Values, Not Traditional Values
This makes me nervous. I didn't want to make an immediate knee-jerk reaction - blurring of church and state, Howard throwing
Fundies First (cheers MrL) a bone, etc - but then I read the
Oz's take, and alarm bells rang. I've said it before and will say again: These editorials must either be written or proofread by Federal Liberal PR headquarters prior to publication.
Let's take a squizz:
But those most likely to be pleased by the proposal are parents who, whether they are particularly religious or not, are concerned about the drift away from standards in the classroom. For such people, the presence of a chaplain could be seen as antidote to relativism and as a way to shore up and affirm traditional values against such excesses as the exercise in Queensland that asks students to imagine life in a gay community on the moon.
'Traditional values' always sends a shiver. Like 'pro-women' in the context of how Fundies First like to claim they are. Or 'defence of marriage'. Or 'ministerial accountability' as conceived by Howard. All very disturbing euphemisms noticeably disconnected from reality.
'Traditional values' really means 'biblical values'. And in the context of one identified by the Oz, homosexuality, by the doctrine of 'traditional values', a teenage student seeking guidance over the crisis of identity he may be facing would be told by a hypothetical chaplain that,
traditionally, homosexuality is an abomination and here, have a business card of a
good deprogrammer mate of mine so that you don't have these sinful thoughts ever again.
Putting religious counsellors in schools appears less about imposing organised religion in schools and more about ensuring that the public education sector reflects the sort of culture, values and moral discipline demanded by the broader community.
And yet the Oz points out itself that 'just two million (Australians attend) weekly religious services'. So how on earth are the personal religious beliefs of roughly 10% of the population reflective of the broader community?
Are we really wanting to emulate the US yet again, and start a whole new debate about organised religion in public education? The fallacy perpetrated by fundies is always that 'values' and religion are intertwined, and that one cannot exist without the other. Wrong. No amount of alleged moral relativism has ever detracted from values children should be taught in their formative years, regardless of whether they're in a private or public school: to respect themselves, one another and the law; to accept personal responsibility, and to be honest; all values I certainly hold as the byproduct of a secular/non-demoninational education, and value that churches and some of their soldiers are frequently shown to be wanting.
I grew up in an agnostic home and openly admit to being an aethiest, and yet I have a values system that I believe works well and has not been informed by passages from the Bible. I'm also not so naive I don't know how much of a nightmare some public schools currently are. But blame should be laid with shitty parents when students are screwing around, not teachers.
This money would be much better spent investing in secular counsellors, not more God-botherers. If parents choose to send their children to religious schools, power to them - that is their choice. But if we're going to insist on the 'secular society' even Howard admits we currently enjoy, clearly chaplains have no place within our secular government's schools.
The obvious counter-argument to this is that, as our taxes subsidise private religious schools anyway, chaplains already do exist in government schools to some extent. The difference, however, is in the choice available to parents. Parents send their kids to government-subsidised religious schools with an expectation, or at least an understanding, that they will be instilled with biblical values. Those who send their kids to 100% government-funded schools presumably do not have such expectations, since they know Australia is not a church-state and so the values they expect to be reinforced in their children are not biblical.
A refreshing change would be that our governments invested enough in public schools that they were a genuine alternative in quality and education the equal of their private equivalents, so that those parents who want their children to appreciate 'values', without necessarily being bashed with the 'traditional values' stick, had the peace of mind to know teachers and counsellors alike had the resources and time available to them to teach their kids objectively good values, independent of any dogmatic propaganda.
Devine Miss M Strikes Again...Again...Again
*sigh* I don't know why I keep going back to her, she only breaks my heart. My friends have told me she's no good for me. I'm starting to think they're right.
Akerman and Bolta have had a field day pitching Left straw men who have said nothing about Chris Masters' dodgy linking of Alan Jones to paedophilia in 'Jonestown'.
I don't know why I thought 'Randa might be different, might actually have just a quick reality check before launching
her own killer missile, but no.
Oh sure, 'many' gay men are horrified. But she still falls for the same trap, either unintentionally or willingly: 'Why is it only commentators regarded as being of Jones' ideological hue who are defending him?'
I tried in vain to teach 'Randa the error of her ways, thus:
Ms Devine,
While I appreciate the anger you obviously feel about the Jonestown novel, I believe you've made the same omissions as Andrew Bolt - deliberately or otherwise - when arguing in your column this week that 'is it only commentators regarded as being of Jones's ideological hue who are defending him'.
Firstly, Tim Blair has linked a well-known left gay Sydney blogger:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/outer_outed/
or
http://gayety.net/rants/queer/out_and_about_in_jonestown
Rodney Croome has also expressed his reservations about the book:
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2283_0_1_0_C
As have I in my SX mag column:
http://www.evolutionpublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php
option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=9&Itemid=46
And there are several other examples of Left bloggers expressing their
reservations about the book:
http://www.anonymouslefty.blogspot.com/ is one of the better-known ones.
The argument that it is only right-wing or conservative commentators who are openly defending Jones is just plain wrong. Those of us who remember the Kirby/Heffernan debacle of 2002 must also in good conscience draw the line at Masters' apparent attempts to create a whisper campaign about Jones' alleged paedophilia, and I think you'll find more of us than not have.
Regards etc..
The reply:
Sam, while I appreciate the role of blogging, I was referring to mainstream commentary. It would be impossible to tease out the stats on left v right bloggers in their pronouncements on Jones. I do know that plenty of gay people are horrified and I said so. But some of the most prominent have either said nothing or gleefully pushed for Jones' outing and kiddy-fiddler smear.
Shorter 'Randa: Blogging is only a relevant medium when bloggers agree with me, otherwise it's just that cute, silly thing that people do when they're bored at work*.
Never mind that Croome is one of, if not the most well-known and high profile Australian queer activists. Or that my column - which I know most people skip past to get to the pretty pictures of the boys at Arq - is in a magazine with a fairly substantial distribution in Sydney.
'Randa sure knew about SX's competition, SSO, when citing Stacy Farrar's so-called defence of Masters - which, PS, is crap. The quote of Farrar's that 'Randa used:
Jones's outing "if anything, will prove that the gay 'community', like the Liberal Party, is a very broad tent".
Which is actually a completely accurate and fair assessment. But once again, we can never let such trifling matters as reality stand in the way of another 'Randa rampage.
Somebody tell me to end this relationship now. Please.
(*not entirely untrue, but you know.)
Tautology of the Day:
"I imagined Renae (Lawrence) as a psychopathic lesbian..."
-
Schapelle Corby.
:-)
Commence beatings of me with your pre-assembled Ikea products at will, ladies. I know I deserve them.
Jonestown Massacre
SX column for the week, followed by a few additional thoughts.
Jonestown, Chris Masters’ unauthorised biography of shock-jock Alan Jones, is nothing if not much-anticipated, in Sydney at least.
Its profile rose considerably after being
dumped by the ABC, the original publisher, amid accusations of the right-wing culture warriors currently stacked on the ABC board doing ‘one of their own’ a favour. Nevertheless, it quickly found a new publisher, and now seems destined to be a big money-spinner for Allen & Unwin and a lost opportunity for the public broadcaster.
But questions are already being asked as to the quality, and indeed relevance, of the so-called ‘tell-all’ biography. Masters argues that Jones’ well-known but little-publicised homosexuality informs his bitter, aggressively right-wing radio persona, and indeed his interaction generally with politicians and other power-players – or, as journalist David Marr argues, Jones’ ‘strange character, his love of secretness (sic)’.
On the other side, however,
commentators sympathetic to Jones are arguing that this is little more than a hatchet job, a left-wing conspiracy (aren’t they all?) to smear the name of a well-known right figure through innuendo, particularly with regard to his interaction with underage boys via his previous career as a teacher. Conservative Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt has suggested that, were the same implications made about Justice Michael Kirby, for example, there would be an outcry of homophobia as there was (rightly) in 2002 following Bill Heffernan’s false allegations.
Having not yet read Jonestown, it’s difficult to judge where the truth of Masters’ agenda lies. However, one line from the Sydney Morning Herald’s
exclusive extract caught my attention, in which Masters argues that Jones’ favour can be bought through little more ‘than a fawning letter…delivered by a handsome envoy’. Certainly, such writing does reek of innuendo rather than established fact. Hopefully, the rest of the book has a little more grounding in demonstrative research.
I can’t pretend I’m not keen to read this book, and maybe this is a case of schadenfreude. In some ways it does feel karmic that a man who’s made his obscenely wealthy career through accusations, misinformation and personal vendettas, often about or against targets who cannot defend themselves, may finally be getting some of his own back. And I don’t buy the defence that, for a shock-jock, Jones has a history of being surprisingly silent on the issue of queer people and issues and therefore cannot be considered a genuine hypocrite. Silence is still inexcusable, especially from a man who clearly has the ear of our Prime Minister and could have done far more to draw attention to discrimination against same-sex couples in federal law.
But I’m reserving judgment about whether or not I think it’s appropriate for Masters to have ‘outed’ Jones until I read Jonestown from cover to cover. We must remember that whether or not we – and indeed Jones himself – like it, he is a gay man, and it would be dangerous for us, in our alacrity, to cheer on yet another possible example of paedophilia being confused with homosexuality.
*****************************************************************************
Overall, I've generally considered Alan Jones to be a rather tragic figure. I wonder if he could be a better man were he genuinely comfortable with his sexuality - that perhaps the career he's carved out of espousing hatred and xenophobia is manifest of his own self-loathing?
I have no expectations that gay men should automatically be left-leaning, any more than I expect women to automatically be some form of feminist. Having said that, however, in my experience I have seldom come across a gay man who identifies as right-wing, or conservative*, who also strikes me as being a happy or contented person. Those I have met or know of are rarely, if ever, in a successful, long-term relationship with another man (and far as I know, Jones certainly isn't), which I'm not saying is necessary for true fulfilment in life, but I do think that sometimes, they can get so carried away riding the anti-gay bandwagon to impress the other gentlemen in the cigar room, that they do start to genuinely believe they don't deserve a partner/relationship, or that they should only seek meaning and reward through aspects of their lives other than the romantic.
(*As I view it - to illustrate: votes for Liberal Party but despises Howard and desperately waits for Costello to take over and Petro Georgiou to become Immigration Minister = centre or right-leaning; votes for Liberal Party and admires Howard and the effect he's had on Australia = right-wing.)
Maybe I need to meet more of these men to get a truer picture - go to
Fruits in Suits or something. But I do believe Masters is not without cause to identify, at least in some context, Jones' homosexuality, as it strikes me as naive to argue this has nothing to do with the man he is today and what has fuelled his drive over the years.
What I don't support is any on-the-sly innuendo about Jones being a paedophile, as would seem to be evident in Masters' book. If he has concrete evidence that this is the case, fine, produce it; otherwise, let's not join in any whisper game. We oppose it being played around Kirby, and we should oppose it around any gay man, even the ones we don't like.
UPDATE: One final thought: Trawling through the various back-slappers on Bolt's blog site (which I won't dignify by linking), someone asks the question: Why should someone feel proud to be gay? Straight people don't feel proud to be straight. They don't march about it, wave flags about it etc.
The simple answer: A straight person has not been raised to feel ashamed about, or repulsed by, or even terrified of, their heterosexuality. With complete respect to all my straight friends and family I love: The world is their march. Of course they don't need to wave a flag - it would be lost instantaneously in the sea of straight flag-waving that goes on every day - in their legalised marriages, in their ability to be openly affectionate in public without fear of reprisal, in the children they raise who aren't bullied for who they are, and the parents who still welcome them into their family homes at Christmas time.
What seems to be forgotten in all this debate around Alan Jones is what an empowering and liberating experience it is to realise that queer is not wrong, unnatural or the end of one's life. For those of us who at some point in our lives have felt that we are freaks, convinced ourselves that we are destined for a life of misery, sickness and isolation - because
that's all we deserve - to leave behind that place of horror forever and, to badly paraphrase a cheese-ball slogan, Choose Future, is completely deserving of pride and affirmation.
Maybe Jones is simply still hiding in that dark place. This is bigger than bullshit left/right political dichotomies. It's about each and every fag and dyke who's stepped out from the shadows telling the world that they can never go back.
And that is a fucking wonderful thing.
Children of Men Film Review
Children of Men is the latest from Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron, who has previously given us 'Y tu Mama Tambien' and 'HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban'. His screenplay is adapted from the 1992 novel of the same name by legendary British crime writer - my personal favourite -
PD James.
In a nightmarishly Dystopian near-future, no child has been born in 18 years and the human race appears doomed to extinction within a lifetime. London of 2027 has all but become a police state, with 'fugees' - 'illegal' immigrants - regularly rounded up in cages and sent off to former coastal resort towns like Bexhill, which now operate as Naziesque death camps. The city is filthy, decaying and utterly devoid of hope, as personified by the protagonist Theodore 'Theo' Faron (Clive Owen), a former activist who has sunk into a depressing, futile non-existence as a public servant. Theo's near-death from a bomb explosion sets off a chain of events as he is caught up with a group of 'terrorists', led by his ex-lover Julian (Julianne Moore), who may just hold the key to humankind's salvation.
As you've probably guessed, CoM is not a laugh-a-minute movie, unless you're the sort of person who found 1984 a lightweight romp. I did a review of James' novel back in high school and it's always been one of my favourites, particularly as it is such an unconventional story for James to write but demonstrates her unique capacity for literary fiction as well as 'just' crime fiction.
Interestingly, however, there is quite a diversion between James' and Cuaron's visions. No doubt due to the 14-year gap between the release of book and film, Cuaron focuses more heavily on the elements of xenophobic oppression - of the fear and hatred of non-Anglo residents sustained through generating mistrust and paranoia. Everywhere there are ads and signs of reporting suspicious activity - a logical extension, perhaps, of 'being alert but not alarmed' and 'if you see it, report it'. The movie, with a post-September 11 context not found in the novel, has a clear anti-fascist, anti-nationalist agenda and will no doubt be dismissed from some on the right as lefty, feel-good pro-multicultural 'mushiness'.
James, however, could hardly be considered left-wing, given her conservative background (she sat in the House of Lords for the Tories and I believe was a good friend of Thatcher's), and there is greater focus in her novel on the tragedy of a 'world without children's voices'. In the novel, women yearning to express maternal instincts walk around pathetically with china dolls or kittens dressed as babies in prams. Such images are not conveyed in the film, although there is one illustrative scene in which Theo and Miriam (Pam Ferris), a former mid-wife, visit a primary school, which is now abandoned, vandalised and decrepit, and another where Theo and Julian ran past a junk-heap by a railway line that includes a broken, upturned pram.
Despite the divergence in agendas, however, both are first-rate examples of storytelling. Cuaron's most effective direction technique is his extended tracking shots - some running to nearly 10 minutes - which create a sense of immediacy and make difficult for the audience to anticipate what might happen next. This is particularly powerful in the finale, which is essentially a war zone conflict where every character on screen, including Theo, could be randomly exterminated in a split second from a stray bullet.
Acting is uniformly first-rate, including Owen, who I've otherwise never been able to find as skilful or compelling as many others appear to. He is perfectly suited to the role of a protagonist caught up by circumstance who relucantly becomes heroic only when it becomes clear there is literally nobody left to be so. Michael Caine has possibly his best role since 'Cider House Rules', marvellous as a ganja-smoking hippie with a comatose wife. Other roles are also well-serviced by a cast of superior British performers, including Ferris, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Charlie Hunnam. Only Moore, who I usually like, feels out-of-place. My friend and I both determined this role would have been perfect for Kate Winslet and it's a pity the powers that be determined at least one American star was required, no doubt to get the bums-on-seats in the US and therefore ensure profit.
All other elements of the film just work effortlessly: the soundtrack is moving, editing seamless and design striking. This should feature strongly at the 2007 Oscars in all key categories.
Be warned: CoM is very, very heavy-going. It's not a date film, but as big-budget movies are increasingly dumbed down (for dumbed-down audiences?), this is a vitally-important exception to the trend that should be seen by all genuine fans of film.
Perhaps the best way I can summarise the difference between book and film is that one is a woman's vision of a dystopian future, and one is a man's. But both are worth reading and viewing. CoM the movie is shocking, devastating, terrifying and also, mercifully, quite humorous in places.
My inner Margaret gives CoM 4.5 stars between choked sobs, and my stoic inner David gives it 4.
I was Wrong...Or Was I?...Yes, I Was...Or Was I? Yes
Now y'all know the only quality I have in greater abundance than modesty is my true and absolute incapability of ever being wrong, ever.
So believe me, I'm as shocked as you are to see that it's possible I (sorta) was.
When I say 'wrong', I don't mean wrong in the strictest sense, of course - see above - but rather, misguided. Or perhaps too cynical for my own good.
You see, when I first read about the Queensland Young Nats' threat to 'do a Joh' (side note: nauseating mental image, much?) and
split from the national faction over same-sex civil unions, my instinctive reaction was, 'Ha! Go me, vindicated and shit. David Graham can munch on my chocolate starfish and call it Lindt.'
Oh, more articulately, that I was right all along: Graham was a deluded, naive butt-munch for ever thinking his own party would accept his depraved, degenerate choice of Baby Jesus tears-inducing lifestyle.
But let's be honest here: The Young Nats supporting a resolution for s-s civil unions is actually an impressive, and very positive move. The fact that the Queensland rednecks are in this case the extremist minority reflects well on the YN overall - although don't forget, Queensland is the Nats' heartland; it's not as though a split would not be insignificant to the integrity of the entire party. But assuming the resolutions of the YN today are indicative of the future of the Nationals - much like the
current ratbags running the NSW Young Liberals are a disturbing indication of both the present and future state of the NSW Libs - then I guess the signs are positive.
I still maintain Graham is a butt-munch - any updates on his upcoming 'marriage' to the 'love' of his life by the way, anybody? No? Dust? - but I admit it: I underestimated the YN. I shouldn't have forgotten that children should not be condemned by the sins of their fathers.
The True 'Elite'
Money quote from Tanya Plibersek today, in her
fortnightly SMH column:
Howard routinely dismisses arguments because of who makes them: environmentalists; teachers; students; church leaders; unionists - they're all part of a cultural elite, he says. The constant use of "elite" as a pejorative has become comical from a man who loves the reflected glory of hanging around elite sporting heroes and who governs for big business and rich people while living one of the most privileged existences in the country with his fine mansion on Sydney Harbour, his unprecedented wine bill, his comfy VIP jet and his $170,000, four-day Rome hotel bill. You can't hide privilege under a tracksuit.
Sweet.
Arrivederci Marty
Marty Mazda: 1985-2006.
It is with a heavy heart I announce that, at 8:32am this morning, my beloved but 'special' baby, Marty the 1985 323 sedan, left me (via a free tow-trucking service) for the big car wrecker in the sky.
Marty was my first car, dating back to my P-plate days, and followed me over to Sydney. Being fiercely SA nationalist, he refused to register in NSW and kept his SA licence plates as a mark of pride.
Lord knows he wasn't the most assertive of cars, and was easily frightened by graded slopes. Like me, he also hated having to operate on cold mornings and would often sulk by refusing to turn over if he wasn't driven at least once a week. In retrospect, I don't think he was ever destined to be a big-city kid; certainly, he felt alienated by all the elitist Woollahra car scum who never accepted him as one of their own, just because he didn't have European heritage or parts made within the last 10 years.
Still, Marty truly was the little Mazda that could. I didn't take proper care of him or love him the way a 'special' child needs to be loved, and still he managed to (eventually) turn over - and move - more times than not. He may not have always had 100% fully operative brakes, and he might have always had an embarrassing faint scent of cat pee beneath the myriad car fresheners adorning his dashboard, but he was mine.
Maybe it's the Taurean in me, but I must admit I do feel attachment to my possessions, particularly those I've held onto for years. OK, yeah, 'it's just a car', but I did honestly feel a little sad seeing him carted off this morning. Even with his many breakdowns, Marty was always one of the most reliable - and loyal - men in my life. He will be missed.
WTF Happens Now?
UPDATE: Refreshing honesty from
Liberal Senator George Brandis in parliament yesterday, while debating the Democrats' revived Sexuality and Gender Discrimination Bill. He got it right when
he called Howard a 'lying rodent', and he's got it right again this time (emphasis added):
But may I pause to say a word about the false antithesis which some people seek to draw between the advancement of this issue—respect for the rights and dignity of gay people—and so-called family values. There are certain people, some of them occupying the lunar fringe of my party, and certain extreme religious groups who seek to make that antithesis. It is a false antithesis. As if homosexual people are not members of families! As if their sense of commitment to their families and the values of their families, and the value to them and to the community of their families, is not as important to them as to anyone else! It is an ignorant, absurd and offensive notion.
Cheers, thanks a lot, George.
***********************************************************************
So, I guess now it's all
out in the open, I can publicly scratch this itch.
'Shattered' is a fairly apt euphemism for how I felt when I first found out about Warren Entsch's extremely long-awaited same-sex couple equality bill. Rather than a comprehensive amending bill remedying the wide array of current areas of discriminatory federal legislation - and
there's a hell of a lot of them - Entsch instead came up with, to quote the bloke directly, a 'very simple' bill that 'will require all ministers to review their portfolios, and any areas where there is gender discrimination ...make the necessary amendments to make sure that this is not the case.' Oh, and an independent review body would also be established.
Because that's exactly what is needed: Yet another parliamentary report and committee. Which I'm sure the Coalition, with its parlimentary procedures-quashing Senate majority, would take very seriously anyway.
This review body, according to Entsch, would 'make sure Ministries correct discrimination in a timely manner, and to pick up on any areas they may have missed'. Perhaps by missed, his subtext reads 'deliberately ignored by raving-right homophobic Bible-basher ministers like Abbott, Andrews, etc, who probably put out a ministerial instruction to all public servants warning them under no circumstances to do any actual work which would progress the bill's desired outcomes'.
Because of course, we all know that's how this government
likes to work.
Entsch is claiming that, as his is a private member's bill, it cannot introduce any legislation that would have budgetary implications. Assuming that's true, it's certainly testament to the ultimate futility of a well-meaning lone MP attempting to single-handedly do the job his government should be doing. But you can certainly track over the last couple of years the change in Entsch's tone. In 2004 he supported gay marriage (or at least disagreed with his government banning it). In 2005 he was supporting civil unions. In 2006 he is talking a lot more about interdependent relationships where sexuality 'isn't part of the equation'. And as expression of his progressive attitude has drained from a torrential flood to a piss-weak trickle, so too has the bill he has finally come up with. He's even attempted to rationalise as much: 'You don’t win a war by going in with all guns blazing, you do it by winning individual battles...'
Which is bullshit; the government's guns have been nothing but blazing when it comes to IR 'reforms', the privatisation of public assets, VSU, curtailing of civil liberties and all the other radical ideologies it has bashed through its Senate majority since 2005. What Entsch really means is, 'you'll get half a notch above fuck-all when it comes to queer law reform if you're lucky'. And for every tiny, baby step forward - migration visas, defence force relocation, super interdependent reforms, etc - there'll be two giant adult steps backwards - gay marriage ban, ACT civil union destruction, etc.
I would've thought this would be a better time than ever for the crocodile farmer to go in with his six shooters anyway; he's retiring at the next election, so what has he got to lose?
I'm probably getting unfairly stuck into Entsch here. I still lay the blame squarely with the Howard government beastie. Entsch has only fumbled the ball due to the pressures exerted by his own team.
But here is the twist: at some point between Doug Pollard's article going to print in Melbourne Star and now, it would appear Howard has asked Entsch to put up key areas for reform, in place of this tragically futile bill, and promised to act on them (presumably within some time frame other than 10 more years).
Now, Howard has proved repeatedly he is a man one must never, ever take at his own word. I imagine that was the mistake Entsch made before his original grand plans were watered down. So quite honestly, I don't know what to expect. I'm fairly certain banning gays and lesbians from adopting overseas children, the unsuccessful other half of the original 2004 gay marriage bill, will be the 2007 election wedge - I think that's why they've still held out on re-introducing it. But as super reforms were the 'sweetener' for that particularly egregious move, I wonder if perhaps some genuine reforms now will be the sweetener for then.
Who the hell knows? The only certainties the Howard government has provided us over the last 10.5 years with regard to queers is that we shouldn't be allowed to get married, adopt and/or raise children, schools should not teach students about us, and that wrongly accusing us of being predatory paedophiles won't result in genuine reprisal.
I know it's easy to be cynical - it's just also really, really hard not to be about this. Watch this space, I guess.
She'd Been to Paradise, But She'd Never Been to Martin Place
...Until now.
Yes, Charlene on Sunrise.
Not
mind you, rather
...belting out her super-hit, I've Never Been to Me, including the magnificent 'rap' riff (you know, about that little baby you're holding, and that man you fought with this morning, the same one you're going to make love to tonight. That's truth. That's love).
Only tentative link to reality I could make with Sunrise's talent agent's decision to book Charlene is on account of the Priscilla musical currently underway in Sydney. Admittedly, she didn't look as horrendously Botoxed and/or obese as I assumed an 80s one-hit wonder would be, but the voice is an octave or two lower these days, and I just didn't feel the solid Christian love in this particular rendition so much.
Still, there's a lesson to be learnt from this classic late 20th century poem for all you discontented mothers and regimented wives out there. Because sure, Charlene had been to Georgia, and California - indeed, anywhere she could run - but sometimes she'd also been to crying for unborn children that might have made her complete. Because even though she took the sweet life, she never knew she'd be bitter from the sweet.
One can only salivate in anticipation of which 80s OHW Sunrise and/or Today will come up with for future episodes.
Toni?
Joey?
Dexys?
The mind wobbles.
Goddamn You, World
...Make something interesting for me to blog about - and give me more than a few free seconds at work so that I can blog! Don't make me home-blog; feels a little too tragical - like home-schooling - for my liking.
Stupid world.
UPDATE: Oh right, this is a little interesting. Caught the first couple of eps of Desperate Housewives Season 3 last night - and yes, the homo casting couch is still firm and springy:
Josh Henderson (why is it guys named Josh are invariably always hot?) plays Austin, Edie's nephew, the bad boy that (of course) sweet-girl Julie's about to get pounded by, leading to (naturally) friction between Susan and Edie. Stay tuned.
