Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Wh*t the fuck is wr*ng w*th the w*rld?

There is something that has been fucking bugging me for some time.

It is something I simply cannot understand. I try and come up blank.

It is the sort of thing that is so utterly pointless, so petty in its stupidity and just so completely, mindblowingly bizarre that I feel despair.

I am talking about the insistence of so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people in refusing to fucking spell swearwords properly.

Here is a memo from Carlo Sands: “F*ck” fools no one.

Everyone knows what this word is, what it means and, above all, how the fucking thing is supposed to be spelled!

Excluding the “u” does not achieve one thing. It is just “bullsh*t” – which is another example of how to prove you are a fool.

Swearwords, of course, have a long history of being censored in the mainstream media. It will get beeped-out on the telly or dashed-out in the press.

Let’s be clear: the reasons are the insanity and total hypocrisy of bourgeois morality.

You can build obscene wealth on the back of the most extreme exploitation, you can rape and pillage, you can carry out genocidal wars ... but you cannot publicly utter certain words in common usage throughout society.

This attitude originated through the approach to a society’s dominant religion. The dominant religion was used to prop up and justify the dominant economic and power structures. As such, it had to be treated with respect and be above criticism and mockery.

In otherwords, blasphemy must not be allowed.

Therefore, there were always certain words and phrases that, however much they may be used by people day-in and day-out, the official stance of respectable society was that these collection of letters forming certain words cannot be uttered in a public sphere.

What was traditionally considered blasphemy in our society is, these days, no longer considered so offensive. But the basic attitude persists (because bad attitudes have a way of hanging around) applied to a series of other words that, when thought about logically, are not inherently better or worse than any others.

And so our newspapers are still full of f---s, even though every single person reading the article knows what the missing letters are and society doesn’t come tumbling down because of that fact.

This may be one of the most pointless gestures ever, but neither does it surprise me. There is little that is sane, reasonably or consistent about “official” morality.

The corporate media will happily quote a government spokesperson making the most offensive statements supporting for some genocidal war, or advocating a policy that guarantees total eco-destruction, but will deny you or me the airspace to say “Get fucked, shitface” in response.

It’s madness.

But what I want to know is, what is the fucking deal with all these otherwise perfectly reasonable people I see in places like Facebook who, in the groups they set up and in status messages they post, *insist* on aping this petty little example of official hypocrisy.?

I offer one example: the otherwise worthy Facebook group WHERE THE F*CK IS MY ... found it.

This group speaks to me and I relate to every aspect of it except its strange relationship to the English language.

It is spelled FUCK!

Believe me, you can say “fuck” and “shit” to your heart’s content on Facebook with no problems whatsoever.

But for some reason a bunch of otherwise sane people have gone and internalised this surreal approach to the human language whereby you have to hide certain letters in certain words to appease some bizarre sense of propriety.

I mean, what do people think, God is sitting up there on the verge of throwing down a lightning bolt but stops and says “Oh, its alright, they’ve blacked out a letter or two”?

Of course, some people just don’t like the word. They think it unnecessarily crude and many say it is overused.

Fine. No one is forced to say “fuck”.

But if you don’t like a word, you don’t fucking use it. Those offended by the word cannot be appeased by pretending you have forgotten a vowel.

Most of all, it deeply unfair to some perfectly innocent letters.

The letter “u” is not offensive. It is not dangerous. It doesn’t deserve to be censured.

There is no “u” in “war”. Or in “racism”.

Or in Bono.

“U” is being unfairly maligned.

But it seems some of a particularly puritan bent also have a problem with the letter “c”, and thus spell “fuck” as “f—k”.

Again, most unfair.

There is no “c” in Kyle Sandilands. True, there *is* two in Nickleback, but that’s hardly the most offensive thing about that band: that would be every fucking thing they have ever recorded.

Some real ultra-moralists cannot even stand to see the letter “k” and so insist on typing “f---“, or referring in a whisper to “the ‘f’ word”.

Well, I don't know who decreed “f” a respectable letter, but I say “u”, “c” and “k” are equally fine.

It may be pointed out there are still others that go further give us [EXPLETIVE DELETED] or the ever-popular #&@!

I actually prefer this approach, because at least has the charm of leaving it to your imagination.

It inspires creativity as you get to guess the words used that were so offensive not a single letter could be shown in public. Each reader can invent their own sentences.

For instance: “The [expletive deleted] with the [expletive deleted] inserted it in the [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] to [expletive deleted] the [expletive deleted] who was apparently a dentist, but I said [expletive deleted] with [expletive deleted] to [expletive deleted] your own [expletive deleted] mother!”

There is nothing to inspire the imagination about seeing “F*ck”. It is just infuriating in its stupidity.

Nothing bad will happen to you, you won’t get arrested, JUST FUCKING SAY FUCK IF YOU FUCKING WANT TO SAY FUCK!

“Fuck ‘what I did was your fault somehow’. Fuck all the presents, I threw all that shit out. Fuck all the crying, it didn’t mean jack. Well guess what yo, FUCK YOU RIGHT BACK”. Nothing bad happened to Frankee when she responded to some arsehole in this way, she just felt a hell of a lot better about the world.

Monday, February 22, 2010

No escape from 'easy listening' curse

As per-usual, British comedian Mark Steel has nailed one of the great crimes of late monopoly capitalism: easy listening music.

It struck me as the decent thing to do, on behalf of avid readers of this blog, to bring together Steel's satircal barbs about a society dominted by a ceaseless drive for profit with the lovely, accessible and endlessly interesting and just damn plain useful google ads that An Alcoholic's Guide to Modern Life is happy, nay proud, to provide (see top of the page for your gateway to online shopping heaven!).

No escape from the curse of 'easy-listening' radio

Mark Steel

In these discussions about the use of torture, everyone seems to have missed the growth of one barbaric practice rapidly on the increase, which is the enforced playing of Magic FM in public places. This hideous fake-soothing, "easy-listening" evil infests a huge number of caf├ęs, minicabs, shopping centres, leisure centres, pubs. It's unstoppable, and unless we reduce its emissions by 90 per cent by 2020 the planet will become uninhabitable.

read the whole fucking thing

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Finally, definitive proof there is no God (or is the Tom Waits hypothesis proven?)

Tony Abbott survives nearly being hit by semi-trailor

Ergo: no God.

An alternative may be what is known in philosophical circles as the "Tom Waits hypothesis".

It is a succinct argument that explains in its totality all the thorny theological issues related to the horrific state of the world and the question of the existence of a single all-knowing, all-powerful deity.

It deftly side-steps the issues that have dogged theolegians for centuries, such as free will versus determinism.

Actually, Tom Waits has offered two positions, but both are equally effective.

The first is the thesis provided in the 1980 song Heartattack and Vine, in which Waits offers up the following supposition: "Don't you know there aint no devil, there's just God when he's drunk."

A convincing argument, but perhaps it depends too much on the variable that God has yet to sober up. That is a big variable given how little is known about the quality of a deity's liver and whether it can handle a drinking binge at least 6000 years long.

A second, equally intriguing, hypothesis offered up by Waits came in the 2002 song below. Equally straightforward, but with a wider variety of annecdotal evidence provided to prove the absence in the world of said deity, the argument is this: God's away on business.

"Who are the ones that we kept in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers." Tom Waits makes his case for an extended working holiday by God as the primary cause of the deteriorating conditions of hunan civilisation in late monopoly capitalism.


More theological discusions by Waits:

"Perhaps he is away indefinately? Perhaps he was never here? There are two different schools of thought on this."

"God's a short guy who started in the mailroom and, you know, worked his way up and invested well."


"This stuff will probably kill ya, let's do another line." Waits groundbreaking exploration of the philosophical issues plaguing theologians for centuries also offers up invaluable medical advice.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Why does Kevin Rudd hate us so much?

On February 9, King of Australia Kevin Rudd told a room full of teenagers at a special “question and answer” session on ABC TV that he supported raising the legal drinking age in Australia from 18 to 21.

Apparently, the Q&A didn't go too well.

This was not just a slip of the tongue or the ravings of one particularly mad wowser. Rudd’s government has been beating this drum since it took power in late ’07. Ironically, the youth vote was decisive to Rudd’s victory over his arch-conservative opponent.

Barely had Rudd assumed the crown when the royal decree came down: four *standard* drinks is “binge drinking”. (Note: that is less than three fucking stubbies).

And “binge drinking”, his government said, is an epidemic among our youth.

(Alas, the stats reveal lower levels of alcohol consumption than in times gone past. But if you wish to define “binge drinking” in such a ridiculous way, you can of course create an “epidemic”.

For instance, it is rumoured that a relatively significant section of today’s youth have at least one cup of coffee or tea on many days. And we all know how damaging caffeine is when used in excess.

All we need is the government memo declaring “excess” to be “more than one cup in a single day” and we can all run around screaming while the media shakes its head and mourns for a lost generation of twitchy caffeine-soaked youth.)

The government has made its anti-booze agenda clear from the start.

Rudd’s latest comments about the drinking age came in the aftermath of certain academics making similar calls picked up by the media.

And it comes in the aftermath of Melbourne's insane and criminal 2am lock-out (you can’t get into a joint to get a fucking drink after 2am!)

And after tax increases on alcohol, with alcopops — the drink of choice for the modern teenager — singled out.

It is obvious this government has a crypto-prohibitionist agenda. This is backed by a media campaign that repeats a simple message in increasingly hysterical tones: “Drinking causes violent crimes!”

And the obvious solution to this modern blight is more and more restrictions on the right to purchase and consume alcohol. Anyone who knows anything knows that if the prohibition of alcohol in the United States from 1920-1933 achieved anything at all, it reduced violent crime.

Al Capone: a personal example of the way in which legal restrictions on alcohol sale and consumption reduced violent crimes in the US during Prohibition.

Treading carefully, Rudd is seeking to extend prohibition piecemeal — starting with 18, 19 and 20-year-olds.

Then, it will be prohibition for all ages after midnight. Then 10pm. Then before 2pm.

Then, happy hour will be banned for “encouraging irresponsible drinking patterns”. It will become illegal for bottlos to offer specials.

Taxes will be ratcheted up dramatically — until prohibition by default is introduced and only Packer heirs can afford a beer after a hard days watching other people making them money.

You may think I am being alarmist. But these are all things that have either happened in milder form or have been floated.

The question is not whether Rudd wants this to happen, but just how much of it he can get away with.

So, Carlo Sands requests his own personal “Q&A” with our beloved monarch. And the question I want answered is this: Why does Emperor Rudd hate us all so much?

What have we ever done to him? I mean, we elected him for fuck’s sake — on the grounds that he might be a dull right-wing conservative with strong technocratic tendencies, but at least he wasn’t a dull right-wing conservative with blatantly fascist tendencies.

And *this* is how he repays us?

It is obvious that Kevin Rudd has a deep loathing for the Australian people, and no doubt humanity.

And the first in his sights are the youth. He must have had a terrible time at school, because his desire to to have his revenge on the current generation of youth seems insatiable.

Why does Kevin Rudd want young people to be miserable?

The stats are in
. A study reveals that the happiest people are those that drink regularly.

Not only did this study reveal that the happiest were those who drink every day, it revealed the most unhappy were those who did not drink at all.

This really shouldn’t be a shock, when you consider the state the world is in, but we live in disturbing times when even the more obvious truths must be repeated and repeated.

So why does our king want those under 21 to be miserable?

It is no secret that depression is a major problem among youth. And the emperor wants to introduce a policy specifically designed to make it worse.

There are even bigger questions. Why does Kevin Rudd not care about the health of our young people?

Everyone knows a major problem for people as they age is the risk of osteoporosis — where bones weaken significantly. And everyone knows a crucial time to deal with this problem, to work at strengthening the bones with needed minerals and vitamins, is while still growing.

No doubt the ages 18-20 are particularly significant.

On the exact same day that Rudd announced his support for raising the drinking age, ABC News broke the story: “New research suggests drinking beer can be good for bones and may help prevent osteoporosis, a condition where bones become thin and weak.

“Scientists from the University of California have found beer is a significant source of dietary silicon, which they say helps build bones.”

So why does Rudd want our youth to have bad bones and potentially develop crippling osteoporosis when they are older?

And there is the terrible blight on society that is heart disease. Hell, we even have a whole week dedicated to the problem — and students are encouraged to educate themselves and raise money in relation to the problem.

And yet, our Dear Leader himself wants to deny our teenagers one of the products scientific research reveals are best for the heart: red wine.

In fact, studies show that, for those with fatty diets, red wine consumption can be extremely beneficial to the health.

And it isn't just the heart.

Cancer is the modern plague — and it could be being made worse by all the health Nazis.

A recent study found that consuming red wine and chocolate helps to fight cancer.

“Cabernet and chocolate are potent medicine for killing cancer, according to research.

“Red grapes and dark chocolate join blueberries, garlic, soy, and teas as ingredients that starve cancer while feeding bodies, Angiogenesis Foundation head William Li told a TED (technology, entertainment design) conference in Long Beach, California.”

For whatever twisted reasons of his own, our prime minister appears to want future generations of the elderly to be tumor-ridden while simultaneously suffering broken bones caused by falling over after having heart attacks.

Is this because no one asked him to join them at the pub for a drink when he was 19?

For reasons of his own, King Rudd wants Australia’s youth to be miserable and beset by poor health in old age.

Or, perhaps, is this some sort of advance-plan cost cutting measure, based on Treasury predictions of an increasingly aging population — an attempt to thin the flock?

Is this some sort of deal with the mafia and biker gangs who have gotten sick of smuggling in ecstasy tablets and crystal meth and want to run moonshine from New Zealand to serve at illegal gambling dens with cool jazz playing and corrupt cops looking the other way for their take?

Has Rudd just seen to many goddamn gangster films?

There are many questions. And President Rudd, Carlo Sands wants answers.

Growing bodies need booze — Rudd's crypto-prohibitionism must be opposed.