Saving Private Kovco + Shut Up, David
This is very, very strange
, for 3 reasons:
1. How exactly does a Browning 9mm pistol discharge by itself? And if it didn't happen accidentally while Private Kovco was cleaning it, why did Brendan Nelson initially claim this was the case?
2. How was the wrong body flown to the other side of the world
? Why were the relevant documents imposing strict identification procedures never signed?
3. John Howard is apologising and actually taking full responsibility for something.
It's easy and sometimes fun to play the "Blame Howard" game and blame him for just about anything, or connect him in some way to what's wrong, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon style, but for once, I don't think he is actually directly involved in this particular cover-up, if indeed that's what's going on. His guilt only extends to the point that he originally sent Australian troops to Iraq for a fraudulent war.
However, somebody, somewhere has either fucked up royally or is doing a very poor attempt at covering up a deliberate murder or accidental killing.
Either way, you've gotta feel for the Kovco family. I wouldn't be able to begin to imagine what this must feel like. Poor sods.
Hip-hop hoo fuckin' ray, the little bareback mountaineer finally came out
to the other housemates.
Typically, one of the other HMs, Camilla, turned the issue on herself and her
problems, whinging that David had unfairly flirted with her and led her on. Sorry girlfriend, but it ain't his fault if your gaydar needs to be taken to the repair shop.
In David's counter-whinging explanations as to why he initially kept the "big secret" to himself, he pointed out how there are still laws that discriminate against gay people.
No shit, Sherlock - and which party is one of the strongest supporters of such laws? Your good mates at the Nationals
I don't care if you want to be one of those fags who sells out the sisterhood by voting conservative and saying that you don't give a shit about queer politics, there's more to you than just your sexuality, why should your sexuality define your politics, yadda yadda - but don't be a filthy hypocrite about it. If you're genuinely troubled by the injustices and inequalities facing queer people, and you're going to speak publicly about them, be part of the solution, not the problem. Don't be an active member of a political party that thrives on inequality and homophobia, you stupid bint.
Also, his sister is saying that his parents already knew he was gay, but that David didn't know that they knew. How selfish is that, thinking you're outing yourself to your parents on national TV
?! I certainly gave mine the courtesy of a sneak preview before distributing the press releases.
These nothings who suddenly think they're something because they're on television also think such big announcements adds to the dramatic effect, but frankly if he genuinely loves his parents, he could show them so much more consideration.
Sure, it's nice that this season's TF (token fag) is something other than some kind of gym worker, but this guy's doing nothing for me.
Dino, on the other hand: mmmm.
How Do We Love? Let Us Count The Ways
Since the last open floor posting was quite successful, I thought I might give it another shot again.
The following is a feature scheduled to be published in SX
Have a read, and then at the end I'd like to do a little survey of which of the following options people would personally prefer for their partnerships (real or speculative) and why. Or if there's another option I've missed. Or if none of these appeal.
For this post I'd just like to hear from the gays and dykes in the village; nothing against the breeders, it's just that this isn't really relevant to youse at this late stage.
PS - For the record, I fully support enactment of 3 and 4 but for myself would go with 3.
The federal government is ignoring it in the hope it will go away; Labor is “consulting the community
” about it; the Greens believe they’ve already got it sorted
and Family First – well, they’re still chopping up the best kindling wood with which to burn lesbians at the stake
Yes, it’s That Beast That Must Not Be Named: Formal relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
Many of us are such couples, know couples personally, or have heard the horror stories, of how a continued denial at federal level of our relationships can hurt us emotionally and financially. And with the vast majority of Australians supporting, and only a tiny minority of fringe extremists opposing some means of ending discrimination against law-abiding, tax-paying civil citizens in committed, long-term relationships, the question now seems to be not when it will happen, but how, and to what extent.
The way I read the situation, there are 4 possible avenues to go down in the quest to end discrimination:1. Law reform only, no formal models
: This is actually a possibility under the Howard government, as we’ve seen with its various piecemeal policy reforms in the areas of defence, migration and veterans’ entitlements, as well as extending same-sex couples as “interdependents” for the purposes of private sector superannuation. It resolves some, but not many, of the practical difficulties of legal discrimination, in a very quiet, unheralded manner least likely to frighten the horses.Cons
: There is no commitment ceremony involved and certainly no legally-binding contract at the end of this. It frustratingly acknowledges the reality of same-sex couples while concurrently denying them the opportunity for formal recognition of their relationships, implying we deserve no more than the absolute barest minimum.2. InterdependencyPros
: There is an existing precedent on which the federal government could base a model of interdependent relationship recognition – that is, the Tasmanian Personal Relationships Registration scheme
, where 2 people who can prove interdependency, including same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, primary carers and elderly friends to name a few examples, are able to register their relationship. Such a registration comes complete with all relevant rights and responsibilities under Tasmanian law.
Interdependent relationship registration is theoretically supported even by the strongest opponents of homosexuality, such as Family First. Where FF has argued (recently in South Australia, for example) that same-sex state law reform is “discriminatory” against non-sexual relationships, this argument becomes moot when there is broader interdependent application.Cons
: Such a scheme essentially desexualises our relationships by equating same-sex with non-sexual relationships. In essence, there is a denial of one of the key factors of a same-sex partnership that distinguishes us from the elderly friends or carers – that is, that we fuck.
Furthermore, proving interdependency comes with a whole new set of difficult criteria to establish and prove, criteria that is unnecessary or already assumed in de facto relationships.3. Civil unions
: Civil unions are supported by many individual MPs in both the Labor and Coalition parties, even if neither has an official party position on the matter either way. Given the growing number of countries enacting civil union or equivalent schemes all over the world, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to defend Australia’s intransigence, especially considering we were one of the first countries to begin decriminalising homosexuality many years ago and all but one of our states and territories now mostly equate same-sex couples with unmarried de facto heterosexual equivalents.
Civil unions are distinct from and do not “mimic” the existing institution of marriage, which is irrelevant, patriarchal and/or antiquated to many queer people.Cons
: Enactment of civil unions ultimately entrenches inequality by establishing a 2-tier level of relationships. Essentially, they reinforce the fallacy that queer people are not “good enough” to get married.
There is also the tension between state and federal jurisdictions to consider here. While our federal Attorney-General argues his government has no scope over civil unions, as we have seen recently with the ACT he is only too willing to overturn any civil unions enacted in the territories, and no doubt the states, he argues are in conflict with the federal law definition of marriage.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister has basically made clear he opposes civil unions altogether, and with his stranglehold on the government so tight it’s difficult to see well-meaning civil union supporters, such as Warren Entsch
, getting unqualified support from enough of their colleagues for such a Bill.4. Marriage
: By definition, marriage rights for same-sex couples indicate total equality. Allowing same-sex couples to marry might revolutionise an institution already considered redundant by a growing number of people, queer and straight, and perhaps most importantly would give those gay boys and dykes who’ve dreamed of a white wedding a chance to see their dreams come true.Cons
: Same-sex marriage automatically implies parity between queer and straight relationships, where many people of both persuasions argue our relationships are just too different for this to be the case.
Also, given the 2004 same-sex marriage ban was supported by both the parties currently capable of forming government, it’s unrealistic to assume this will become a reality in Australia anytime soon. There is a perception, correct or otherwise, that same-sex marriage does not sit well in mainstream federal politics. The solution of the Greens, to legislate for state same-sex marriages, runs the same risk as civil unions – that is, if they were overturned, we’d effectively be taking one step forward, two steps back in the quest for equality.
While I don’t know for certain the best way to go, I do know that while politicians continue their standard electoral point-scoring rhetoric throughout this debate, same-sex couples continue to suffer and Australia falls further behind the rest of the world. Some even leave the country they love so that their commitment can be fully celebrated and endorsed.
Is our country really so very different, so unique, that enactment of the second, third or fourth of the abovementioned schemes is utterly unthinkable?
Token BB Posting
UPDATE: Looks like I was way off - apparently it's David, the country thing.
Reality check for those of you undertaking the equivalent of typepad ejactulation at the mere thought of this man:
David: I believe in equal rights, however I'm a committed member of the Nationals.
Oh, girlfriend. We gotta talk.
I stopped genuinely giving a shit about this show after the second season. This should be my one and only BB posting - I leave incisive commentary to the experts - and the only reason I'm bothering this time 'round is that this year's brat-pack of shallow, self-absorbed tossers do at least appear to be hotter than the last couple of season's worth.
So, let's just get this out of the way and then we can move onto relevant stuff. Who do we think is the big gay homosexual?
I reckon it's either Dino
("I put off having a girlfriend for a long time because I was not ready (school, money, work, and other commitments). Now I am ready because I have organised my life and have everything in balance but have not found the right girl to be slightly serious with. Being single is ok, but girlfriends are nice!" QP: Girlfriends are nice - wtf?!)
Because the first part of his name's "gay" (heheh),
("I constantly have at least eight girls on the run at a time and start relationships every few weeks, which end when I realise they are not 'the one.' QP: Because none of them have cocks?
I still talk to nearly all of them, as I do form strong attachments with them. QP: Best ex-gf-turned-fag-hag friend story to relate at his 30th: "We actually WENT OUT TOGETHER, can you believe it?! But when I walked in him taking it up the chuff from my little brother I realised we were only destined to be non-sexual soul mates. Why do I ALWAYS fall for the gay ones?!! I need cake."
And during the courtship period I cannot put a foot wrong, leaving them with an impression of a gentle, nice guy, which I believe, but for circumstance, I actually am. QP: Gentle, nice? How about "sensitive"? "In tune with my feelings?" "Blackhead-free"? Stupid poof.
For two years now however, I have been unable to take a relationship past two months." QP: See earlier, cock-related comment.)
Plus he looks not unlike the totally gay video-game superhero, Xandir, from Drawn Together:
Yup, my money's on Jamie as the fudge-packing bandit.
Didn't catch the opening night - can anyone inform me whether or not Gretel's still capable of facial expressions?
It's been nearly a week since my last post, sue me. Actually, don't. Between my final paycheck at current job and first paycheck at new job I'm going to be poorer than Suri
(by which I mean figuratively, not literally, ie "that poor, poor sod").
Coz I'm too damn lazy to come up with a proper post, here are some random musings. And then you kids can play along at home by replying in the comments.
Dutifully went back to Adelaide over Easter with the new man to do (possibly future) in-law introductions. All went well. I always enjoy going back there. Even though I have no desire to want to return there permanently anytime soon, the odd visit every now and then is something I actually look forward to.
Many don't. There are so many Adelaide ex-pats flung to all corners of the nation and globe, many more than just those who'll actually admit to it. I have quite a few friends who seem to hate their home small city/big country town with a chill icier than Marcia Cross' forehead. Personally, I don't know what it's done to warrant such strong emotion.
Then I got to thinking of association issews. If you've grown up in a pretty shitty family environment, as quite a few of my ex-Adel friends have, I guess it would be difficult to enjoy going back there to visit family members. It would be even more difficult to enjoy the city on its own individual merits.
The thing is, Adelaide is not Sydney, Melbourne or even Brisbane. And I don't think it's ever tried to be. It has its own, "small" thing happening. Comes alive during some great festivals, has shitloads of fantastic restaurants and wineries, and you can get to spectacular beaches, mountains or parks all within half an hour of the CBD. Otherwise, it's a pretty quiet, unassuming place. It's sad to see its population ageing without growing, but perhaps this could be turned around with some pro-migrant policies and better governmental economic management that stimulates labour growth. Or something.
So maybe the problem isn't the city itself, it's what it represents to certain people. One friend of the man's who we ran into at Sydney Airport following the return flight looked ready to go postal, he'd had such a horrendous time there. Again, I thought: Adelaide, on its own, is way too inoffensive to generate such raw emotions just by itself. And sure enough, the man told me later his friend has family/parenal issews. Bingo.
I reckon it's also symptomatic of people, particularly younger people's, restlessness. Often, no matter where we live, we wish we were living somewhere "bigger", more exciting, more vibrant, yadda yadda. If you grow up in Adelaide, you want to move to Sydney or Melbourne. If you grew up in Sydney or Melbourne, you're likely planning to relocate to London. If you're in London, well, you probably whinge a lot about the crappy weather and the ridiculously expensive cost of living. See the problem? Grass is always greener except it's not, etc.
So I guess I want to hear from the relocaters and the happy nesters who read QP. Do you look forward to or dread the home trips? Do you regret any moves you've made? What kept you in the same city you grew up in? And so forth.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Find Your Heritage
So thanks to my new best friend, MsCynic, I came across this My Heritage site, where you can upload your photo and get an instant face match with celebrities.
Now, I don't mind that the celebrity I apparently most resemble, with a 67% match, is
Couch-jumping, closet-case has-been now, sure, but always delicious pre-Our Nic.
I also don't mind having a 64% match with
He'll always be the poor man's Laurence Olivier, but he was married to Emma Thompson, so he gets brownie points too.
I DEFINITELY don't mind having a 62% match with
coz, duh, he's freakin' hot.
I am, however, a little concerned with the 66% and 62% respective matches with
Not because I'm a good ol' boy from Alabama or anything, it's just that, unless my mum got up to some shenanigans in 198- that she hasn't told me about, I'm not in fact African-American.
I'm also a little concerned about my 61% match with
Not just because of his fondness for khaki, but because currently being the Prime Minister of Denmark would, I imagine, be as nerve-wracking as being Salman Rushdie.
My greatest, sweat-inducingest fear, however, relates to my 62% match with
Yes, apparently I look more like the Flying Nun than I do a person who actually HAS a penis.
Do you like me, everybody? Right now, do you REALLY like me?
Meh, check it out anyways. Good fun for a
boring rainy afternoon when you're doing flap-all work break from working relentlessly hard to contribute to the success and functionality of your workplace.
HAPPY EASTER BUNNY RABBITS!!
John Howard, Joan Ferguson: An Intertextual Study
(QP appears to be resuming normal transmission at work now, knock on my wooden head.)
In the midst of all this sudden, possibly ecstasy-induced memory loss on the parts of our Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and, most likely, Prime Minister, I started to consider how much this man -
and this woman -
have in common.
For those godless heathens among you unfamiliar with the greatest television show in the history of the universe, enlighten yourselves, for Freak's sake.
Now, some comparisons:
1. Joan Ferguson entered Wentworth Detention Centre during a slump in the show. It was a little tired and stale, the villain of the time, Colleen Powell (now thingo in All Saints) was irritatingly smug and no longer particularly effective, and the audience was ready for a change.
John Howard became Prime Minister during a slump in Australian politics. The government was a little tired and stale, the villain of the time, Paul Keating, was irritatingly smug and no longer particularly effective, and the voting populace was ready for a change.
2. Joan Ferguson's villainy became infamous - not just because of the extent of her damage, but her continued ability to keep getting away with all her malevolent trickery. Or, as Ferguson herself spat at Governor Ann Reynolds and Meg Morris in the final episode, over the prisoners' chant of "Ferguson! Ferguson!" -
"Hear that? It's me they hate! Ferguson! Ferguson slapped them the rules. Ferguson kept them in line. Ferguson was always one step ahead of them!"
John Howard's villainy has become infamous - not just because of the extent of his and his government's damage to the country, but his continued ability to keep getting away with all his malevolent trickery. 4 major government scandals later that should have put any other Prime Minister out of business, and still Howard is always one step ahead of us.
3. Despite Ferguson's treachery and wickedness, at heart she was a sad, lonely lesbian with no true friends. The one person she genuinely looked up to and aspired to be, her father, Major Ferguson, always wanted a son and so was inevitably disappointed with her.
Despite Howard's treachery and wickedness, at heart he is a sad, lonely homophobe with no true friends. The one person he genuinely looks up to and aspires to be, George W Bush, only wants to be left alone in his treehouse to read "Superfudge" and so Howard is always disappointed they don't play together as often as he'd like.
4. No-one ever thought Ferguson could ever rise to the top of the heap - Governor of WDC - but it was people's willingness to underestimate her ambition and ultimate desire to rule the universe that proved to be their folly.
No-one ever thought Howard could ever rise to the top of the heap - Prime Minister - but it was the Liberal Party moderates' willingness to underestimate his ambition and ultimate desire to rule the universe that proved to be their folly.
5. Ferguson's opposition was ineffectual. Meg Morris was too nice, Erica Davidson was too much of a show-pony and Ferguson was able to neutralise Bea Smith by setting her up and having her transferred indefinitely to Barnhurst, where she would die.
Howard's opposition is ineffectual. Kim Beazley is too nice, Kevin Rudd is too much of a show-pony and Howard's been able to neutralise Peter Costello by setting him up (for the Gerard affair) and having him confined indefinitely to Treasury, where he will die.
But don't despair - just when we thought nothing would ever stop Joan Ferguson, along came blonde bikie Rita Connors - and the rest is history:
Someday, my blonde bikie will come too.
Channing Tatum: Romantic interest in She's the Man. Niiiice. Dilemma: Is he niiiice enough to warrant paying 8 bucks on tight-arse Tuesday to see an Amanda Bynes film?!
Second dilemma: Could I ever truly give my heart to a man with the name "Channing"?
Good, Bad and the Ugly
FARKIN' GREAT: Email received just a few minutes ago:Just in case you missed it, a moment of television gold occurred this morning with our favourite weatherman Grant Denyer.
He was at Sea World on the Gold Coast and Mel and Kochie crossed to him and he was holding a little 'fairy' penguin as they were calling it. Anyway Grant said they aren't calling them 'fairy' penguins anymore because of the 'connotations' associated with it. Well obviously the penguin he was holding didn't like the name change and tried to flap itself out of Grant's hands, to which he replied, "It doesn't matter how much you flap you're not going to be able to fly, God didn’t' intend it".
The penguin was going to have none of this so it turned around and bit him on the arm. So Grant yells, "Ow!!! Jesus Christ!!!!"
Now the penguin took even more offence to this and turned around and bit him again!!! So Grant yelled the same obscenity again then ran off camera to hand the penguin back to its keeper. As he's handing it over he says, "I don't know whats wrong with it, it just started flapping then went spastic!!!"
So Grant bravely continued with the weather, but apparently the channel Seven switch was just inundated with calls about him screaming "Jesus Christ" twice on national television, and his derogatory use of the term "spastic."
So I guess the moral of the story is, beware of flapping religious fundamentalist penguins, especially if you are himbo weatherman.
This is why I love penguins.
GOOD: I've accepted a new and significantly better-paid editorial position with a financial education services provider (trying saying that backwards 10 times drunk). Start in a few weeks.
BAD: Probably won't have the daily exposure to legal and parliamentary developments which currently inform my various QP rants. May even have to become Unclean and use News.com.au on occasion. Also may not have Blogger access there. More as it comes to hand.
QP is still sick on my work computer. Main side-effect is that I'm unable to reply to comments immediately. Can continue to post however.
UGLY: Could Gaybours get any gayer/paedophilic after this? C'puter says noooo