Perry was the clear frontrunner in the GOP battle, with over 30% support. Then, in a matter of days, he became the anti-Mitt, with one gaffe after the other. Appearing drunk or drugged on stage in New Hampshire, screwing up the minimum voting age, and the kicker...forgetting which three government departments he'd eliminate if elected. It's been suggested he's on medication for a back problem. If so, it may be time to change meds. Although, unless Rick can do some fancy dancing between now and the NH primary, he's probably gonna have to secede, I mean cede.

6. Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann

There always has to be a crazed, glazed, frothing nutball driven by Jebus, hatred and stoopid. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. When Palin announced she'd cashed in her chips, Bachmann became the sole darling of the loose collection of underpants-on-their-heads idiots called the Tea Party. It didn't last long. This is the kind of clunge-for-brains who says that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation, confuses John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy, still thinks the Soviet Union exists...oh, and she hates homosexuals (except her husband) and abortion and all that usual hypocritical bullshit that these fuckwits who want government to butt out of their lives unless it's to stop you living yours. She's the poison candidate, thankfully sitting at only 4.5%.

7. Rick Santorum

Frothy Rick Santorum
(Gage Skidmore)

If you Google the word 'Santorum', the first result displays two definitions, namely: 1) the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex and 2) [Pennsylvania] Senator Rick Santorum. He obviusly doesn't like this attribution. Santorum is the deluded Brady Bunch candidate. He envisages a world where gay people don't exist, every baby conceived is a sweet gift from God and intelligent design is taught as cosmological 'theory' in schools. Simply put, frothy Rick walks through life in a cloud of perfumed fucktardery. His Leave it to Beaver bizarro-world view masks something sinister. Oh, he plays catch and saves an apple from the pie for teacher but you just know he's the guy in the bushes secretly jacking off to the lynching outside the sock hop. Rick Santorum is a pestilence in American politics who appeals only to those with similarly zombified views. And butt gravy. Once again, good to know he's languishing.

8. Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman
(Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Jon Huntsman. Former Governor of Utah. Ambassador to China. Very popular in Utah (he's also a Mormon), and until announcing, virtually unknown. Considered a RINO by many conservatives. Biggest splash so far has been in the form of campaign ads made by his three daughters, most notably a parody of a Herman Cain ad. He looks good, he sounds good, but he doesn't have a shot...until maybe...2016? This run may just be Huntsman's aperitif.

In the next instalment, we'll be sharing with you the best places online to get good information, including stats, poll numbers, campaign contributions...and whether someone's lying out of their santorum-y bum.

The Gay People in Love Thing - Addendum

2011-12-03T11:05:00.002+10:00

Most Bigmouthery readers will by now know that the Civil Partnerships Bill in Queensland passed earlier this week, 47-40, opening the door for same-sex couples to have their unions recognised under the law. Good news, indeed. A big step.

As I write, the Australian Labor Party national conference is taking place in Sydney. For Bigmouthers outside Australia who don't know, the ALP is the party in power at federal level, albeit ruling as a minority government. For those who don't know what Sydney is, shut up and never speak again.

The Prime Minister, known in a previous Bigmouthery entry as That Fuckin' Julia Gillard, has opposed 'moving forward' on gay marriage. However, the conference has, in the last few minutes, voted 205-185 in favour of holding a conscience vote at a national parliamentary level. Another step. Of course, getting it through federally will not be easy. As I said, Labor at a parliamentary level is not in a strong position, governing only with the help of independents. Plus, unlike Queensland, Australia has a Senate, although it's the House that will be the big test.

Bigmouthery will keep banging on about this issue until it's not an issue. Some people think that there are bigger issues at play in this country, and there are. Mainly because gay marriage shouldn't be an issue at all.

This move does not really change my view of this generation of politicians as a bunch of robots controlled by daily talking points. Governments that govern as they campaign are hollow. That's probably why I find campaigns far more interesting. On that note stay tuned for Part One of the Bigmouthery presidential election campaign special! B'bye!

Private Members Bill - Civil Unions.

2011-11-29T21:11:00.003+10:00

Politics makes strange bedfellows, goes the saying bastardised from The Tempest. In Australia in recent years, it's also made for quite boring bedfellows. Unless the subject is bedfellows.

The Civil Partnerships Bill, introduced into Queensland Parliament by Labor MP and Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser will be debated on as early as Wednesday evening. If the bill passes, civil partnerships will be recognised under the law, regardless of sex.

Today I received an email from friend and colleague Chris Vernon urging support in favour of the legislation, as well as lobbying at a federal level. The Queensland vote will be a close-run thing. The LNP opposition is voting against the legislation, but Labor MPs are allowed a conscience vote (an abhorrently rare occurrence). If seven vote against the bill, it's a goner.

Bigmouthery's view on gay marriage is a matter of public record. To put it mildly, there is no reasonable argument against it. To put it Bigmoutherily, all arguments against gay marriage are a steaming load of horseshit. Yes, on this issue, I am happy to be viewed as leaning quite heavily in one direction.

Bigmouthery's views on public rallies are less well-known. Let's just say that I'm not quite as fervent. However, this is one rally I wholeheartedly support. Unfortunately, I have a meeting tomorrow and will miss the rally being held outside Parliament House, but I urge you to attend if you can. If not, do what you can. Get in touch with your local MP and make your voice heard.

The idea that, in 2011, people are denied a basic human right because they are attracted to different sex bits is a nonsense. This one's a complete no-brainer, folks. Homosexuality is not a crime, LGBT people cannot be forced out of love and it may surprise you to know that a goodly wallop of 'em are already in relationships. So, let's turn 12 already and help to push this one through.

Calling Kyle Sandilands Names.

2011-11-25T13:59:00.000+10:00

A picture of a lobby obscured by an effluvial blob of shit.

After this morning's little jab at Kyle Sandilands, someone chided me for calling him names at the same time as admitting I had no idea he was in the news for once again being the wetslapped bucket of diarrhoea he is.

Obviously they missed the subtle gag. But then I thought, 'you know...I shouldn't be calling Kyle Sandilands names...that's wrong. I should invite other people to call him names too.'

So, Bigmouthers, here's your chance to exercise REAL freedom of speech (not the ignorant version espoused by that beefbone-brain mong).

Leave your best descriptions of Sandilands in the comments section for your chance to win the very first Bigmouthery custom t-shirt!

Get fucking going!

Kyle Sandilands is a Bloated, Fatuous Bucket of Arse Milk.

2011-11-25T07:28:00.002+10:00

Porcine cunt.

Bigmouthery's views on Kyle Sandilands, that clarified skidmark of a human, have been on record since August 2009 after he continued to pry into the sex life of a teenager after she'd admitted being raped. We even went so far as to post an online petition calling for his removal from the airwaves.

I'm going out of town this weekend, so there's no time to set up and monitor a new "Let's Skin Sandilands, Set Him Alight and Dance Around His Slow-Burning Lardball of a Corpse" petition.

All Bigmouthery is seeking to do is re-affirm the view that Kyle Sandilands is one of this country's great arse lozenges.

Oh, someone's just told me he's in the news again for being a cunt. What a happy coincidence.

Meh.

2011-11-21T17:47:00.003+10:00

The problem is, I don't really care enough to say anything at this point. I'm going back to a drug-induced sleep.

The Bigmouth is Back.

2011-11-20T08:52:00.001+10:00

It's a big world. You wouldn't wanna eat it. My world is pretty small, yet I have had plenty within it to keep me from you. Although, truth be known, I have had a few moments spare to talk about the Occupy movement, the coverage of Peter Roebuck's death, the decline and fall of television, the GOP race towards the primaries, as well as some reader-suggested topics around music, the draining of the local dam and psychic chicanery. I just used those moments to do other things of a non-Bigmouthery nature. Like spend time with my girl. And learn the ukulele.

There are things to rant about tho', so I'm back. Gonna crank out a bunch of stuff, possibly related to all of the above. And, because things have been quiet here, no quarter will be given. So...hey there.

Oh...I also don't like this new design, so I'm going to change it.

All...Half New Bigmouthery.

2011-10-08T20:35:00.000+10:00

So here it is. The new Bigmouthery design. It is not as outlandish or radically different as I'd hoped, but time was dragging and my schedule didn't allow any more time on it. And I'm not very good at this kinda stuff. So...to paraphrase Hyman Roth, I want all to enjoy your blog...so...enjoy!

Spring Awakening.

2011-10-07T10:13:00.000+10:00

Hallo again, daaaaahlings. Oscar Theatre Company's production of Spring Awakening is the show that's kept me from you in recent weeks. It opens next week at the Cremorne at QPAC. Book here and book fast. The word is that tickets are flying. For more info on Oscar, go here.

This show is sure to make musical theatre lovers all dizzy in the bits. And who doesn't want their bits dizzied?

Gimme a Sec.

2011-10-04T08:50:00.001+10:00

Hallo. Please forgive the lack of mouth action lately. I'm currently getting to the pointy end of another show. The new design is close to completion and normal service will resume shortly.

Don't Wait for October 3 - Get Facebook Timeline NOW!

2011-09-26T14:42:00.003+10:00

Last night I was loitering around Facebook while fretting over problems with Bigmouthery's new layout (which I haven't decided on yet). I'd spent no time there since their big timeline rollout a few days ago so wanted to see the changes. Didn't notice many changes, couldn't find a timeline, was informed by a little note that the changes are coming in early October. Then I read a post by friend, Facebook friend and all-round social networkista Kate Foy mentioning a 'back door'. Then I found, via this story at TechCrunch, that back door is 'developer status'.

In short, if you get developer status, you can get Timeline. And once you have timeline, you are ready to start sucking down the fizzy, scrapbook-style goodness of your entire Facebook existence RIGHT NOW! Wanna do it? Course you do!

1. Login (guhhhh!).

2. Go to the Facebook Developers Page. Alternatively, you can just search for the developer app the usual way (Guuuuh!).

3. Allow access to your info, then Create New App. You can use any name you like as long as it's not already in use. Make sure you look at the privacy info (snort).

4. Once you're in the app's main screen, look for the header entitled Open Graph & click Get Started with Open Graph.

5. From here you create an action for the app. It could be 'read' a 'book', as the TechCrunch one below does. I put 'read' a 'blog'. Unfortunately, I didn't think to try 'do' a 'poo'. Click Get Started.

6. Go back to home and there should be an invite waiting for you. If not, give it a minute before smashing things.

And now you're ready to begin the empty, short-lived bragging!

If Facebook Can Do It...

2011-09-25T08:22:00.001+10:00

..then so can I. That's the new rule. In the next bit Bigmouthery's look and feel will change. Gone the days of a guy standing atop Mt Wellington, gone the grey background. Instead, we're bringing you a whole new experience. But what will it be? New features? Enhanced browsing? Fewer swears? No, no and fuck no. I'm just gonna change the picture and bg colour.

Just one of the ways Bigmouthery is working to improve your already privileged life.

You Suck Again.

2011-09-17T08:43:00.000+10:00

I'm happy to report that You Suck Day has not resulted (as yet) in too much negative reaction, which is good. If you have come here thinking that I detest you, read the original post. Fuckhead.

You Suck!!! Day, 2011.

2011-09-16T07:00:00.001+10:00

You suck.

If you're visiting this page for the first time, you suck. If you've come here after finding a 'you suck message', you suck. If you want to write a vitriolic comment....you suck. If you wanna write a supportive comment, you suck. There's no limit to the end of your suckery. You suck more than a dime-alley-skank with an industrial vacuum cleaner for a grubhole. If you chose to ignore the whole thing, you won't even see this, but, my friend...you suck worst of all.

A couple of months ago I hit upon an idea to spread a bit of random nicery. It was called 'June - The Month of Joy'. It involved hand-scribbling several hundred post-it note-sized pieces of scrap paper with messages of affirmation, with a link to this site on the back. The arrival of my partner from America played a great part in prompting this desire to spread a little joy and it (along with a theatrical project) also contributed to the stalling of the project on exactly June 17. So it was more a fortnight of joy than a full month. Nevertheless, I was was interested to see if the finding of a little note telling a stranger that they are good, worthwhile person would have any kind of effect.

The Month of Joy was not really about building up a collective frisson or generating huge amounts of feedback (and in so doing driving up traffic) but I'd be lying if I said the thought didn't cross my mind, or appeal. Which is just as well, because in that regard it was a total failure. Apart from a few friends who said they'd contribute to the project, the blog received two comments from strangers.

In the second half of June I sat staring blankly at about 500 bits of paper that I knew would never be distributed. I spent a little more time pondering if the joy thing was about you (as I maintained it was) or me. I weighed up the whole Comte vs Ayn Rand thing (as I often do) and decided it didn't matter much. However it threw up the novel but potentially faux-misanthropic idea of what effect the opposite would have, both on me and you: sprinkling the town with negative notes. Would it make me feel terrible? Would people take it in a more personal way than they did when greeted with randon messages telling them that they are essentially good and curious and kind? Will it make no impact whatsoever? Do I suck for doing it?

Let's find out.

9/11 - 2011.

2011-09-11T22:46:00.002+10:00

September 11, 2001 is a moon landing or JFK assassination moment. 'Do you remember where you were when...?' I suppose earlier generations had them too and have often wondered what they may have been. Probably where you were when you heard that Chamberlain had declared war or, earlier still, when you got your first buboe. My 9/11 memory is not that exciting but still very clear.

I was living in Toowong, across from the old ABC studios. My father had been in the ground a week, I was off sick with a cold and had gone to bed at 10.30pm. As was common back then, I was drifting off to the ambient noise of the BBC World Service when an announcer broke into the scheduled program to say that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. My first thought was an aircraft along the lines of a Cessna or Piper Cherokee, and while I imagined such a collision to be pretty bad, in my drowsy, feverish and medicated state gave it scant attention. Then the phone rang. It was my friend Chris, who told me to turn on Channel 10. Immediately it became apparent that this was a hell of a lot more serious than I'd first imagined. Chris and I chatted for a few minutes, then the second plane struck. The anchor didn't notice it at first but we did and after a moment of paralysing shock it became apparent that this was deliberate. Once we'd both absorbed what was happening, my first comment was, 'How many more are there?' Once the culprits and motives were established, my fear was that rabid anger and bloodlust would replace the wholly understandable grief and introspection.

It's ten years on. The fear that America's reaction would be one of revenge rather than collective soul-searching came to pass. One semi-literate president, a man who made incredibly large errors, was wrongly branded evil. Another president, regarded by some as a new hope and by others as a radical Muslim socialist, is neither. In 2011, America's economy is in a parlous state and both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, the nation is still mired in the conflicts that arose from the events of September 11 and a pall hangs over a truly great country.

The whole world will remember 9/11/2001 today, as it has every year since it happened, yet the remembrance is not without controversy. New York's official service has gone ahead with no official religious representation and this has caused ire among the religious, despite the fact that the ceremony will be similar to those on every anniversary. Under the circumstances, it's probably best that pastors and priests and rabbis stay away from the lectern. If it weren't for certain people's misguided belief in a god, those four planes that took off from America's eastern seaboard would have reached their scheduled destinations and none of this would have happened. Nearly 3000 people died on 9/11 and countless more have died as a result. Millions of lives have been negatively affected all because a few glazed, brainwashed retards fell for some extremist bullshit and murdered in the name of their god. It's time to reintroduce the notion that, in order to avoid calamities of this nature, bronze-aged mythology must be eschewed in favour of reason, compassion and love.

Goodbye Vodafone.

2011-09-11T10:51:00.000+10:00

After sorting a new provider and running down my remaining credit, yesterday we finally said goodbye to Vodafone. If you're thinking of going with Vodafone as your mobile carrier, consider two things very carefully:

1) You may wish to save data by using a Wi-Fi connection when it's available. According to a Vodafone representative my partner spoke to last month, Vodafone will still suck the data usage from your prepaid allowance. She said that from July 8, it doesn't matter if you are at home with your Wi-Fi switched on, they'll eat your credit. I cannot find this new ruling in their terms and conditions, yet we've both experienced download issues when we're hooked up to Wi-Fi.

2) The dead zones. On an average daily trip to work from Taringa to Springwood, I regularly experience no internet service from Auchenflower to Roma Street, The Cultural Centre to Buranda and a small spot around Eight Mile Plains. You can never tell when it's going to work, and when you really want it to...it generally doesn't.

So...we've gone with TPG. Some will say this is also a bad move, but as I said in the last entry...it's a phone company. It doesn't matter if it's a bank, insurance company or telco, someone's always going to have a horror story. And 24 hours in, TPG's working like a charm. In other words, as it's supposed to.

Now, for no good reason and because it's a lovely Sunday morning, here's a song.

mX - Tomorrow's Fish & Chip Wrapper Today!

2011-08-28T18:10:00.004+10:00

Image not doctored.

Do you pick up a copy of mX on the way home? I do, if I can't get my phone to work...or I don't have a book...or I'm not spending time with another human being...or I'm in a mood to hang on to the last functioning vestiges of brain I have left. In other words, not much. A recent study carried out by a major research organisation found that if all mX newspapers were placed in a big pile, they'd make the awesomest bonfire ever in the world.
But when I do pick up a copy, oh how I love it! I love it so much i have to share. Here are a few things I've noticed about the eastern seaboard's favourite daily rag:

mX is really handy when you've not been able to find 10 minutes between 6.30am and 5pm to go online and find out which no-name clamhawker with life-preserver boobies wore a shoelace and an ice-cream container to the gala opening of the redemptive finale, Saw 23 - Oh, Did I Hurt You? I'm Really Sorry, I'll Just Pop and Get You a Band-Aid.

It's also fantastic if you wanna hear about the man in Albania who proposed to his girlfriend by building a life-sized statue of her made entirely from his own poo.

There are some great games to play in mX. Not Sudoku or any of the other printed puzzles...these are ones I've invented for my own (and now your) enjoyment. My favourite is called 'Count the Typos' which is pretty self explanatory, but if you pick up your copy in the city and get the tram, bus or train to Fitzroy or Erskineville or Toowong, you probably won't be able to finish it in time (48 is my record, but I had time 'cause I was on my way to Ipswich that day). The other one I'm fond of is a little trickier. I call it mX Troll. This one involves the troll letters planted by the mX editors in order to inflame readers into texting like crazy their furious responses about whether it's appropriate for girls to wear leggings without skirts. Hey, they gotta make you pay for the thing somehow.

I really love how they've managed to avoid a massive reduction in daily content despite the death of Amy Winehouse. She used to constitute 75% of every issue.

This one's more of a tip than an observation and it's aimed at every person who's written into the Here's Looking at You section (or iStalker as I call it). iStalker is the section where readers try to attract the attention of the cute guy on the train or the girl with the bangs and braids who serves you your skinny soy latte every morning. But I have a question for them: which tactic will prove more effective? Hoping like hell your spectactularly vague and nebulous 'I like you, g'huh!' will be printed in a daily rag that ends up in the bin before dinner time, or growing a pair, approaching them in person and ASKING THEM OUT? Related tip: if you're the guy who has a crush on the soy latte girl and you MUST use mX as your gelded way of angling for a shag, don't ask her out for coffee, you tardburger.

I have to confess a love for the Overheard section. It reinforces my sad and cynical belief that ol' cowardly coffee boy up there is representative of a broad cross-section of tardburgers, and because I listen to music on the way home, I can read all the stupid shit people say without having hear them say it live.

I get the feeling that the people who put mX together just grab all the shit that I've read online before leaving for work and cobble it together around the ads for mobile phone deals, wrap that up by 9am and then hang out on Twitter and brainstorm new troll topics till lunch. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. And they get paid for it! Lucky bastards. On the writers' food chain, they're still a few levels above me and my shitty blog.

So, if you can't beat 'em, try and join 'em. I'm considering going into print with my own free daily bumrag...let me know what you think:

Strange Justice - The West Memphis Three.

2011-08-27T10:00:00.043+10:00

L-R: Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. - Top, just after their arrests. Bottom, Aug 19, 2011.

Last week, three young men who have come to be known as the West Memphis Three were set free after 18 years behind bars for the murder of three children. In 1993, they maintained their innocence. The courts found them guilty, sentencing two to life and one to death. On 19 August, after changing their pleas to guilty, they were conditionally released, time served. Sound odd? Read on.

It's just after sundown on May 5, 1993. Three eight-year-old boys, Michael Moore, Christopher Byers and Steve Branch, are reported missing from the Robin Hood Hills neighbourhood in West Memphis, Arkansas. A search begins in the early hours of the next day and at around lunchtime the boys' bodies (warning - potentially distressing image) are discovered, naked, bound and in one case castrated, in a drainage canal by Interstates 40 and 55. Autopsy results show that Michael and Steve died by drowning, Chris from blood loss. Given the state in which the boys' bodies were found, a couple of detectives speculate that the murder may be a form of cult killing.

Within days, police interview Damien Echols, 18, a local youth from an impoverished background. Why Echols? Police knew him as a misfit, having previously enforced a short stint in a mental health facility based on a rumour that he and his then-girlfriend planned to give birth to a child that they would then ritually sacrifice. Echols and his 16-year-old friend Jason Baldwin certainly do not fit the archetype of southern youth.. They share a taste in heavy metal music and occult fiction, wear their hair long and often dress in black. It's an aesthetic that presents a stark contrast to the majority of other youth in the area. Both express a disaffection with the prevailing culture of the Bible Belt town.

Subsequent reports have it that a polygraph test taken by Echols with regard to the killings indicate deception, though no record of the test is kept. Neither boy is free from trouble; Baldwin has been busted for shoplifting and vandalism, Echols for burglary (he and a girlfriend took shelter from the rain in a trailer). Baldwin too is interviewed on numerous occasions, though again, scant records of the conversations are kept. The West Memphis PD leaks information to the public about the nature of the crime, telegraphing their suspicions that the murders were of a ritualistic nature. Hysteria grips the small Arkansas town. Gossip and misinformation are rife. As it becomes clear to the public that Echols and Baldwin are the focus of the investigation, a fervour whips up around the notion that the Byers, Moore and Branch were sacrificed in a Satanic-type ceremony.

Despite weeks of interviews and unannounced visits by the WMPD to the homes of Baldwin and especially Echols, no breakthough is made until the interview of Jessie Misskelley Jr. in early June. Jessie is 18 years old and has an IQ of 72, which makes him borderline mentally retarded. Prior to the interview, Misskelley waives his Miranda rights, meaning that no lawyer or parent is present. During the interview Misskelley implicates Echols and Baldwin, as well as himself, as being responsible for the deaths of Moore, Byers and Branch.

It's on the strength of the Misskelley confession that he, Echols and Baldwin are arrested and charged with murder. The interview (which, if you've come this far, you should definitely listen to and read), is riddled with loaded and leading questions from detectives and factual inaccuracy from Misskelley. He recants the confession shortly after.

A combination of circumstantial evidence, Bible Belt fervour, police misfeasance (and possibly malfeasance), jailbird implication, mouthy teens, lying locals, public cognitive bias and testimony from an expert with a mail order doctorate led to a guilty verdict. Echols was sentenced to death and Baldwin and Misskelley to life.

This would have been a case forgotten, just another example of rough Southern justice, if not for a pair of documentary film makers who travelled to Arkansas to cover what they believed was a court case about a Satanic murder. Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky made Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills for HBO in 1996, presenting what is now considered by many to be a gross miscarriage of justice. I saw it (and the 2000 sequel Revelations) about five years ago. Thirteen years had passed since the murders. Appeal after appeal had been rejected by Judge David Burnett, but the documentaries (and the rise of the internet) gave the case international exposure. Celebrities became vocal and more importantly, opened their wallets to assist the three with legal costs. But the West Memphis Three continued to languish in jail, despite witness claims of police coercion and allegations of juror misconduct.

In 2007, new analysis of DNA showed no evidence of Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley at the crime scene. This finding provided hope of a retrial but in 2008 Burnett refused on the basis that the result was not compelling evidence that would lead to an acquittal. Misskelley and Baldwin then petitioned for a retrial on the basis of ineffective counsel (Echols went this route years earlier, to no avail). In early 2010, Burnett rejected again. Then he went off to run for Arkansas State Senate which meant standing down as the man presiding over the WM3 case (he won a Senate spot, by the way).

In late 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed Burnett's '08 decision to ignore DNA evidence and ordered evidentiary hearings to consider both the DNA findings and the allegations of juror misconduct (this related to the police allegedly leaking parts of Misskelley's now-recanted confession to the media, which impacted the impartiality of the jury in the Echols and Baldwin trials). After examination of the evidence, Judge David Laser, the new man at the helm, ordered an evidentiary hearing for December this year.

While not obsessed with the WM3 case, I paid reasonably close attention after seeing the two HBO documentaries. I never held a firm opinion as to the convicted men's innocence or guilt (I even joined a message board committed to the belief that the three are the perpetrators, just to hear the views of its members) but was convinced that between the 'Satanic panic', the woefully sub-standard police investigation (including the totally fucked up Misskelley interviews which led to his confession), a load of horseshit from a supposed occult 'expert', terrible forensic findings and blatant police/media collusion, those men deserved a new trial with the new DNA evidence at the pointy end of the defence's case.

December was a-ways away though, so when I read last week that they'd been released, I was, like many who've followed the case, totally gobsmacked. The other side of my gob was smacked harder after reading about the Alford plea that got 'em out. I'd never heard of an Alford plea and even now, after reading up on it, still don't quite get it.

In short, this an Alford plea: a convicted criminal pleads guilty while being allowed to maintain innocence.

Here's how it went down. One of Echols' attorneys, Patrick Benca met with old school friend, who just happened to be Arkansas Attorney-General Dustin McDaniel. That led to a meeting between the defence teams and prosecutor Scott Ellington. Benca pitched the Alford plea, which for the defence would mean would mean freedom for the WM3 and for the state would mean, given the upcoming evidentiary hearings, an avoidance of three separate jury trials. Once state and defence had agreed, the next step was for the defence to present the plea bargain to the three men in jail. And all three had to buy in. Misskelley agreed. Echols, who'd been on death row in a supermax facility for over a decade, not surprisingly, also agreed. The only holdout was Jason Baldwin, the youngest of the three. His initial resistance threatened the whole deal until it became apparent that by pleading guilty to a crime he swears he did not commit, he'd be saving the life of Damien Echols. Once Baldwin was on board, the three men were soon in front of Judge Laser, pleading guilty to the murders of three eight-year-old boys and being told, effectively, 'Okay, you admitted child murderers...off you go then.'

If one accepts that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley are innocent, it's easy to see that their decision to plead guilty cannot have been easy. For those who believe they are the murderers it must feel like a sickening injustice. But for those who've been following along with the West Memphis Three saga , it's just another strange twist in an bizarre case, a case that still leaves many questions dangling.

The state of Arkansas records that the three men who've spent 18 years behind bars for triple homicide are guilty. Does it sit well that they've let three convicted child-killers go free?

If the three are, as they claim, innocent, then the real murderer or murderers continue to walk free. But the state records they have their men. So the case is closed and someone's got away with an horrific crime. How does that sit with prosecutors and law enforcement?

Was the acceptance of an Alford plea on behalf of the state a mere 'sweeping under the rug' of the case, a tacit admission that they knew they had the wrong guys but can't be fucked re-opening the case in order to find the real killer/s?

Echols made a good point when he said the only difference now is that he'll be able to fight for his innocence as a free man, rather than death row. And Baldwin's initial decision to stay in jail rather than plead guilty is telling, as is his decision to spare Echols another day on death row. I fully expect the West Memphis Three will continue fighting this conviction until they are totally exonerated. Because as things stand now, regardless of your position and however you look at it, this is very strange justice.

If you are interested in finding out more about the WM3 case, Callahan's is by far the best online resource. It contains the complete (apart from that allegedly spliced out) and unbiased Misskelley interview material. The major Pro-3 and Anti-3 sites are here and here.

Birthdays, Deathdays and the Beauty In Between.

2011-08-22T06:55:00.001+10:00

Huh?

Birthdays often call to mind one's mortality. Certainly the last few years have been that way for me ("Oh it's all 'me me me' with you isn't it Nx?!" Yes my treacle-covered readers, yes it is.)

This year's no different except...it's different.
Since August 21 last year I've found a certain equilibrium not present in the prime-numbered, rapid-cycling, train-track-happy recently-diagnosed BPD 'sufferer' who wrote you from almost this very spot. A number of factors have contributed to the balance the "three th's" as I like to call them: therapy, theatre and tharmatheuticalth. Moreover, my domestic atmosphere improved considerably. Most of all, love has made its presence clear. One might say love is now omnipresent. I might say it. In fact, I will say it.

Concerned as I've been with more positive and enjoyable pursuits, I'm happy to say that the imminence of my own departure has not been uppermost in my mind. In the last week or so I've been to two funerals and as a result my attention was inevitably turned to how we say goodbye, which I've always found very unusual. I've never understood making a centrepiece of a box containing the shell of the person we have come to mourn, or as they like to say, 'celebrate the life of'. And that's what this entry was going to be about, until my birthday came along and received probably the best birthday gift ever from someone I cherish more than meagre words can convey. We took a short trip up to Hervey Bay to watch whales.

I could describe the event but there's little point. It's something that has to be experienced. Now we're home, all I can say is that I'm happy to have lived long enough to have been able to see the frolics of such amazing creatures and shared it with someone for whom my love knows no bounds. I thank my darling Rhonda from the bottom of my heart for making it happen. I'm glad to have made 42 (when the woman who drove us down to the marina heard it was my birthday, she said '21 again, eh?' I thought...yes, literally). I'm grateful to know such wonderful people, people who really care about me, and I'm really just happy to have made it this far when I almost definitely shouldn't have.

In the last couple of months I've been made keenly aware of how much more growing up there is to do, how much there is to learn and more importantly, how much I desire to grow and learn. 42, as most of you know, is Deep Thought's answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. I'm very much looking forward to spending the rest of life enjoying simple pleasures like gawping in wonder at huge mammals and pondering what the question may be.

A Note on Daniel Morcombe (with update)

2011-08-15T23:00:00.001+10:00

Source

The arrest and charging of a suspect in relation to the death of Daniel Morcombe has led to a wholly expected froth of media interest in the case. Concomitantly and perhaps more importantly, renewed public interest has thrust a crucial issue into the spotlight: how our use of social media may affect the outcome.

A few days ago on Facebook I made a passing comment about the need for sobriety of thought when speaking about the accused man on social networks. Within hours I saw quite a few baying for blood.
In 2011, we as individuals have just as much responsibility as the media in making sure that the law, and justice, can take its proper course. We are a fully-fledged medium. You don't have to be expert in jurisprudence to understand that a digital mob mentality may lead to a situation in which the defence can claim no chance of a fair trial for the accused.

The disappearance of Daniel in 2003 is undoubtedly one of the most high profile cases in Australian history, and inflammation of emotion at this time is understandable. But we must let the process run unimpeded by our own selfish desire to purge. Let the focus instead be on compassion and support for the Morcombe family, and the memory of their child.

Update: Since writing this last night and posting from the bus this morning, I've been made aware of a Courier-Mail article on the same topic.

Shut Your Bigmouthery.

2011-08-13T09:00:00.003+10:00

Source

Bigmouthery was close to breathing its last this week. Even as I make tiny changes to design and create new Facebook pages in an effort to revivify my (and hopefully others') interest, as I write a faint death rattle still sounds.

There is plenty to write about, I suppose. We're heading back into US presidential election mode, a subject that has held my interest for many years. I've also given some thought of late to the idea that ambivalence and syncretism are being bludgeoned by society's demand to hold fast an opinion, however unincubated. My own syncretic beliefs about topics such as the recent riots in England. Then there'll always be some nutty idea that needs a mattock to the face and I'm certainly never going to be done with the whole religion thing. Plus there's always an ad hoc rant about never too far away from the fingertips. So it's not that I'm devoid of ideas, however abstruse or unappealing they may be.

It's that last phrase which appears to be the rub. For some it is an easy matter to fill paper with the breathings of the heart, as Wordsworth might say, writing with such ease and producing ream after ream of brilliant and not-so-brilliant material. They care not for the reader's response, they care about nothing but the art itself. One of the true marks of an artist is single-minded and almost fascistic approach to their art. When it comes to writing, at the very least, I do not share this enviable attribute.

As in life, it would appear that as a 'writer' (or a person who writes - I feel the same way about music - not a musician, just a guy who occasionally makes up a tune with some words) I seek approbation. I've yet to determine whether this stems from mental condition or merely the human condition. Perhaps that part is irrelevant. I don't know. In my own roundabout way I have sought 'Bigmouthery affirmation' this week, and in their own roundabout way a handful of people have given it. Why I could not be more forthright in my desire for approval...I also don't know. We often dance around our real feelings, yet inside we're more like this:

The other reason I've been thinking about shutting my big mouth relates to an intentional dilution of venom in the last few entries. For a long time I have been mindful of the Kurt Vonnegut line "profanity and obscenity entitle people who don't want unpleasant information to close their ears and eyes to you." To this end I've even written two versions of the one post, with The Cult of Stupid and the Cult of Fucking Stupid back in 2009. It's also been difficult to justify the spreading of joy while simultaneously calling people 'cuntsponges'.

But fuck it. We are complex and contradictory and allowed to be syncretic...and I'll try not to mind so much if people want to close their eyes and ears, either because they find the information unpleasant or they just don't care. Bigmouthery will continue, for now at least. Fuckshovels.

The Census Religion Thing...Again.

2011-08-07T17:19:00.003+10:00

Source

Yesterday's entry on the census religion question came with an update. A reader commented: 'You can write down "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Humanist" or "Rationalist" in the box and you will be counted in one of these categories, which fall within the broader group "No Religion"'.

This morning I went to the e-census form to check it out. The optional religion question is Number 19 of the 60-odd asked. Here's what it says:

And the choices:

So there is provision for you to write 'secular humanist', 'atheist', 'rationalist' etc. but not under the 'no religion' banner. You'd have to consider yourself a religious non-believer and I know exactly zero atheists who consider atheism a religion. Some religious people often make the claim that atheism is indeed a religion, but the standard riposte to that flawed suggestion is that atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colour, or not collecting coins is a hobby.

In essence, my suggestion for Question 19 still stands: if you do not practise a recognised religion, please mark your 'no religion' on your census form.

Census 2011 - Tips for the Non-Believer.

2011-08-06T15:36:00.015+10:00

Update: According to a commenter below, and my partner Rhonda, who is currently working for the census helpline, there is provision for a little elaboration around the 'no religion' category. My thanks to both Glenn and my darling Rh for this info. I haven't had a look at the census form yet and don't plan on doing it tonight because a Wild Turkey is calling me, but if there's anything to report, you'll read first, or possibly third, at Bigmouthery.

(Full update HERE.)

The Australian Census is next Tuesday, August 9. While there are a few people who consider such headcounts as the Big Brotherish machinations of evil, most of us have hemispheres of brain not stuck together with Clag, so we get it. (More...)

Tracking trends in migration within and without a country, planning for the provision of services like health, public transport and education, assessing changes in order to determine the use of revenue for infrastructure all make a great deal of sense. Consider also the more historical and romantic notes of providing future generations an opportunity to view what Australia was like back in the days of yore (although in 2111 it'll be spelled 'ur').

One of the questions that sparks comment, if not outright controversy, at census time is that relating to religion. It's an optional question that I have always answered willingly. In 1991 I probably wrote 'Roman Catholic', despite my waning faith. In 1996, it was definitely 'no religion'. In 2001, I, along with all who were in my house that evening, flippantly wrote 'Jedi'. And last time, having learned the error of my 2001 ways, wrote 'no religion' again.

If you actively identify as belonging to a recognised religion, obviously this question is an easy one. You either mark which religion you are or you choose not to answer. Job done, thanks for stopping by. (Apostates, read on...)

But if you don't, what's wrong with writing Jedi or Pastafarian or even Bieberite? Well, as many of you may already now know, these responses do not fall into the 'no religion' category. Rather, they are listed as 'not defined' and give a wholly inaccurate picture of the nation's religious breakdown. Of course, you may actually be an adherent of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (SBUH) , having been touched by his noodly appendage. Some consider it a legitimate religion, but it will not be counted as such this year.

No doubt the proliferation of the internet has led to the largest campaigns yet to inform those with no religion to mark their census forms simply, 'no religion'. You may in all seriousness consider yourself an active atheist, a Bright, a post-theist, an anti-theist, a secular humanist or any of the other myriad terms we've come up with to denote that we don't believe in a god of any description. Yet if you mark your census form in this manner, you will also be heading for the 'not defined' category. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a detailed breakdown of the religion question.

Is it such a big deal? It depends what you consider a 'big deal' to be. The ABS says:

Data classified by religion can be used for policy and planning purposes related to the location and development of educational facilities and church buildings, aged persons' care facilities and services, and the provision of other social services by religious organisations. The classification enhances the usefulness of data used to assist in assigning chaplains and other care providers to hospitals, prisons, armed services, universities, and other institutions. It can also be used to determine the allocation of time to particular community groups on public radio and in other media, and is a useful tool in general sociological research.

If you are the kind of person who interprets this to mean that numbers falsely skewed in favour of religious adherence will lead to a further bleeding of religion into politics, you should simply mark your census form 'no religion' next Tuesday. That is, of course, if you ascribe to Chapter V, Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I've known many people over the years who popped 'Christian' on the census form purely because that's the faith they were baptised into as an infant. They may never have been given even the most perfunctory schooling in the faith of their indoctrination, they may never have chosen another, they may not even believe in a supernatural entity of any flavour. Yet somehow they still feel compelled to cling on to the notion that, when they were no bigger than, and about as cognisant as a loaf of bread, some guy in a dress pouring water on their head over a glorified sink makes them a member of the faith. A grown man (I use the term loosely) once told me that, despite never having been in a church outside of his baptism and attending a couple of weddings still called himself a Christian because, "well that's what me Mum made me". In the next breath he said that all religion was "fuckin' bullshit".

Saying you're still an Anglican because nominally you used to be an Anglican is like someone's who's had their eyes removed saying they can still see.

If you're not sure about it, that's perfectly fine. The nature, origin, purpose and possible meaning of the universe is not an easy topic to get your head around. But in the context of the census, the ABS has made the distinction between religion and no religion quite clear for us:

Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense.

Simply put, if you don't practise a religion...you have no religion. If you aren't regularly attending church services, temple, going to the mosque for Friday prayers, worshipping a deity or idol or supernatural being of any sort, you have no religion. Do you adhere to hadiths and hold firm to the belief that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse? No? Then you're not really a Muslim. If your idea of being Jewish is identifying with the Diaspora, loving Curb Your Enthusiasm, listening to Jascha Heifetz and occasionally calling people meshuggeneh, you ain't Jewish. If the extent of your Christianity is thinking Jesus was pretty cool and turning up to church at Christmas and Easter because "it's the done thing", you may not be fakakta, but you aren't a Christian. This isn't merely my bigmouthery, these are widely considered the doctrines of each respective faith (even considering the many and varied doctrines/denominations within each). Having a fondness for elephants does not make you a worshipper of Ganesha. Smoking pot does not mean you're a Rastafarian.

Having a vague sense of the existence of something in the universe larger than ourselves is not grounds for calling yourself a person of religion. You may even have some kind of nebulous faith in a pantheistic-style totality, but that ain't religion. Hell, even as an non-believer I sometimes have a FEELING that we are more than the sum of our parts, but sentience is not science. Feeling does not necessitate belief.

It's for this reason I'll be marking 'no religion' on the census form this coming Tuesday and urging the similarly-minded to do the same. Or maybe I'll just get really drunk and put Justin Bieber.

Slodafone.

2011-08-03T15:53:00.002+10:00

Everyone hates phone companies. And banks. And insurance companies. And internet providers, if they're not already part of phone companies. And any other organisation that knows we've come to rely on them so heavily, they seem to delight in getting away with pretty much anything. And despite their protestations to the contrary, they do. (More...)

It's for this reason that I don't spend too much time going on about 'em, preferring instead to throw up my hands and sigh heavily, nolo contendre. Or words to that effect. You don't have to travel too far to find someone whose hatred for one of the above throws them into paroxysms.
Many things piss me off, but as my focus has been shifted in recent weeks to more enjoyable pursuits, shall we say (and say we shall), adding one more rant about a topic that's already reached saturation point is not my idea of good Bigmouthery fare.
But a blog ain't a blog unless you're blogging, so this morning I warmed my fingers around a coffee and prepared to write a blog about the upcoming Australian Census. As I mentioned the topic to my dearest darling love Rhonda as she prepared for her day (coincidentally, as an agent working for the census helpline) she said, "I thought you were going to write a blog about Vodafone."

So I'm writing a blog entry about Vodafone, not just because I love my girl, but because she said 'Vodafone' with such venom that all the vegetation outside our window immediately withered and died.
Not a woman to be trifled with. Rhonda arrived in Brisbane just over a month ago and will be here a while, so one of our settling in tasks was to get her sorted for a new phone. Her 'old' one, a lovely little Motorola Droid (known here as a Milestone) was hooked up to Verizon's CDMA network and as such, did not have the facility for a SIM card.

In fact, we both needed new phones. The story of my N95 is well-documented, except for the part where the back of my phone fell in between a train and the platform and I had to keep the battery in with sticky tape. After not too much deliberation (I'd already spent a long time comparing and decided that the HTC Desire Z was the way to go), all that was left to do was pick a phone company.

I'm already with Vodafone and have been since getting a 6300 a few years ago. I've always been a pre-paid guy and at the time had no interest in online phone access. All I wanted was a carrier who gave me better value for money on calls and texts than Telstra (which wasn't hard). Plus, I have to admit being superficial enough to go with the phone company that at one time had sponsored my favourite football team.

Earlier this year Vodafone sent a bulk "Ooops, we totally fucked up" email to all its customers...

.. but I didn't really pay much attention. Although I knew about the Vodafone-3/Hutchison merger causing problems for customers because of lack of infrastructure, it didn't seem to be affecting me all that much. And in this day and age, that's all that matters, right?

Even a month later during the Easter break when thousands of Vodafone customers were unable to call or text, I wasn't affected. Maybe I just didn't call or text anyone. My phone's internet worked about as well as it always had...not well. I had nothing to compare it to, so I never expected better.

In June Vodafone sent a pleading letter saying they were beefing up infrastructure in our area, spending a zillion dollars on new towers blahdy blah and it should start getting much better by July.

So armed with all that half-knowledge, I figured we'd stick with Vodafone in the short term as the other providers weren't offering much difference by way of pre-paid value and we could always ditch 'em with no comebacks if they screwed up.

Last week we entered the surprisingly crowded Queen St Mall Vodafone/3 store to grab a SIM and ask about different prepaid options. We were met at the door by two 12-year-old girls with clipboards. 'Hah, wecuh Vaahfahh, hahhyoodaday?' Is there some kind of new medical procedure in this country that requires children to have their frenulums snipped, re-tied and their tongues glued to the floor of their mouths? Rhonda looked at her as if she was speaking another language, which she was (if you're still having trouble deciphering the above, it's "Welcome to Vodafone, how are you today?"). I told the girl what we were after and expected that she'd give us a SIM pack, a brochure and walk us to a register where we'd conduct a simple commercial transaction and be on our way to the wondrous land of mediocre mobile phone service.

No, she wrote my name on her clipboard and referred us to another 12-year-old girl who spent two minutes reluctantly going through a pre-paid brochure with us. There are a couple of things to point out here: 1) Rhonda will not be rushed. She chooses everything judiciously and will not make said choice until she is confident she's made the right one and 2) 12-year-old Vodafone girl most likely only hits KPIs or gets a bonus if she's locking people into contracts. In terms of customer service, this was a bad scenario for all concerned. She was outta there as soon as she saw an opening, rushing over to a mobile and a laptop to take a sales call.

After a few minutes drifting, I went back to the pubescent Captain Peacock at the entrance and, just like the flight attendant in Meet the Parents, she greeted me as if we'd never seen each other before. She was about to write my name on her waiting list clipboard again. She flipped us to yet another 12-year-old girl who finally began the process registering the SIM. Rhonda was given a choice of three phone numbers. She chose one and I immediately put it in my phone. Then she was told all was complete but it may take up to four hours before the phone could be used, and even then only after she'd gone through another registration process. Of course, when she got around to registering, she was issued with a different number.

I left the store thinking I'd made a terrible mistake, but couldn't help feeling that it would have been just as crap everywhere else. And of course, I still figured we could change companies if Vodafone didn't work out.

À la peanut butter sandwich! Vodafone hasn't worked out. Within two days of buying Rhonda's SIM and sticking $29 credit on it, she received a message saying she had 6Mb of 500Mb data remaining. Obviously we found this to be more than a little puzzling. As a precaution against either reaching or going over our data limit, we'd both set our phones to connect automatically to our home wifi connection. This way we could do all of our major system updating without any drama. Rhonda had downloaded a maps update that morning. Approx 300Mb. She did it at home connected to wifi, so no bother...right?

Wrong. Fuming, she rang Vodafone's (alleged) customer service line, only to be flipped, as expected, from pillar to post before finding out that from July 8, 2011, Vodafone counts all data usage as mobile data usage, regardless of your phone's connection to third party wifi. After much remonstration, Rhonda was able to get 100Mb of data put back on her account.

So your phone may allow you to hook up to your home internet (or any other wifi connection, for that matter) which is great if you want to save a bit of mobile data...but Vodafone, already haemorraghing customers at a rate of over 100000 per month, doesn't care. They want to sting you for mobile internet that I'm only now realising is about as shitty as mobile internet can be. So that's that. We're done with 'em. The alternative is for all the lush flora in my neighbourhood to be killed by my darling's quiet fury.

Rabbit - Farewell.

2011-07-29T18:21:00.001+10:00

Every now and then a show comes along in which all the elements blend together to make a wonderful little organism. It lives a beautiful life then breaks up into its constituent parts and goes off to do other things. It lives on only in the minds of the people who made it...and hopefully the people who came to watch it breathe. Rabbit was one of those shows. (More...)

Last night it closed after a whirlwind season of a few weeks. Not since The Pillowman in 2009 have I had the good fortune to be part of a such a great team.

To everyone, our director, my castmates, our creatives and crew, I offer my thanks and love...as well as my undying gratitude for your grace in allowing my girl to enter the inner sanctum of our small and close-knit world. I know she is also grateful.

In closing, a note for those who haven't been to the theatre for a while, or ever. Go. Just go. It can move you in ways you never considered possible. We understand that we need you in order to survive. But, if I may be so bold as to suggest it (and I may) shows like Rabbit are proof that you kinda need us too.

Go to the Theatre Tonight!

2011-07-14T13:08:00.002+10:00

According to a recent study by am omniscient research organisation I am not at liberty to name, theatre attendance has fallen five billion percent since the days of the Ancient Greeks. While it's true that, for some unknown reason, no Ancient Greek respondents took part in this far-reaching and in-depth study into society's theatre-going habits, it's still obvious that that is quite a severe drop. There are several factors that have contributed to the decline in theatre's popularity. (More...)

The introduction of television in the late 1500s nearly thwarted the career of a young playwright called William Shakespeare. Being made of wool, sticks and crushed up badgers, it didn't work. In fact, it was not until the popular advent of electricity some 300 years later that television was to come into its own. Motion pictures have also affected theatre attendance, drawing huge audiences despite the high ticket and concession costs, trite scripts, smug stars, turgid pacing, lame jokes and Robert Pattinson.

But theatre is still a vital, wondrous enterprise which should be nurtured, explored, enjoyed, fluffed and touched inappropriately. On that sexy yet possibly upsetting note, take a look at these hip, sensuous urban funsters.
They're in a play called Rabbit which is currently in its first week of shows at the Metro Arts, Edward St in Brisbane City. Go there, get drunk with them and let them seduce you. GO! NOW! it's not on till 7.30 but you will wait eagerly out the front like a teenaged acolyte!


The cast, or as I call them...The Sexies.

Rabbit.

2011-07-08T09:12:00.002+10:00

Amy Ingram (photo by Sean Young)

Hello, back again. In the three weeks since my last entry, I've had my world and my bedroom upended, slept in and slept out, gone away for a seaside holiday and returned from holiday to a wonderful head and chest cold. The only other things I have to report are: my love is here and more wondrous than I could have imagined (and I have a pretty good imagination) and my next theatrical project starts next week. (More...)

Presented by The Good Room, the play is called Rabbit and is directed by the l'enfant fabuleuse of Brisbane theatre, Daniel Evans. It stars Amy Ingram as Bella, Sam Clark as Richard, Penny Harpham as Sandy, Belinda Raisin as Emily, Kevin Spink as Tom and some other guy.

As usual with this blog's promotion of shows, I'm not going to tell you what it's about, except to say that it's intense, funny, passionate, tender and moving. The entire company is committed to the process of making this show a winner. Take a look at this brief clip of a recent rehearsal. You'll see a study in concentration.

After This Break...

2011-06-16T13:02:00.000+10:00

Hello. You'll have noticed a pause in transmission. This is likely to continue for a couple of weeks. if you look to the right, you'll see a countdown timer. It's counting down the hours till my girl comes. I have been frantically preparing for her arrival by falling asleep while I'm supposed to be cleaning my room etc.

I'm taking a break from...well, everything really...to be with her. The Month of Joy continues, albeit at a crawl. Traffic at Bigmouthery has not been since picking itself up off the floor in early 2010. So the interim report? 'We don't like joy'. Scientific huh?

Anyway, I'm off for a bit...maybe you can stay tuned for the Month of You Suck, which should build traffic back up.

Joy - Walking the Talk.

2011-06-12T07:34:00.000+10:00

Sometimes it's difficult to feel joy, even when you try. This whole thing was never about feeling joy all the time. Confusion, sadness, anger...they all have their place in the messy salad that makes us human. It's impossible to be happy all the time and we view with a certain eyebrow those who claim to be. Well, I do. It just doesn't ring true. I've had a few days this week where joy was not downstage centre, warm in the spotlight. The Month of Joy was never meant to promote the notion that we should be cranked up to 11 every moment. It was never meant to promote anything other than the idea that we may be able to feel more joy if we consciously remind ourselves it exists. And it does.

Happy 50th, Kim & Kelley Deal.

2011-06-10T20:00:00.001+10:00

Some people know her, most people don't. She is, in my opinion, the Crown Princess of Rock. If Black Francis is The Scream, Kim is The Smile. She radiates something very special on stage. See that pic up there from the second Pixies show in Brisbane last year? That ain't no light, it's coming outta Kim. Honest.

Original

She turns 50 today. Happy Birthday, Kim. And of course, I have to acknowledge that Kim has a twin sister Kelley, who, surprise surprise, is also 50. So the musical tribute below is not just for Kim because of her Pixies connection, it's from The Breeders, of which Kelley is an integral part.

Why JOY, Why YOU, Why NOW?

2011-06-07T08:00:00.002+10:00

She.

Among the tiny number of people who know of this blog's existence, the overwhelming majority have been here once, for one second, before leaving, never to return. There is only a wee smattering of people who have been here more than once, and of those an even smaller number who return repeatedly. Within that group there are the ones who are aware that this month the blog is themed The Month of Joy. As the number dwindles we find a barely perceptible speckling of people who even care about that theme. And you, barely perceptible speckling, care, most likely, because you care about me. This blog entry is for you.

Not so long back I had two separate discussions with people in the space of a few days. One person I know reasonably well, the other, not so well at all. They both made the same comment: you don't come across in person the way you do on your blog.

I wasn't all that puzzled by the comment, save for the fact that no-one had ever said anything about it before and here were two people saying it, apropos of nothing, at quite a meagrely-spaced interval. "You're so much lovelier in person," opined one quite passionately. While I thought it was a very sweet thing to say, said person was also well on the road to being sideways drunk.

The 'people who care' already know I'm not really an ogre, they know that some of the colourful language and candid opinion contained herein is born mostly out of occasional frustration with...stuff. Most personal bloggers, as with the diarists of days gone by, write as a purgative. Emotional ipecac. My own motivation for starting a blog was similarly inspired: 'People must hear what I have to say because I'm chock-full of fucking great opinions and it would be a crime not to share them with an eager and suffering world.' And all that bollocks.

So why JOY? Well, that was kinda covered in the first joy post. We seem, as a collective, to default to being bored and grumpy and jaded and complain-y and unsatisfied and unfulfilled and morose and negative and pissy and just plain fucking boring. It's boring to be on the receiving end of it and it's boring to BE it. And it doesn't really matter whether you believe we only get one life or you are one of the many who think there's something to come after we're gone, to be all those things can hardly be good for you. Or anyone else for that matter. So that's why 'joy'. I'm just trying to remind people that, if you are not eating rotten scraps from rubbish bins, walking 15 miles a day for a bucket of cholera-free-water or living in quite rational fear of death or destruction on a daily basis, you have good reason to be joyful. Getting the iPhone 4 the day before the 5 comes out is no justification for thinking that your life sucks.

Why ME? I suppose the simplest answer is, 'why not?' I've had no revelation or (cringes) epiphany. I'd previously written about not taking the simple joys for granted. Plus, it didn't hurt that some people told me my writing was not reflective of my personality, which made me think that I too often taken joy for granted. Most importantly, one particular person who often makes me rethink the way I think...made me rethink the way I think. Which very neatly brings me to:

Why NOW? There could be many reasons really, but there's only one worth mentioning. She. See that little bit of peerlessly beautiful face up there? She is not only my love, it is through knowing her that I learned what it is to love without condition and by very short extension, the meaning of joy. Her name, for those of you who don't know, is Rhonda. I have known her for 11 years, most of which has been spent physically separated by the biggest body of water this little planet has to offer. In ten days (actually 9 days and 21 hours at the time this post is published) she will be much closer. She is the reason I feel joy, not just because of her impending arrival, but because she is the one person on this planet who makes me feel as if we may be more than the sum of our parts. While I could intellectualise it down to a stub, she taught me to feel that one must look within oneself to find joy. She inflames me and she cools me and she has helped to build me into a man (I hasten to add that, through no fault of her own, that job is not yet complete). And yes, SHE is the cat's mother.

If you were after one reason why I'd love for you to spend a little time contemplating the idea of simple joy, it's only fair I share something from the deepest part of myself. My joy is she and she is my joy.

Not-So-Simple Monday Joy

2011-06-06T06:00:00.000+10:00

(Original)

The weekend is over and if you're one of the few people reading this you're most likely not enjoying the fact that your two days' respite is over and you're back into the grind. The well-worn path of the working week is once again being trudged. This is the time that tiny spark is needed. I'm not suggesting that seeing a note telling you that life can be a joyous thing will change the whole damn world. I'm not even saying it'll change your day. What I am saying, or at the very least hoping, is that seeing such a message amid the glum faces, advertising and general malaise may cause you to see things a little differently for a little while.

Yes, the world can suck ass, your job can slice you off at the knees and people's behaviour can sometimes make you feel as if a massacre is a good idea. But to see a random scribble suggesting that you, yes YOU, are deeper, wiser, more wonderful, more capable of joy than you have allowed yourself to realise? Surely that's worth something. Surely it's an idea worth getting behind. I refuse to believe that we are suffering from 'joy fatigue', that we are so locked into the patterns of tiresome mediocrity and banality in our days that we cant afford a few seconds to look inside ourselves and see some goodness. I also refuse to believe that, with all the shallowness and vapidity that exists that this little idea is justifiably ignored.

This whole thing is not about the furtherance of self-absorption. It's about looking at the real good inside you and living that feeling. Trusting the truth of it. Feeling the joy of it. So that it may then flow outwards.

To those who are so jaded that they already feel bombarded by this after six days, I have only one message: I ain't stopping till June is done. It may be fruitless and misguided, but I'm going to follow through with it.

And if any of this resonates in any way with any of you, get behind it. Get behind it vocally, forcefully, actively. Let's share it with as many people as we can.

Simple Sunday Joy.

2011-06-05T09:25:00.002+10:00

The Month of Joy continues apace. There are now 12 people, 11 in Brisbane and one in Melbourne, taking part in what I can only call an 'experiment' because I haven't come up with another word to describe it. My thanks and gratitude for those people is bigger'n a breadbox. (More...)

Yesterday took a strange and unexpected turn and as such, I was unable to get as many 'joy notes' out there as I'd have liked (only about 30). But the day did bring its own joys. For a start, the weather was brilliant in Brisbane. And I enjoyed quite a few laughs (some of them ribald, don'cha know) with a couple of my dearest and oldest friends. It occurred to me last night that I have as many character flaws and regrets as anything else and it only takes a small scratch of introspection to bring those to the fore. No-one needs 'a month of crushing regrets and sadness and mistakes' though, do they? We're all quite capable of living that life without someone dropping random reminders around town.

On a personal note, June is my Month of Joy for one particular reason, one that I'll talk about in the next instalment. In lieu of that, here's another list (similar to, but much smaller than, the one I first wrote last year) of a few simple joys:

Making someone laugh so hard that their drink comes outta their nose
Seeing a stranger's face change from confused/pained to grateful when another stranger helps them
Using your reason to reach a point of clarity about...anything
Giving something freely with no thought to the benefit for yourself
Being with people who daily remind you, through their own thoughts and actions, that life is meant to be, actively, a joyous experience
Reassuring someone of their worth when they are feeling unworthy
Getting vacuum-packed coffee open without having to use a knife
Engaging in heated and robust debate about polarising issues and having it end with no hissyfits
Thinking a completely new thought
A hot shower at the close of a grimy day
Knowing you're loved, despite all of your flaws
The same, reversed (No, not knowing you're flawed despite all of your loves.)

If you have some of your own you'd like to share, share them. Oh do please share them, it'll be ever so much fun! (N.B. The words in italics should be read in the style of an Enid Blyton character, not my voice.)

If you haven't seen the Joy video yet, go watch it here.
If you are a first time visitor to Bigmouthery and don't know what the hell I'm on about, here's a rundown on The Month of Joy.

Most importantly, if you want to get involved, email me: bigmouthery@gmail.com
I'll send you some instructions on what to do. It won't cost you anything and it won't eat into your day. Please share the links and retweet and all that stuff.

Joyne the June Joymakers

2011-06-03T19:50:00.000+10:00

Hallo again. Yes, it's three days in and I haven't quit. In fact, the whole thing seems, very slowly, to be gathering a little momentum. I've had a number of people email me at bigmouthery@gmail.com and ask if they can be involved in the Month of Joy 'experiment', which is great. I also had one random person email to ask why I'd stopped swearing so much on the blog. I can only really answer that by saying it doesn't really fit the fucking tone.

I've been taking a few pics of some of the notes I've left around town, so tonight when I got home I made a little video for you all, with some hastily recorded guitar (please forgive the quality, I did it all in a couple of takes on my phone camera - yes, the audio from my N95 video camera). Here it is:

Once again, I ask...if you find any of this resonates with you, please spread the word. It'd be great to see if any little dot-sized impacts could be made on people who chance upon a message telling them they are special, or great, or deeper than they may think they are. And if you are one of those people who find a note, please let me know.

The Month of Joy - Update

2011-06-02T17:54:00.002+10:00

The Month of Joy is underway. Some people have shared their simple joys on Twitter & Facebook which is really heartening. I've been scribbling away in every spare moment, leaving messages where I can. However, my path through the day is pretty well-worn and routine, so there are many parts of Brisbane I can't get to. But some of you can. If you like the Month of Joy idea, it doesn't take much to join me helping to reach more people. Y'wanna? Yeah, course you do. So...email me: bigmouthery@gmail.com and I'll send you instructions on how to join in. It costs nothing in terms of money and won't eat into your schedule.

Together we can make a difference. Actually we might not make any bloody difference at all, but it'll be fun trying.

Please, share the links and share the joy.

June - The Month of Joy.

2011-06-01T00:00:00.069+10:00

Joyful. Compassionate. Caring. Thoughtful. Loving. Selfless. Just some of the wonderful things I'm not, most of the time. But like so many other people, I want to be those things...and more than that, I want to share joy and the idea of joy with other people.

Last year I wrote a post called, appropriately enough, 'Joy'. It highlighted the importance of consciously stopping every once in a while to take in the simple joys that can be found in just about anything: sunlight bouncing golden off a cloud, an embrace, a friendship re-kindled, even eating a tomato that actually tastes like a tomato. See, sometimes joy washes over us unbidden, as when we fall in love or we're presented with great news, or new life. And when it happens, it's fantastic. (More...)

Most of the time, though, we reluctantly drag our butts through every day, focussing only on getting from the hateful alarm clock in the morning to whatever bit of crappy TV happens to be on that night. And what are we like in between? Are we crammed full of happiness? Are we doing what we love and loving what we do? Do we live in a world where every moment is so close to ecstasy that we feel we may burst? Are we fulfilled?
If you're one of the three people who answered 'yes' to all of the above, thanks for dropping by, I hope it all continues to go wonderfully for you. The rest of us? No, life's just not like that and it never will be. It probably shouldn't be, either. Light without darkness is meaningless. But how often do you stop and absorb something, anything, in your day from a consciously joyous perspective? Me either.

That's why I'm calling June 'The Month of Joy'. I'm giving people in my town a little trigger, so that they might stop, even for a moment, and ponder the joy of life. The other day I started dropping little bits of recycled paper around town, with positive, self-affirming messages scribbled on 'em. I'm trying to secrete them in places where they're secure (so they don't just end up as litter on the ground) and of course, where people will find them.

If you do, let me know. As the month progresses I'll be writing more 'Month of Joy' entries but will link back to this one for any comments, stories, suggestions or questions. As I write it's still May, yet I've already had one comment from someone who found one of the notes with the message 'trust your reason' on it.

My hope is that, by spending a moment or a minute reflecting on what's just been discovered, people will feel a measure of joy that may otherwise have been absent from their day. That's it. Nothing more to it than that. To hope for some mass shift in the collective consciousness just because of a few little scribbles is kinda kooky, really. I'll be happy to have a few people tell me that they smiled.

If you like this idea, please spread this blog entry far and wide. Link to facebook or retweet it. Please and thank you.

Coming Soon - The Month of Joy.

2011-05-28T11:44:00.001+10:00

Starting today, I began a little experiment...a few of you may already know what's going on. On June 1st, I'll tell you more.

A Small Exposition.

2011-05-26T08:00:00.003+10:00

(Source)

A few of my friends are currently involved in what is going to be a very cool and exciting film project. Not only are they friends, they also happen to be a bunch of really talented little bastids. That's how I know it'll be cool and exciting. See how it works?

But being creatively gifted does not always ensure success. Was it not Aristotle who said, 'Talent and three bucks will buy you a cup of coffee'? Yes, it was. I looked it up.

Pete Foley and Chris Perren are the nucleus of the extremely hip and rather moist-making Black brow and their latest project, A Small Exposition or The Non·sense of the First Tree is currently in development. To develop it further, they need your help. Do you want to help them? Of course you bloody well do, you're a deliciously enlightened human who delights in all forms of artistic expression (even mime) and would do anything to see a group of incredibly clever people achieve their goals.

Here's a teaser trailer:

A Small Exposition - trailer 1 from Black brow. on Vimeo.

'But I want to see more of this, Nx!' Yes yes, I know, hush up...jeezaloo! To help make A Small Exposition a reality, check out the Black brow page at Pozible. They're just over halfway to their goal of $2500 and with your help they'll make it.

Don't let the obelisk stand in your way.

"He's Making it Up as He Goes Along!"

2011-05-24T19:13:00.003+10:00

(Original is here)

No sooner am I thanking Harold Camping for inadvertently injecting the silliness of religion into the news cycle than he comes out, says he's blown away by the fact we weren't all blown away and then makes another prediction based on...a wiggle of his ears? Yeah, now I'm getting narky, mainly at myself for devoting so much blog space to this goof. Now the Crapture will happen on October 21, says Harold, because he forgot to...I dunno...carry the y? One thing's certain. He completely ignores the how. (More...)

We live in a world of such amazing complexity, elegance and beauty, a world where the gaps in our knowledge are daily being filled by brilliant people delight in their lack of knowledge as they devote their lives to answering with great honesty the myriad questions of the cosmos. These people postulate on matters so immense that for the average person to touch upon them even briefly is to enter a world where the brain feels as if it may implode. When I try to grasp, say, the refutation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics as laid down so beautifully in the Schrödinger's cat analogy, or merely try to contemplate an atom, I get totally lost, even when it's explained to me in simple terms by a Feynman, Dawkins or Sagan. But every now and again, when the mood suits, I devote some time to pushing on to that place where I try at least to understand basic concepts around the paradoxes and complexities of the universe and the idea of universes.

All Harold Camping is doing is reinforcing the abject stupidity of fundamentalism, in this case, Christian fundamentalism. Of course, it doesn't end there. There are many Christians who reject the literal interpretation of the OT. They're having a good ol' chuckle at Harold too. And once again, fair enough. But many of the Christians who believe that the Adam and Eve story is just that...a story, a metpahor for our inherent sinfulness, also believe that their 'Lord and Saviour' Jesus Christ actually, literally died on a cross and was resurrected and flew to a place called heaven...for a story?

My own mind is far more artistic and creative than scientific, a fact which galls me daily, yet even I cannot for the life of me fathom how the circular reasoning of religious faith still has such a hulk-like grip on our world.

It was wrong of me to thank Harold yesterday. And it's probably wrong of me to keep mentioning the deluded old wingnut. And it's definitely wrong of me to call him a deluded old wingnut. But while this kind of ignorance holds sway, our attempts to acknowledge our own ignorance and work against it will be hampered. All because of people who seem to be making it up as they go along.

Thank you, Harold Camping.

2011-05-23T18:17:00.000+10:00

By now we all know that the rapture prophecy of Harold Camping was wrong. Harold himself claims to be 'flabbergasted' that his prophecy didn't pan out, which is not surprising given that he'd said prior to May 21 that "there's no possibility it will not happen".

Harold is obviously the subject of scorn and ridicule right now. Fair enough too, it was a stupid prediction. But I'd like to thank him for throwing the issue of religious faith into the news cycle, if only for as long as it took for his prediction to be proved wrong.

If we spent a little more time casting a more critical eye over religious faith, whatever the brand, we'd be in a better place as a species. And while Harold's silliness will not prompt too many of the faithful to consider the many fallacies and flaws in their chosen religion, there may be a few who decide to investigate the whole mess in a more reasoned and reasonable way. And that can only be a good thing.

So thanks, Harold.

Phone Enema.

2011-05-22T11:00:00.007+10:00

Sometimes my poor ol' ghetto phone tells me that it's not going to play with me until I give it a good internal washout. An electronic enema. An electrolonic, if you like. The difference between the two is that people don't share the 'results' of the procedure with their friends. Most people, anyway. Ew.

Today I gave my phone an electrolonic and found a few pictures snapped out of annoyance and/or bafflement. So please, take a few minutes to enjoy what I found after messing around in my phone's sigmoid. (More...)

Suck it Up

The other day I bought some cigarettes and, with the prowess of a man addicted to nicotine for more years than I like to admit, opened the pack and went for the first cigarette without even looking at the pack. Inside was a little card which, even before looking down, I assumed would be some pitch from the cigarette company telling me how flavourful and awesome their cigarettes are. Instead, I saw this:

The cigarettes were complaining about being overtaxed. Did I shout, "Yeah, you tell it like it is, cigarettes!!!"
No. For one thing, I was on a busy street. For another, I have no sympathy. The message from whatever-tobacco-company-that-was only served to make me feel even worse than I already do about being a smoker. Government knows that the cost of cigarette-related illness on an already over-burdened health system is growing and tobacco companies know that, for years, they lied about the deleterious effect of their products. The only thing that deserves to be heard here is my respiratory system saying, "Aw, for fuck's sake man, just give it up!"

The Importance of Spacing

This is the logo for the popular Japanese food chain Sushi Train. It's very clear and very simple: it has the name of the business, a picture of some sushi...and a train. However, along with this logo, the newly-opened Indooroopilly restaurant has this emblazoned out the front:

Su Shit Rain. Not sure if this is a one-off or the company is looking at a new design. Either way, I'm pretty sure a re-think is needed. There are already enough people out there who think Japanese food tastes like shit without being told it is by the people who want you to eat it.

HUH?

Ad agencies are paid lots of money to come up with slogans that will catch the eye and resonate with the consumer. Do they have to make sense? Obviously not. Last week I saw this Telstra ad:

I don't know if it was for a phone, a plan or an app. All I saw was their logo and the slogan Maximise Your Destiny. No doubt some of Bigmouthery's overseas visitors will be thinking that the problem is a typo. No, we spell it that way here.

What is destiny? Usually it's defined as the inevitable and pre-determined course of events. So as I stood in the soft autumnal rain waiting for the lights to change, I stared at the slogan for a full five seconds and all I could think was 'Huh?'. How is it possible to maximise that which has already been fixed by a god or gods or the universe or the cosmic clerical team on Level 12?

Do ad agencies actually believe that one's destiny can be maximised? Or is it that they think the majority of the buying public are so stupid that they won't even realise how fatuous and redundant their slogans are? I'll let you answer that one yourself.

Before I let this one go, let's accept for a second that one's destiny can be maximised. Are they telling us that the best way to go about such a cosmically massive shift is to download Tetris?

The Booties

It was just after dawn Easter Sunday morning. The day was sun-kissed, cool and clean. I was walking home from a closing night party. I stood on the corner of Waterworks and Jubilee, outside St Paul's church. I thought of the site in a few hours, filled with the faithful, faces scrubbed, all in their Sunday best, celebrating the majesty of their risen Lord. Below the bell at the church's gate entrance, I spotted a plaque:

Pat Booty. Herb Booty. Pat her booty.

Have a happy post non-rapture day!

Okay, Bye Everyone!

2011-05-20T19:07:00.007+10:00

I'll use my ears to fly there.

Unless I'm quite prolific over the next day or so, this will be the last Bigmouthery article you'll ever read. Why? (More...)

Well, sorry to say folks, but it's all over. May 21 marks the end of the world. I know, I know that's only a day or so away, depending on where you live. See, I'm not sure what time it's happening on May 21, but I assume it's an American time zone because the prophet of doom is Harold Camping, an 89-year-old preacher from Northern California. So if you live where I do, it'll be Sunday sometime. I know, "prophet of doom" is harsh. You may be one of the lucky ones who flies up to heaven if you're among the maybe three people who lived a life in strict accordance with whatever the hell it was 'God' wanted you to do or not do. A brief aside: I'm not sure if you'll be wearing clothes, or whether your pets will travel with you, but if they get left behind, we damned ones will look after 'em for you.

I wrote a post earlier this year about the world coming to an end in December next year. Camping believes that notion is laughable, because the prophecy has "not one stitch of biblical authority".

So I (along with many others, I'm sure) decided to see why Harold is right and the deluded ones are wrong.

Here's how he worked it out, according to a 2010 article from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is "completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.

"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."

Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days - the number of days in each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.

Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51 to the sum of previous multiplication total, and it equals 722,500.

Camping realized that (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17) = 722,500.

Or put into words: (Atonement x Completeness x Heaven), squared.

"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story," Camping said. "It's the story from the time Christ made payment for your sins until you're completely saved.

So that's it...watertight...we're fucked. Don't listen to a word of what the Planet X and Mayan calendar people believe will happen while you're doing your Christmas shopping next year, Harry has explained it all in simple, ironclad terms. He got it from the bible. Or did he?

In a NYMag interview last week, Camping says that the mathematical system is of his own design and "there’s nothing in the Bible that holds a candle to the amount of information to this tremendous truth of the end of the world". So, he kinda got it from the bible...but he kinda just made it up. Sorta like most of the bible.

Believe it or not, Harry's been wrong before. In 1994, according to both the Chron and NYMag articles, a bunch of expectant followers gathered in San Fran to await the coming of Jesus, which Camping had predicted in 1992. Now, I know this is a hastily cobbled together blog entry written at the end of the working week, with little research carried out, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus didn't show up.

If Harry's right, we're all screwed. Even the most compassionate, selfless, loving, tender and enlightened among us are doomed. Even the most passionate Christians. Why? Because their interpretation of the bible would have to be pretty much the same as Harry's. And the bulk of Christians on this planet do not interpret the bible in the same way at all. Harry likely only views a sliver of the faithful as being worthy of salvation.

In musing on this utter stupidity, I'm reminded of The Great Disappointment, the name given to yet another non-appearance of Jesus in 1844. Many gave all their stuff away and according to Stephen Fry in an episode of QI, "their confidence [that the prophecy was correct] was such that one man threw himself off a barn at exactly midnight, convinced that he would be scooped up and saved. He wasn't, you'll be astonished to hear."

And most of us will be astonished if Harry is right. And as I've already said, we'll all be screwed if he is. But Harry is not right, for reasons so staggeringly varied and simple (and even biblical) that to elaborate would be to waste time I could be spending watching things like QI and being generally evil...'n'shit.

For those of you who think that's too superficial and you'd like some hard numbers behnid my reasoning, well okay.

Y'see the number 12 means toaster. The number 47.2 is day-old donuts. The number 3 looks like sideways boobies from above. According to a book I read once, some people avidly await not only the arrival of their sky god but also the punishment of those who do not share their beliefs, despite their sky god's wishes for everyone to be filled with love. Multiply toaster by donuts and then subtract boobies squared and you have a bunch of poop I just made up because I was too worried about what was going to happen in some alleged afterlife as opposed to what is actually happening in this one.

'Five times ten times 17' is telling me a story alright, Harry. 850. Pretty close to the number of doomsday prophecies in the last few years that have been wrong. 'No, you forgot to carry the 3'. Oh shot, so I did...oops. Okay yep, that's it then. Bye everyone.

A Rare Find - The Lost Poems of the late Ray Don Lemon

2011-05-18T07:35:00.002+10:00


Ray Don Lemon (1927 - 1972)

The story of Ray Don Lemon is an interesting, if mysterious one. It's a story I hope to share more fully in the coming weeks and months as I uncover more about the man, his origins, work and inspiration. For now, please enjoy this recording of one of his poems, which I found on a bunch of old 1/4" reels recently while springcleaning.

Songs I Loved as a Kid - 1980s - (85-89)

2011-05-16T19:00:00.001+10:00

When you're compiling lists of this nature, it's a given you'll overlook some real gems. Looking back over the 80-85 entry, I immediately thought of The Reels, Grandmaster Flash, Laurie Anderson and The Models as glaring omissions. Especially anything off Laurie Anderson's Big Science.In fact, go listen to that now, then come back...
(More...)

Okay...we good? Orright, off we pop. I turned 20 in 1989, so technically I wasn't a 'kid' by that point. But every boy is pretty callow and oafish until he hits 30, and even then the maturation process is more retarded than it is for our female equivalent. After all, I've never heard women described as 'oafish'.

Despite still being a goofball with more seminal fluid than sense, my musical tastes did grow. Part of that was taking greater steps away from what was being presented to me on commercial radio. 4ZZZ played its part there. And whatever I was lucky enough to see on TV. The first in this collection falls into the latter category.

Jockey Full of Bourbon - Tom Waits

The 1980s rubric 'two hard ends with a soft middle' had its exceptions. 1985's Rain Dogs is arguably Tom Waits' best and Jockey is easily its most complete piece of work. All the red raw husk the man is famous for, with a dash of creamy reverb from down the corridor.

In God's Country - U2

Most people seemed to realise that after the misty Unforgettable Fire in 1984, U2 would most likely be propelled into the rock pantheon. Their Live Aid and Conspiracy of Hope appearances suggested a band on the cusp of greatness. Although I'm sure a few eyebrows headed north when they played the quickly discarded Woman Fish on Ireland's national broadcaster RTÉ in 1986. Come March the following year and the doubts were quickly dispelled. Producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois pulled them from the mists of Meath to the dry chill of the Mojave. The Joshua Tree is still U2's masterwork and I have fond memories of listening to it for the first time while visiting Ireland in 1987. Little did I know at the time that the country they were referring to in this song was America.

It's Tricky - RUN-DMC

'It's tricky to rock around to rock around that's right on time it's tricky! Aw Mickey, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind, hey Mickey!'

Sorry. Anyway, as cool as rap was when back when Kurtis Blow & GM Flash and the Furious Five were opening the door, this is kinda when hip hop came of age. Well, maybe...more on that later. For now, just enjoy...

Say Goodbye - Hunters and Collectors

You could cut the testosterone in the 'Hunnas' with a knife. Nowhere was it more evident than in this angry little number. I remember being a but bemused by it in 1986 and I still am, a bit. But I include it because it shows that there were those at the fringes who kept a harder edge. It's probably the reason they stayed at the fringes.

Mean to Me - Crowded House

Some of the locals really broke through. INXS, Midnight Oil and the best of the bunch, Crowded House. At the same time Mark Seymour was yelling that his woman was saying she didn't fee like a woman anymore, his little brother Nick was playing bass with one of the finest pop writers in the business. Sure, Neil Finn was a Kiwi and Kiwis have every right to claim Crowded House as their own, but man they were loved on this side of the ditch...and after Don't Dream It's Over, they were loved pretty much everywhere. But my favourite was the single before it. It both rocked and rolled.

Panic - The Smiths

Some bands never got a decent run in Australia. The Cure was huge, but their manufactured opposite number, The Smiths, didn't make a dent until they'd broken up. I suppose the alleged rivalry was similar to the Blur/Oasis nonsense a few years later, or the even more ludicrous Beatles/Stones thing that persists to this day. (In the case of the former, I liked 'em both equally, for different reasons and as for the latter, I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.) So I came into The Smiths very late. Those who consider them painfully sad missed the point entirely.

As the 1980s ground on, the anodyne slop of the New Romantics gave way to the shiny-suits & t-shirts of Huey Lewis. Ipecac masquerading as rock. Then that gave way to the even more execrable cock rock of Poison, Bon Jovi, Warrant and please kill me before I think of any more. I hated it with a passion and still do. Then something changed. The first thing? Hip-hop really came of age.

It got angry...

Fight the Power - Public Enemy

..and it got trippy...

Then, for me at least...everything changed. In 1989 three bands changed forever the way I listened to, looked for and sought music.

1. The Stone Roses

They popped, they rocked, they grooved, they acknowledged the past, they brought it to the present without aping it, they made it sweet, they made it growl, they had attitude (sometimes a little too much) and they were fucking brilliant. And if the cock rockers didn't enough like cocks already, The Stone Roses 1989 debut castrated them.

I Am The Resurrection

They Might Be Giants

Written off by some as a novelty, TMBG was the first band I'd ever heard who were as funny as they were poignant, with songs crammed full of the kind of poetry that seemed impossible for pop songs. No-one before or since has been able to work in a line like 'Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of' and do it with such ease. My friend Robbie introduced me to 1988's Lincoln in 1989 and I was hooked. 22 years later I still am, because John and John still make some of the most interesting music around. Plus, if it weren't for TMBG, I probably wouldn't have met the girl of my dreams. But that's another show.

Ana Ng

Nightgown of the Sullen Moon

Pixies

In October 1989, I was living the fabled 'salad days'. I was in my first grown up boyfriend/girlfriend dealie, I'd just seen U2 play three shows straight and all was right with the world. One night we were parked at Margate Beach, having just coated the windows of her car with passionate condensation. U2 was live in a radio studio in Sydney, not long offstage. They were drinking and chatting and sharing some of their favourite songs. One I remember was Tokyo Storm Warning. Then they played this...

Monkey Gone to Heaven

..and in three minutes, I had a new favourite band. The next day I went out and bought Doolittle and their first, Come On Pilgrim. A few days later I had Surfer Rosa. But Doolittle remains my favourite, so let's finish the 80s where I did...blissing out to a majestically powerful band that, despite its influence on the countless who trailed in their wake, still do not reside in their rightful place at the very top of the rock tree.

Gouge Away

Manta Ray

Songs I Loved as a Kid - 1980s - (80-85)

2011-05-14T17:30:00.005+10:00

During the week I jumped a Facebook bandwagon and started the 30 Day Song Challenge. Kicking it it off reminded me of a blog entry from a few months back about favourite songs from my early childhood in the 1970s. By the time the 1980 rolled around, my brothers' musical influence was less significant, plus I had my own radio and as a result, started to plough my own road. Here are a few gems from the musical decade that David Bowie once described as "two hard ends with a soft middle". (More...)

Pop Muzik - M

Don't think it hasn't occurred to me that a few of these la-las are still widely played on FM radio today, so this may not be the nostalgia trip the 70s post was. Along with Buggles' Video Killed The Radio Star & the arctic Cars by Gary Numan , Pop Muzik opened to door for the electronic elements of New Wave that were so popular before New Romantics came along and tenderised everything. Like the others, it's technically it's from 1979, but it signified the way things were going to go...for a little while.

Baggy Trousers - Madness

They were kooky and fun, and for an 11-year-old they were perfect. Of course, I say that with all deference to the kooky and fun adults of the time. Madness had quite a few hits, but none of 'em ever matched Baggy Trousers.

Fields of Fire - Big Country

By 1983-84, Duran Duran, Culture Club & Wham! had grabbed popular music by the throat. The New Romantic thing never did it for me. I didn't really put CC in the same category, despite the hair and make up. My enjoyment of their music was secret. I was a 13-14 year old who would or could not admit he liked 'faggot music'. Of course, by then I'd already discovered the raw power and spirit of U2, who changed everything for me. So too did Big Country, a wonderful Scottish band who, like U2, were not afraid to let you hear their fucking drums, unlike the more popular bands of the day who preferred to bury their drum sound under a sack of marshmallows.

The Refugee - U2

The discovery of U2 came after school one day in 1981. I was alone at home, preparing dinner for the family. I was listening to 4IP and Gloria came on. I'd never heard anything like it. Immediately hooked, I became enamoured of everything U2, especially when I found out they were Irish. My excitement probably reached its peak in 1983 with the release of War. They fed my teen angst in a way no other band could. I didn't give a damn about Rio dancing on the fucking sand. It seems funny to say it now, given U2's explosion a few years later with the release of The Joshua Tree, but in 1983, U2 was my punk.

Senses Working Overtime - XTC

Jumping back to 1982, to one of the best songs of the 1980s, period. My first memory of this song is an embarrassing one. My brother Sean had taken me to see Time Bandits at the old Forum theatre and Senses came on the radio as we were driving up the hill to his place at Mt Nebo. I said I hated the song and used to turn it off every time it came on. He said, 'you have to wait for the chorus'. Based on this advice, these days when I hear new songs I wait for the chorus. The embarrassing part? I admitted that my favourite song at the time was Mickey by Toni Basil.

Mexican Radio - Wall of Voodoo

I used to mix Stan Ridgway up with Stan Freberg. Most of you won't know what the hell that means. Suffice it to say, it's an unusual mistake to make. Mind you, when I was five my brother Conor told me that Bill Cosby and Bing Crosby and Bill Cosby were related and I believed him. What does this have to do with the song? Nothing...it's just a good song, one of the last kooky ones that came along before the 80s became soft and mushy.

Love Song - Simple Minds

I feel as if I should push ahead to 1985, but all I can think of is shit like Mister Mister, Starship and Feargal Sharkey and other mush. So back we go to 1981. Simple Minds and Big Country were the two bands that filled a massive void left by U2's studio inactivity from 1984-87 (for those who don't know, that's the period between The Unforgettable Fire and The Joshua Tree). Like Big Country, Simple Minds was left trailing in U2's wake as the 1980s pressed on, but not before they had recorded quite a few gems. Like this one.

Road to Nowhere - Talking Heads

There had to be something from 1985 worth listening to, so I put my mind to it and came up with this little wonder. Sure, 1980's Remain in Light is still their masterpiece, but Little Creatures had its share of great tunes, and this one is as catchy as flu.

Cattle & Cane - The Go-Betweens

It's time to celebrate some homegrown, and there's very little better than this song by the late Grant McLennan. I said hello to him once in the crowd at a Forster support for They Might Be Giants. He said hello back and gave me a smirk. About a week before his sad and untimely passing five years ago this month I saw him from the bus. He was walking along Ipswich Rd across from the Gabba. I remembered the time I said hello. This one's as much for my friend Emma and a tribute to the man as it is a remembrance of the music of the period. (The quality of the Youtube vid here is poor, and it deserves better so listen to it here.)

You have to leave out more than you include...there's no Michael Jackson (circa Off the Wall), no Midnight Oil (who did NOT soften in 1985)...no lots of stuff. But it has to end somewhere...so let's end Part One of the 80s nostalgia trip with er...ummm...this:

One Step Ahead - Split Enz

New Zealand's listening audience has had a great and much overlooked pop sensibility for many years. There's a wheelbarrow full of wonderful Kiwi bands and artists virtually ignored by the world. Thankfully, this one wasn't. Split Enz was a fantastic band before Neil Finn joined in 1977 and it was even better after. This song is one of the reasons why.

Coming soon, the rest of the 1980s...be warned, things will change a great deal around 1988-89.

<

The Bolt Report - Balance Vs Polarity.

2011-05-08T14:33:00.002+10:00

Network Ten kicked off a new Sunday morning format this morning, with conservative columnist Andrew Bolt slotting in to a 30 minute opinion show called The Bolt Report. (More...)

Bolt is known for his strident views on everything from anthropogenic climate change to shooting down what he calls 'political Aborigines' (comments which have landed him in a Federal court).

Bigmouthery has touched on Bolt's commentary only once before, when he was fulfilling his previous role as a regular guest on ABC's Insiders. You can read that rather sweary post here.

If you read that, you'll see that Bigmouthery is no fan of the man, mainly because of his smugness. It's for that reason and the fact that I have watched TV only once in the last three months (United 4 - Schalke 1) that I didn't tune in. Sunday mornings (or any morning, for that matter) are better spent when one avoids the stentorian, blinkered rants of those with whom one disagrees.

How do I know he's stentorian? I don't. In fact, Bolt, views aside, has quite a warm, resonant voice and he's not given to screaming in the manner of a Bill O'Reilly or any of the other Fox News 'heads'. How do I know they're blinkered rants? That's what the show was designed to be.

When the plan for the show was 'leaked' by The Australian in early April, it was revealed that Australia's richest woman and Ten shareholder Gina Rinehart was plugging for a Bolt show. Rinehart is alleged to have stated a need for "a right-wing Fox News-style show in its line-up" to counter the media's left-wing bias.

This may be the first overt step by an Australian TV network to do what Fox has done in the US: create a platform for conservative viewpoints in the guise of balance adjustment.

But Fox does not 'redress the balance'. While it can be reasonably argued that both MSNBC and CBS espouse liberal views in their commentary, Fox has gone the whole hog with its so-called news channel, creating a Medusan beast of ultra-right wing screamers whose only brief, it seems, is to preach to the already shallow of mind and inflame the more moderate or left wing rubberneckers who tune in to be appalled.

Similarly, The Bolt Report will not add balance to the landscape. Currently the only serious political panel show on Australian television that is often accused of liberal bias is Insiders, a program whose rotating guest list has included conservatives Piers Ackerman, Gerard Henderson and until recently, Andrew Bolt.

Shoehorning a slew of right-wing propaganda into a programme schedule just because there's a perception that the media is left-wing has nothing to do with balance and everything to do with polarising and inflaming the viewing public. If done successfully, it's great for business. Fox has it down to a fine art, convincing most of its audience that they value their ideology over the ad dollar.

Meet the Press, the show that has made way for Bolt, was rating terribly, garnering about a third of the numbers enjoyed by Video Hits. It remains to be seen if Bolt can bump the numbers to rival the slurry that is Weekend Sunrise. He has to make it through a few weeks first. And I guess we'll see if the volume increases.

Junie Needs a Home.

2011-05-07T09:52:00.002+10:00

This is Junie. She's beautiful isn't she? Yes, she is.

Junie is my friend Steve's doggie. And she needs a new home. Steve's selling his place and moving into a rental, so it's with much regret he's having to find a loving home for Junie to go to. She's a 2yo female kelpie x bull terrier. If you can help, let me know here, on the Bigmouthery Facebook page or on the Help Junie Find a Home.

I'm pretty sure that Junie's all up-to-date with the medical stuff that doggies need. Not quite so sure about Steve.

Bigmouthery.com

2011-05-07T07:12:00.006+10:00

The universe is a complicated place. Sometimes it's overwhelming. Who can make it more simple?

We can.

At Bigmouthery, we care about your comfort and peace of mind. We understand that time is precious. We know that your day is filled with challenges and we want to give you the strength to meet those challenges. So we've made some changes to help make your life just that little bit easier.
Here's how.

Now when you visit Bigmouthery, all you have to do is type bigmouthery.com in your browser. Yes, we've done away with the cumbersome and time-consuming 'blogspot' from the Bigmouthery URL. Why?

Because we care. We love you, sometimes in ways so powerful it borders on the carnal. But mostly, we want you to have more time in your day for other things, like gardening, volunteer work and masturbation. Oh, and of course, reading Bigmouthery.

Our change to Bigmouthery.com is just one of the ways the Bigmouthery team is committed to making your internet experience as pleasant as possible. We think it may just make your universe a little less complicated.

Open your big mouth.

(Join the Bigmouthery group on Facebook.)

Obama.

2011-05-06T05:30:00.002+10:00

The talk of Osama's 'murder' is on the rise. Some disaffected liberals are unhappy that Osama bin Laden was not arrested and tried. A couple of Dutch goofballs even tried to report 'Killer' Obama to the cops. (More...)

Conservatives are really grasping, though. In one stroke they are trying to laud Bush, condemn Obama and justify the illegality of the killing while trying to maintain that if Bush had done it, it would have been okay. Some have even used the staggeringly fucked argument that Obama didn't kill Osama, Navy Seals did. Well, you snot-brained bungholes, if that's the case then the only people responsible for 9/11 were the guys flying the planes...yeah?

The problem here lies with people on both sides of the fence causing problems. And the only reasons they're causing problems is because they either have short memories...or they don't pay fucking attention. Or they just like to bitch.

Want to give all the credit to Bush?

"I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - George W. Bush, White House media conference, March 13 2002.

Truth is, Bush gave up on Afghanistan, AQ, the Taliban and OBL within months of 9/11. His focus was Iraq...and that's why 1) it took 10 years to get OBL and 2) why Afghanistan is still a shitfight.

As for the liberals who are shocked and appalled by Obama's apparently cavalier attitude with regard to due process, cast your mind back to when he was shaping as the warm and glowing one in late 2008.

"And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority." - Barack Obama, Second Presidential Debate, October 7 2008.

Did you miss that bit?

The only shocking part is that we have, on record, two politicians speaking the truth. Bush admitted he didn't care about Osama and his actions (or lack thereof) reflected that. Obama said that he'd kill Osama if he had the chance...and he did.

Osama.

2011-05-04T16:59:00.009+10:00

So Osama's dead. The colon-load of conspiracy notions is not unexpected, nor is the saturation coverage of the AQ leader's demise. One of my favourite news sites, an aggregator called Newser, has thrown up an unintentionally funny juxtapositional series of images on its headlines grid. (More...)

In the last few days, every story bar one on their 'world news' list has been Osama-related. I've collected them in this image:

I knew Harry was unpredictable, but...

A few people have asked if I'd write a blog entry about Osama's death...so here it is. It's not polarising or divisive...because I don't really care. Or rather, I'm ambivalent, which amounts to the same thing in this circumstance. Osama was a fucking murderous, blancmange-brained twat. I'm all for due process etc. but, just as I see the reason in Geoffrey Robertson's argument that killing OBL gave him what he wanted, I can also see what mileage would have been gained by the terrorist movement in the man having a years-long bullypulpit before the potassium chloride swtiched the fucker's lights out.

I don't rejoice in his death. I feel no real compassion for him either. It'd be lovely if I were enlightened enough to feel the same love for everyone, but I don't. He was a cunt, he motivated thousands of zealots to be similarly cuntish and now he's dead. Word of his death prompted a bunch of trough lollies to run around screaming 'USA! USA!' as if they'd just won a game of international Capture the Flag. He also leaves behind a group of brainwashed zealots who will continue to blow people to shit. But for every shitbiskit who left a bar half-cut to go yelp in the street, 100 stayed home. For every Muslim who laments OBL's death or hails him as a martyr, there are 100 who are glad he's gone.

Many liberal westerners who are appalled at the yeehaw behaviour of those who are celebrating murder are, as ever, up on their high horses, tut-tutting and unfurling misattributed quotations. Conservatives are lauding the long-departed Dubya. People will still kill people in the name of their all-loving gods.

Nothing's changed.

In other news, Osama's still dead.

Plagiarism - Back Out of the Closet.

2011-04-21T08:09:00.006+10:00

Updated: Since first posting this morning, Briztix emailed apologising for the appearance of the reviews. They then claimed that, due to the type of website they administer, the reviews could not be removed. After advising Briztix that the authors/publishers of the original work would be notified if the reviews were not removed, I received an email stating that the reviews have now been removed from the Briztix website. I have repeated my request for an apology to be posted on the Briztix website. Let's hope they suffer no technical difficulties in trying to get that up...if they do post it, I'm sure they'll have no problems taking it down.

Hello my little tootsie rolls. Today's topic is something I'd prefer not to have to bring up. I thought it was long dead, with no chance of resurrection. But it's back, and while most people apparently have no issue with taking thoughts from people's brains and publishing them as their own, I do. So here we are. (Go on...)

In 2008 it was brought to my attention that the Brisbane theatre/ticket booking website Briztix had published a review that contained unattributed content from another source. I was on tour at the time and gave it little thought, but upon arriving home, I checked the website and confirmed the allegation to be true. After further investigation, it was revealed that no fewer than seven reviews, six of which were attributed to one person and the seventh to an 'author' writing under a pseudonym, contained material originally published elsewhere.

I made the findings public, alerting several friends & colleagues, as well as informing the theatre companies whose work had been the subject of said reviews. I also contacted Briztix, who, after some discussion, removed the reviews, agreed to part ways with the reviewer (the identity of the person writing with a nom-de-plume is still unknown), apologised on their website, diluted the apology, then implied that I was at fault for exposing their error.

Last night I was informed by a friend that the plagiarised reviews are back up on the Briztix website. I don't know how long they've been there, but it raises a few questions, the most pressing of which is...why?

Does Briztix now endorse plagiarism? Their initial apology in 2008 was as follows:

"It has been brought to our attention that some of the reviews listed on our website have contained material that may have been plagiarised. These reviews have now been removed from our website and the author of these reviews will no longer be reviewing for Briztix.

Briztix is a free service to the Brisbane arts community that seeks to help promote and support live theatre in this city. We do not endorse plagiarism and apologise if any offense has been caused by these reviews."

A day later this had been diluted to read:

"It has been brought to our attention that some of the reviews listed on our website were posted with unauthorised content. These reviews have now been removed from our website and the matter is being addressed.

Briztix is a free service to the Brisbane arts community that seeks to help promote and support live theatre in this city. We apologise if the unauthorised content caused offense."

Note that the second apology omits the phrase "we do not endorse plagiarism". Given that Briztix has reposted all seven reviews, is it not unreasonable to suggest that they do endorse plagiarism?

What plagiarism where? WHO? Huh? What the shiny bollock are you on about, Nx?

I know, many of you would not know about this. Many others don't care. And there are those of you who do care, but are afraid to speak up because you're an actor who wants to be paid for your work, and you worry that taking an active position against such issues may potentially harm your chances of landing a gig. All fair enough.

For those who'd like to see what I'm on about, take a look at the material below. The original review sections appear first and the 'unauthorised content' appears below that (please forgive the clunky formatting, html and I are not great friends):

Holding the Man (Griffin Theatre @ The Powerhouse)

Tim's memoir is a homage to the great love of his life, John. Tim only survived John by two years. In that time he wrote this story, ensuring that he and John would live forever, not just in each others hearts, but in the hearts of everyone who bears witness to their story.

http://www.theblurb.com.au/Issue83/HoldingMan.htm

Tim's memoir is a homage to the great love of his life, John. Tim only survived John by two years. In that time he wrote this story, Tim's memoir is a homage to the great love of his life, John. Tim only survived John by two years. In that time he wrote this story, ensuring that he and John would live forever, not just in each others hearts, but in the hearts of everyone who bears witness to their story.

http://www.briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=86

The first-ever stage version of this great love story – a breathtakingly honest, achingly funny and a heart-wrenching account of a 15-year relationship that weathered disapproval, separation, temptation and, ultimately, death. Tim and John met in high school in the mid-1970s. Tim was in the school production of Romeo & Juliet, and had a crush on John. John was the captain of the football team, and wanted to play for Essendon.

http://www.samesame.com.au/whatson/Sydney/event/47/Holding-The-Man-Stables-Theatre.htm

Holding the Man is a heart-wrenching account of a fifteen-year relationship that weathered disapproval, separation, temptation and ultimately, death. Tim and John met in high school in the mid-1970s. Tim was in the school production of Romeo & Juliet and had a crush on John. John was the captain of the football team and wanted to play for Essendon.

http://www.briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=86

Rabbit Hole (QTC)

Grief, like the devastating loss that generally precedes it, is something intensely felt and carried. It is an extraordinarily personal emotion, one capable of bending and twisting the heart in ways that love cannot even imagine.

http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/9044

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=121

There are no orchestrated epiphanies or catharses signposting the path to healing here. But there's a window of light opened by quiet observations and by the gentle snowball effect of tangential factors such as Izzy's pregnancy or the entry into Becca's life of Jason (John Gallagher Jr.), the teen responsible for her son's death. In surprising ways, his appearance gives focus to Becca's imprisoning need to place blame and ask why.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117929453.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

There are no manufactured epiphanies or catharses signposting the path to healing here. But there's a window of light opened by the gentle snowball effect of tangential factors such as Izzy's pregnancy or the entry into Becca's life of Jason (Tim Dashwood), the teen responsible for her son's death. Crushed by the weight of his guilt, Jason tentatively approaches the couple in an effort to deal with his own awkward grief. In surprising ways, his appearance gives focus to Becca's imprisoning need to place blame and ask why.

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=121

Summer of the Seventeenth Doll (La Boite)

The drama, set in a Melbourne suburb in 1953, portrays the unwinding fortunes of Barney (Harold Hopkins) and Roo (Steve Bisley), two just-over-40 sugar-cane cutters who have traveled south to spend their annual five-month layoff in the house shared by Roo's longtime girlfriend, Olive (Michele Fawdon), and her mother, Emma (Judi Farr). Although Roo and Olive remain sweethearts after 17 years, Barney, a hard-drinking womanizer who boasts of his illegitimate children, has just been forsaken by his longtime companion. Olive, desperate to continue the tradition anyway, has recruited a widowed friend, Pearl (Jane Harders), to serve as a replacement.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DC1039F933A05754C0A96E948260

The drama, set in a Melbourne suburb in 1953, portrays the unwinding fortunes of Barney (Scott Witt) and Roo (played with intense purpose by Peter Marshall), two just-over-40 sugar-cane cutters who have traveled south to spend their annual five-month layoff in the house shared by Roo's longtime girlfriend, Olive (Caroline Kennison), and her mother, Emma. Although Roo and Olive remain sweethearts after 17 years, Barney, a hard-drinking womaniser has just been forsaken by his longtime companion Nancy (Laura Keneally), who got herself hitched during the last working season. Olive, desperate to continue the tradition anyway, has recruited a widowed friend, Pearl, to serve as a replacement.

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=122

The Female of the Species (QTC)

Greer, now 60, had been a rebellious if bright student who went on to become an intellectual celebrity who renounced the church, advocated rampant sexual freedom for women, trashed marriage and the family and fulminated against the imposition of Western values on indigenous peasant cultures throughout the world.

http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/06/22/greer/

Throughout her career, Greer was an intellectual celebrity who renounced the church, advocated rampant sexual freedom for women, trashed marriage and the family and fulminated against the imposition of Western values on indigenous peasant cultures throughout the world.

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=79

In "The Female of the Species," internationally praised Australian playwright Joanna Murray-Smith makes a bold move, from serious dramatic studies such as "Honour" to full-on comedic mode. Judging from the belly-busting laughter that greeted her lacerating farcical attack on "old-style" feminism opening night, Australia's foremost female playwright has notched up a career-stretching, commercially viable winner.

Play's precisely positioned target is actually the formidable grande dame of first-wave women's libbers, Dr. Germaine Greer, who was, six years ago, confronted at her Umbria home by a young female intruder.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931508.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

In THE FEMALE OF THE SPECIES, internationally praised Australian playwright Joanna Murray-Smith makes a bold switch from her usual niche of serious dramatic productions to comedic farce mode. Judging from the belly-busting laughter that greeted her lacerating farcical attack on 'old-style' feminism opening night, Australia's foremost female playwright has notched up a career-stretching, commercially viable winner.

It is obvious from the first that the play's precisely positioned target is actually the ever controversial, Dr. Germaine Greer, who was, six years ago, confronted at her home by a young female intruder.

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=79

Likewise, in this piece, a famously fashionable, bestselling "femi-demic," Margot Mason (expertly played by Sue Ingleton)

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931508.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

Likewise, in this piece, a famously fashionable, bestselling 'femi-demic,' Margot Mason (expertly played by multi award-winning actress Carol Burns)

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=79

The Importance of Being Earnest (Starlight Theatre)

Oscar Wilde called "The Importance of Being Earnest" his "trivial" play. Indeed, he uses the story of hopelessly trivial people to skewer the late-Victorian obsession with etiquette and appearances.

http://www.la.com/arts/Stage_Review_The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest.html

The Importance of Being Ernest [sic] was what Oscar Wilde called his "trivial" play. Indeed, he uses the story of hopelessly trivial people to skewer the late-Victorian obsession with etiquette and appearances.

http://www.briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=84

"Earnest" is a play filled with Wilde's trademark quips, with some of the choicest reserved for the female characters. Cecily and Gwendolen's genteel sparring match over tea, when each believes she is Earnest's true bride, is one of the funniest scenes in a production full of comedy.

Once all the characters have learned the importance of being Earnest, if not earnest, the audience is left with the truth of Wilde's words: The play "has as its philosophy ... that we should treat all trivial things seriously, and the serious things in life with sincere and studied triviality."

http://www.la.com/arts/Stage_Review_The_Importance_of_Being_Earnest.html

Earnest is a play filled with Wilde's trademark quips, with many reserved for the female characters of the set. Cecily and Gwendolen's genteel sparring match over tea, when each believes she is Earnest's true bride, is one of the funniest scenes in a production full of comedy and what seemed to be an endless supply of baked goods.

Once all the characters have learned the importance of being Earnest, if not earnest, the audience is left with the truth of Wilde's words: The play "has as its philosophy ... that we should treat all trivial things seriously, and the serious things in life with sincere and studied triviality."

http://www.briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=84

Should Judas Iscariot, Jesus Christ's duplicitous disciple continue to languish in Hell, or can a case be made for his redemption? Stephen Adly Guirgis, one of the most passionate and powerful young playwrights to have come down the theatrical runway, seems to think that this sinner should at least be given another hearing.

To explore the redeemability of this infamous betrayer, Guirgis has envisioned a courtroom in a corner of Purgatory called Hope. To represent the comatose Judas (Sam Rockwell), he's created a sexy defense attorney named Fabiana Aziza Cunningham (Callie Thorne) who presents a petition signed by God to the ill-tempered Civil War era presiding judge.

http://www.curtainup.com/lastdaysofjudasiscariot.html

Should Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus Christ continue to languish in Hell, or can a case be made for his redemption? Playwright Stephen Adly Guirgis seems to think that this sinner should at least be given another hearing in his play THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAS ISCARIOT, which is currently being presented by QUT Creative Industries at the Gardens Theatre.

To explore the redeemability of this infamous betrayer, Guirgis has envisioned a courtroom in a corner of Purgatory called Hope. Defense Attorney Cunningham (played to a tee by Marissa Wynne) is called in to represent the comatose Judas (masterfully played by Wade Doolan), presenting a petition signed by God to the presiding Judge Littlefield (Gemma Yates-Round gives Judge Judy a run for her money in this very funny yet very controlled performance).

http://briztix.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=110

I suppose one might expect contrition after such a revelation, and to be fair, there was at least an expression of regret from the website and one of the reviewers. However, the artistic director of Harvest Rain Theatre Company, the administrator of Briztix in '08, stated in an email to me that "people in high places" [his quotation marks] had taken offence on Briztix's behalf and that "Broadcasting emails to members of the industry is ruffling more feathers than you might be aware of! You don't want to make enemies in such a small industry."

My response to that nonsense at the time? "I...find it more than a little difficult to believe that exposing plagiarism in our community would 'ruffle more feathers' than the practice of plagiarism itself." And if that suggestion comes again, it will be met with the same response.

The writer (I use the word advisedly) of six of the plagiarised reviews also had a shot during her apology, with an accusation of " unprovoked character assassination".

To that I can only say that it's very hard to make an allegation of character assassination whilst holding a gun to one's own head.

Finally (I hope so, anyway), let me be candid. I hate plagiarism. I don't care who does it, what their ideology is, how they try to defend it. It is my view that Briztix should take down the plagiarised reviews AGAIN and bin them. They should also apologise to the theatre community AGAIN. Last time I suggested that the original authors and publishers of the reviews should be notified of the unattributed reproduction of their work. I didn't follow through with that. This time, if Briztix does not take greater responsibility for its actions, I will.

I don't know why some people think that stealing from people's brains is somehow less important than stealing from their wallets etc. I do think it's as bad...and in some cases worse. I'm utterly fed up with people who hold themselves up as paragons of virtue behaving in such a manner. And this time I want you to stand with me. Last time the support was mostly on the qt, with only a handful of people offering vocal, public support. Don't shrink. We all know there's a lot going on in certain quarters of the community that many consider to be dodgy as all fuck, and the time for sotto voce cowardice is gone.

There's another potential ethical issue surrounding a theatre company running a reviews website...but that's another show...that I'll never do.

P.S. If you're one of those people who has thought 'Gee, I'd really like to waste a lot of time uncovering plagiarism' but you don't know how, here's what you do:
1) Take a piece of writing that for all intents and purposes is a piece of shit;
2) Identify a sentence in the piece that doesn't sound like shit;
3) Paste that sentence, with quotation marks, into Google.

It's years of fun!

The Ugly One.

2011-04-02T07:00:00.002+10:00

You're sat in front of the TV with a few friends. You see some celebrity or other and most of you agree that they've had 'some work done'. Then debate begins to rage. Some of you think the whole idea of facial transformation is repellent. Others think it's totally fine if it makes you feel better about yourself.

The next time you look in the mirror all you can see are your perceived imperfections screaming at you through the glass. Nose too big/small/crooked, non-existent lips and your crow's feet are canyons. If you could change it...would you? (Read more...)

Most Bigmouthers know I'm an actor and pretty much all of 'em know that Bigmouthery is not usually a vehicle for promoting my various theatrical wheelings and dealings. Today I'm breaking that soft little rule.

The Ugly One by Marius von Mayenburg is a breakneck comedy that centres on Lette, a man who, after transforming his face, transforms his life in new, mad, totally unexpected ways. And that's all I'm telling you about the story...other than it's theatre that you must see.

The Ugly One is produced by 23rd Productions, directed by Kat Henry and features the not inconsiderable talents of these three people...and some guy.

!Metro Arts Bookings

It's fast, it's funny, it's fucked up. I'm not telling you any more. Just go and see it.

World Theatre Day 2011 (Contains Nudity).

2011-03-27T10:18:00.000+10:00

It's World Theatre Day 2011, a day that marks the many thousands of local contributions that people make to theatre around the world. Yesterday on Facebook a certain theatre personality asked what we were doing to celebrate this most hallowed tribute to the greatest of the lively arts. I said I'd be running lines for my next show, The Ugly One (more on that next week) and also learning a monologue for an upcoming audition. Her response?

Or it didn't happen huh? Huh?! Well, Mme Foy, challenge...accepted! (Wanna see some skin?)

Here's me learning both play and monologue simultaneously:

Here's a sample of my incredible range whilst running lines:

Here's me running lines OUTSIDE:

Here's me running lines while 'indisposed':

Methinks the challenge has been MET! In celebration, I offer this most beautiful gift to Bigmouthers, theatre practitioners and THE UNIVERSE on this World Theatre Day 2011...my oft-mentioned, shapely white butt!

Countdown - rxnxr

2011-03-23T12:45:00.006+10:00

Gay Marriage 2 - That Fuckin' Julia Gillard

2011-03-21T18:55:00.011+10:00

This edition comes courtesy of force of nature and 'revolutionary leader-in-waiting' Ms K Fray, who posted a Daily Telegraph article earlier this evening on Facebook. In it, Australian Prime Minister and Head Robot Julia Gillard (to be known from now on as "that fuckin' Julia Gillard") says that she's against gay marriage "because of the way our society is and how we got here". The comments, which now countersink TF Julia Gillard's political stance as a social conservative, were made yesterday on Sky News' Australian Agenda. (Read on...)

What's she saying? That there are certain things from our past that are fundamentally right and good and should not change? No doubt that's true. There are quite a view values that we should continue to nurture, even from that horrible Bible (even as an atheist, I've still never read anything quite so spot on about love as 1 Corinthians 13).

As this is off the cuff, I just can't help thinking that this, if it weren't an argument culled from her daily robot talking points email, does not really sit with other paradigm shifts in her life...such as the sharp relief between a Baptist childhood and an atheistic adulthood. Or seemingly being well and truly behind the unofficial International Year of the Lesbian in 1983 when she was head of the Australian Students Union.

It really just doesn't sit well does it? Perhaps we should have held on to the White Australia Policy? Capital punishement? The lash? Maybe South Australia, where Gillard was allegedly instilled with these core social values, should have resisted the temptation to be the first state to decriminalise homosexuality in 1975.

Or maybe "that fuckin' Julia Gillard" should embrace the fact the homosexuality was an accepted part of many societies long before the nutbags started frothing madly against human nature before slinking off for a quick man hand shandy in the quiet of a sacristy...or manse.

Fact is, I don't really think "that fuckin' Julia Gillard" believes a goddamn word of what she's saying. She's playing the new politics, but in this case the appeal to popularity will fail her.. Why? Because homophobia, while still present in society, is dying. Why is that? Society is now filling with people unafraid to say they are gay and lesbian, and in so doing, their voice has become louder and far more articulate. And because of that, they are changing perceptions faster than that fucking coward Julia Gillard can keep up.

As Kath said in her Facebook post, at least Tony Abbott had the balls to be a big part of the conscience vote on RU486 a few years back. The Australian Labor Party has lost its balls, its guts...and is fast losing its soul.

Gay Marriage 1.

I Like Trees.

2011-03-20T15:20:00.004+10:00

Today I got together with my good friend Mirko to record some music. I've written a few songs over the years, a few of which are okay, some terrible and some merely incomplete. Of this latter category, about five (plus one or two totally new ones) will be crafted into complete songs over the course of the next three months. They will form a kind of EP called, at this stage, 'rxnxr'.

Mirko is a fine musician and a great man. We've known each other since school and have recorded together a bunch of times. As a musician, I'm a pretty good actor, but with patience and studio access I may be able to make a few nice songs in the near future. Of course, my impatience means that I like to walk out the door with something to show for my efforts, so at the end of today's session (in which I lay down a bit of guitar for a new song about and for the most beautiful girl in existence), I cranked out this little punky number called 'I Like Trees'. Be warned, it's abrasive...but at just over a minute it's mercifully short.

I like trees
I like the way they grow leaves
Sometimes they're brown, sometimes they're green
It just depends how much it rains
Some people have a favourite tree
There's one just down the street from me
It is a Norfolk Island Pine
You can see a montage on your screen

At night they breathe like you & me
Some are desirous of the sea
For them it wasn't meant to be
Sometimes I think it's lookin' at me
Sometimes I think it's lookin' at me
Sometimes I think it's lookin' at me
Sometimes I think it's lookin' at me
Stop it!

Sick Stastistics (sic).

2011-03-13T18:00:00.003+10:00

Ever since my senior year of high school, I can't hear the word 'statistics' without thinking 'stastistics'. Like many people, my maths teacher Mr Marks could not say the word statistics. He said 'stastistics'. Worse, he had severe whistled sibilance. Consider this: statistics made up a full semester of the subject in Grade 12. You may now understand how torturous it was. The only statistical analysis I performed in that class was working out how many times the combed-over ol' bore hissed 'ssstassstisssticsss' in a six-month period. My final tally was over 1000. I couldn't hand that in for marking and I didn't do any other work. Needless to say, I failed.

Funnily enough, a lot of people, including famous world leaders, can't say the word 'nuclear'. These two words are at the heart of today's Bigmouthery. (Read on...)

The recent devastation in Japan has raised concerns, not just about the immediate natural effects of what is obviously a massive disaster, but the impact on Japan's nuclear reactors. An explosion has occurred at the Fukushima reactor in Honshu, with fears that worse is to come. Fukushima is reportedly among five reactors and two power plants under threat.

Yesterday on the ABC's Insiders program, News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt, in decrying the Australian government's 'demand' for information from the Japanese about the potential for nuclear disaster, stated that the 1986 Chernobyl disaster claimed a total of approximately 50 lives. Within minutes of the claim, Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere were aflame with criticism of Bolt. For those who aren't familiar with the man, Andrew Bolt is disliked by many because he is a right-wing polemicist, but mostly because he is a smug cunt. I'm a bit of a polemicist myself (albeit not right-wing) and must admit to the occasional propensity towards smug cuntery. But neither can be used as valid arguments against Bolt, unless his political leanings were so extreme as to be considered...too extreme.

So...did Bolt pull the 50 from his bottom? The shadow of prevailing opinion 25 years on seems to be that thousands died. Or was he right in suggesting that nuclear power is, like anthropogenic climate change, a scaremongering tool wielded by greenies and other leftists?

No, he didn't pull the figure outta his butt. In 2006 Bolt's Herald Sun blog linked to a UN media release on the World Health Organisation website that stated "fewer than 50 [Chernobyl disaster] deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers..." However, the release began by saying that "a total of up to 4000 people could eventually die".

If Bolt had sourced the figure from wownuclearpoweristotallyawesome.com, he could be shot down, albeit fallaciously, in a second, but he was quoting a multi-agency UN report. More on that later.

Even so, 50 people...20 years on? It just sounds wrong doesn't it? Doesn't everyone who was around back then remember Chernobyl as a massive disaster that went on to cause untold damage? In scouring the internet for hard numbers on Chernobyl casualties, 'untold' seems to be the key word, albeit in a very different context.

In response to the UN report, an alternative 'independent' report was published:

:TORCH (The Other Report on Chernobyl) 30,000-60,000 deaths, 18,000-66,000 cancers.

Greenpeace released a report of their own:

Greenpeace report, 2006: Tens of thousands dead, up to 250,000 cancers.

The group International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War also released a report in 2006: 50,000-100,000 deaths, up to a 900,000 "invalids".

Last year a book by two Russian scientists claimed that up to 985,000 people worldwide had been killed by fallout from the Chernobyl event.

So, depending on who you believe, Chernobyl killed anywhere from 50 people...to a million people.

Andrew Bolt chose the low end number for political purposes, just as others may choose the high end for their own political purposes. It may just be that we will never know the true figure because EVERYONE involved in data collection is politically motivated or on a dodgy payroll.

One of the agencies involved in the UN report was the International Agency for Atomic Energy, an organisation devoted to the use of nuclear energy peacefully. Easy meat for lefties.

While Greenpeace cites the strength of 52 scientists working on their report, the fact that it's Greenpeace is easy meat for righties.

The TORCH report, while touting the independence of its two main scientists, was commissioned by a German Green Party MEP with the backing of The Altner-Combecher Foundation for Ecology and Peace. Bolt and his ilk would have a fucking field day with that.

Yes, attacking the source is fallacious. If it's Greenpeace it must be lies, says the right. If it's the IAEA, it must be lies, says the left. None of it gets us any closer to the facts. And all of it, including Bolt's commentary, pulls focus from what is happening in Japan, where it is clear that on top of the death and destruction caused by the quake and tsunami, the possibility of a severe nuclear incident cannot be ignored. Pulling the number 50 from one report, calling it gospel and saying 'to hell with the nuclear thing' just because it suits your own ends is a load of horseshit.

So what to conclude? Chernobyl was bad but we don't know how bad and probably never will. Statistics are important but can be abused. Japan faces threats on a number of levels at scales we cannot properly assess. Sibilance was the reason I failed at school..and Andrew Bolt is a smug cunt.

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that." - Homer Simpson.

A Few Grains of Salt.

2011-03-13T09:38:00.002+10:00

A purple patch of busyness lately has kept me from writing new Bigmouthery, so I first extend apologies to those who traipse all the way over here from their regular Internetworld to find nothing. Because of the lack of activity, I decided to share a few older 'classic' blog entries from the early days of five page views per day, four of which were probably me. Last week I posted a link via Facebook to a 2008'classic' about homeopathy, which met with a little opposition. (On you go...)

A quick recap: homeopathy operates on a few basic ideas, 1) that 'like cures like, 2) that the higher the dilution of 'like' substance, the stronger it is and 3) that water has a memory.

The opposition to the blog came from people I love, admire and respect, so naturally I was concerned I may have offended them with the usual Bigmouthery brand of colourful language (I don't normally worry about this with strangers, I mean who gives a fuckety dollop about people you don't know?) and it appears to have stemmed from their own apparently successful experiences with homeopathic preparations. On re-reading the entry, I could find no attack on homeopaths or people who adhere to the 'treatments'. It was merely an entry calling into question the principles upon which homeopathy is founded, blended with a measure of incredulity.

There's little question in my mind that the bulk of homeopaths practise their 'trade' with noble intentions, firmly believing that the preparations they sell improve the health and wellbeing of their customers. Similarly, I've no argument with those who adhere to homeopathy as a useful means of attaining health and wellbeing. Those who took an opposing view spoke vehemently & passionately and fair play to 'em all, but I can't help feeling they thought I was attacking them. Not so. I merely questioned the efficacy of such treatment, and I question it still.

If you want to spend a bit of money having a pleasant chat with a nice, compassionate person who gives you a preparation that makes you feel better, that's great. If you choose to reject the overwhelming evidence that states homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo, that's fine too, if it makes you feel good. Again, if I care about you, so much the better (one day I may reach the enlightened state of loving every single person in the world, but I ain't there yet).

The blog entry took a skeptical (or sceptical, or squeptilamoblic) view about homeopathy. That's kinda what I do here a lot of the time. Bigmouthery is mildly polemical, if such a state can exist. If there is a prevailing opinion that humans have supernatural powers, I will present an opposing view. If the powers that be hold the line that gay marriage is a threat to society (or merely that it's not a vote winner), Bigmouthery will present the argument in a different light. If most people are convinced of the existence of an Abrahamic god, I will put forward a view that contradicts said existence. Why? Because 1) I enjoy it, 2) I believe it's crucial for humans (myself included) to be presented with views that challenge the comfort level of their current thinking and 3) I am, by nature and conditioning, a skeptic.

To some, to be skeptical means cynical. Or closed-minded. I prefer to think of it as being curious and quizzical. If someone said to me that an extremely dilute solution of Bumholia Arsegushii made their constipation go away, I'd be quite pleased for them, but I'd still question what really cleared up their squits. The power of belief? The natural course of the malady? An Imodium Mickey Finn?

It seems wrong to me not to question. Similarly, it would seem wrong to me to kick up a stink if it were revealed that a god does exist, or research revealed without question that water does have a memory and homeopathy is a legitimate, efficacious form of treatment. What annoys me is that, simply by rejecting the "dullness of curiosity" as Stephen Fry calls it, the arguments I put forward are usually countered with fallacious reasoning or no argument at all, which takes us away from the initial point and limits our ability to come to a mutual understanding, which in turn stymies our development.

For example, in the Facebook comments, the word 'faith' was used. Suddenly a fallacy of equivocation (as well as a straw man) was created around that word, despite the fact I went to great pains to define what I meant by faith in the context of the argument. Likewise, an ad verecundiam fallacy was brought up in a comment that suggested I must not know much about homeopathy because I've not met any homeopaths. As if by somehow meeting them I'd be convinced because...well, because I'd met some homeopaths.

None of this brought us any closer together...and the weirdest part was, I said nothing in that blog which would prompt any great division. My fear today is that the very act of trying to clarify what required no clarification will only create further division. But that won't prevent me from continuing to provoke thought and honest debate...and it certainly won't stop me from using words like cuntytruncheon.