An Interview with Kevin Rudd

Kevin Rudd (KR): Kevin Rudd, thanks for joining us tonight.

KR: Always a pleasure Kevin.

KR: I'll start with the first rhetorical question that you wish someone would ask you, does this budget fulfil the 'future test'?

KR: No it doesn't.

KR: Is that because it fails to address the need for an 'education revolution'?

KR: Absolutely. This budget does nothing to address the need for vast improvements in primary education or training, and goes only a small way to undoing eleven years of damage to universities under the Howard government. I mean, you've got to remember that John Howard is the same bloke who hates students.

KR: Does this budget do anything about our dire need for improved broadband infrastructure?

KR: Certainly not. Not one cent of this budget has addressed our life-threatening lack of fast broadband. Without investment in this area Australia risks being left in the dark ages, and by dark ages I mean 1024kbps ADSL, and by 1024kbps ADSL I mean death by lethal injection.

KR: And does this budget also fail the future test because it places inflationary pressure on the economy, thus increasing the likelihood of interest rate rises?

KR: Yes. All this election pork-barrelling will throw vast amounts of money into the economy, its just tricky politicking and economically irresponsible bribery. I must say, you're really asking the tough questions tonight Kevin.

KR: Does Labor support the tax cuts contained in this budget?

KR: Yes, its about time working families got a tax break, for the fifth year in a row. We wholeheartedly support these tax cuts.

KR: Some might say that tax cuts will only further inflationary pressure on the economy. Is that true?

KR: Well look, Mr Howard knows he's playing political games with the future of working families, but if I could just take the opportunity to use wild hand gestures to answer this question, our nation is being *thrust* into a world economy demanding *ingenuity* and *innovation*. Labor won't just *stand* by whilst Mr Howard *robs* us of our rightful *prosperity*, because the mining *boom* won't last *forever*.

KR: And what about climate change?

KR: Obviously its too little, too late. Mr Howard is just being clever and cunning and lots of other focus-group approved buzzwords. There has been nothing in this government's last eleven budgets to address climate change, but there might maybe have been something in Labor's last eleven budget replies somewhere, perhaps, maybe. But now we've got this measley $150 million pledge. Its clear that Mr Howard has been asleep at the wheel and is just trying to buy his way out in an election year. *Education revolution*.

KR: Education revolution?

KR: Yes.

KR: And just quickly with our last rhetorical question since we're running out of time, is it moral for the government to spend $60 million of taxpayer's money on WorkChoices advertising?

KR: Of course not. In fact its the exact opposite of moral. Its *immoral*.

KR: Kevin Rudd, we're out of time.

KR: Thanks Kevin.

Murdoch link to campus killer Cho

Breaking News

Yesterday The Daily Telegraph published the following article: Iraq link to campus killer Cho.

Reports are now filtering in that police have arrested Rupert Murdoch, majority owner of News Corporation, publishers of The Daily Telegraph, over his links to the Virginia Tech gunman and any role he might have played in the massacre.

There is also speculation that since the gunman was Korean, Kim Jong Il might have been involved. The United States is currently considering a retaliatory strike against North Korea's closest ally China.

The NRA Plan for World Peace

The man who sold Cho Seung-hui a gun which was later used to massacre thirty-two students at Virginia Tech has told reporters that he wished that students were allowed to carry firearms to class as this would have made the campus safer.

Virginia appears to have some of the most wonderfully freedom-loving gun laws in the world - anyone over 18 can purchase an assault weapon, children can be given guns from age 12 without parental consent, owners are free to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public, no license is required, no child safety-locking device is required to be sold with a gun, there is no 'cooling off' period after a firearm purchase, there is no requirement to register firearms, and strangely, guns sold at gun-shows are sold without background checks.

The lone gun-control law on the books in Virginia seems to be that students may not take firearms to class. Now John Markell, owner of the gun shop where Cho Seung-hui purchased one of the guns used to commit wholesale murder, is blaming that law for the massacre. Because schools would be a lot safer if everybody was carrying guns. Then people wouldn't get shot. Yes, that's the idea, and if you follow the logic it all makes perfect sense. We all need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns. You can't take all the guns away because people have a right to protect themselves from people with guns. And people who sell guns to murderers have no blood on their hands, its all the fault of that damn pesky legislature for stopping the victims from carrying guns. In fact, if every student were required to wear kevlar body armour to class, and store an AK-47 in their locker, none of this would have happened because everyone would just calmly talk over their differences before reaching a mutually agreeable compromise.

So the bottom line is, guns don't kill people, gun-control laws kill people. I've never really felt safe walking down the street at night in Sydney knowing that I don't have a gun to protect myself from all the people around me who don't have guns. So instead of going to all the effort of preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons, why don't we just give nuclear weapons to every nation on earth? Brilliant!

Exclusive: Labor Party Producing Generation of Slave-Drones

New Opposition education spokesperson Andrew Stoner's first public act in the job has been to attack the Teachers Federation for their attempts to "brainwash" students through the display in public schools of advertising posters for Sunday's Rockin' For Rights concert in Sydney. The concert aims to protest the Federal government's industrial relations reforms, and says Stoner, "It's brainwashing kids to Labor's own political agenda."

Stoner went on to explain that politics has no place in public schools, and that if parents wanted their children exposed to political agendas they were free to pay thousands in fees at exclusive private schools, and that any Liberal government would be happy to subsidise this choice.

Other Opposition MPs joined the chorus of discontent, one explaining to The Daily Worry that "it is not the role of teachers to politicise issues, but to present the facts in a fair and impartial manner. So for example a teacher could explain to their students that the new laws will result in the teacher being paid less and the students having to accept low wages without any benefits or protections when they take up their first job, but that this is not necessarily a bad thing."

Malcolm Greenwood of the NSW Young Liberals told The Daily Worry that in the interests of fairness, teachers should explain to students the flip-side of union arguments - "that any superficially negative outcomes are balanced against the new ability for wealthy skilled workers to negotiate even more money, and that the peace of mind afforded business in knowing that it can sack people for no reason means that unemployment can be reduced through the creation of even more low-wage unprotected jobs. Which in turn means less dole-bludgers, and that's something we can all support."

Federal MPs were also outraged, one Liberal backbencher complaining to The Daily Worry that union advertising has always glossed over the fact that lower wages result in greater employment and lower inflation - "just look at China for example. Nearly anyone can get a job. Multi-national corporations like Nike are absolutely clamouring to do business there, and the Yuan is going gangbusters. Do we really want to be left behind?"

The Teachers Federation declined our request for comment, explaining that all delegates were currently on smoko.

Sunrise Family Split: Joe forbidden to play with Kevin

The Sunrise family is in mourning today after two of its favourite sons announced their decision to call an end to their regular Friday morning superciliousness contest.

Channel 7 spokesperson Andrew Douglas has told The Daily Worry that recent advertisements boasting that 'whatever office they hold' the pair would continue to make time for Mel and Koschie, are expected to be modified to include a brief disclaimer.

It is understood that Joe Hockey is in trouble with his colleagues, and possibly his mum and dad, for being friends with 'that no-good Kevin boy'. Hockey publicly defended the Opposition Leader's mismanagement of the recent 'Sun Lies' debacle, in which Rudd was complicit in the Seven Network's plan to exploit untested and potentially dangerous theories of quantum physics to move dawn forward up to two hours in Southeast Asia to accommodate the higher ratings period during their proposed ANZAC Vietnam memorial service.

Asked by Laurie Oakes on Nine's Sunday program whether he would like to take the opportunity to make the other kids like him again by saying mean things about Kevin Rudd and the Seven Network, Hockey was quick to declare "I am part of the Sunrise family and each Friday morning we speak to nearly half a million Australians and that's very important and it is a very important way of communicating with people. But I think this has taken on a new level and there are a whole lot of questions that need to be answered by Mr Rudd."

Whilst that answer seems to have saved Hockey from six of the best from Old Man Howard, who was unable to effectively attack Rudd following his minister's gushing declaration of man-love, it was not enough for Oakes, who wanted Hockey to publicly disavow his Sunrise family on air. Hockey's refusal to do so angered Oakes, who at one point looked like he might eat Hockey, or at least have him cryogenically frozen for later.

Kevin Rudd's office has issued a statement saying that the Sunrise family had split due to 'creative differences'. The statement went on to explain that Kevin and Joe were heading 'in different directions' with Kevin pursuing a solo career as Prime Minister and Joe a rewarding position as a Shadow Minister for who-gives-a-shit.

Alan Jones: A Parroty of Himself

With Media Watch's defecatory brush of liberal bias currently distracted by bigger issues, such as polar bears and underexposed photographs, the task of keeping the public informed about Alan Jones' recent tumults has fallen upon The Daily Worry.

Now, we're not suggesting that Alan Jones is a racist, mealy-mouthed, divisive, narcissistic, hypocritical, public toilet frequenting closet homosexual man-parrot - we'll leave that to Chris Masters. We are merely imploring the hero of the masses to accept due credit for his heroic deeds in the week leading up to the 2005 Cronulla Revolution.

This week the Australian Communications and Media Authority found Jones guilty of having made comments on his 2GB breakfast radio program between December 5-9 which were "likely to encourage violence or brutality and to vilify people of Lebanese and Middle-Eastern backgrounds on the basis of ethnicity".

Jones responded to the finding on air thusly - "To be charged with all of this is just unbelievable, especially when you've mounted the defences, and these were our defences, and at the end of the day, they didn't want to know about the defences". Yes Alan, we agree. It is disgraceful that one should be found guilty despite having gone to all the effort of mounting a defence.

Jones must come to recognise that whilst the people love him, those with power despise him. Except of course for our beloved and noble Prime Minister, who was quick to announce "I am not going to get involved in comments on individual decisions" before going on to involve himself in ACMA's decision by declaring "I don't think he's a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment, but he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think".

How true. A lot of people thought that a violent alcohol-fuelled riot would be the best way of resolving the complex issues of increasing cultural tension. By the Thursday before the riot Jones was demanding tribute as the leader of the Revolution - "I'm the person that's led this charge here. Nobody wanted to know about North Cronulla, now it's gathered to this."

Yet now, the modest hero denies all - "Anyone who knows me knows I've never encouraged violence or brutality in anything ... and I did the exact opposite but our defences counted for nothing."

When a certain caller, identified only as John, called on the Tuesday of that hallowed week, he passed unto Alan Jones' listeners a fragment of wisdom for the ages. "Shoot one, the rest will run" he promised. Did Alan Jones then do the exact opposite of encouraging violence and brutality as he now humbly claims? No readers, verily unto you I say that Jones laughed heartily before replying "No, you don't play Queensberry's rules. Good on you John."

Alan Jones. Humble servant of the Revolution.

World Exclusive: Somebody's Holiday Snaps

Banaue, Philippines.

(Above) Traditional Malaysian dance.

Readers Shocked: Blogger Apologises for Lack of Recent Entries

In a stunning move that has sent shockwaves through the blogosphere, the editor of the much maligned publication Worry About it Later has issued a public apology for his lack of recent updates.

The apology has been met with mixed responses. Abigail West of Readers for Justice expressed delight - "finally, after all these weeks the fight is over. All we wanted was some recognition, an acknowledgement from the publication of the pain their lack of updates has caused. For days upon days we were left in the dark, with no idea what was really happening in the state election, or whether Brian Burke would make a good punchline to a faux-intellectual satirical piece. It was painful, but today we achieved justice."

Not everybody is satisfied however. Harold Blake, spokesperson for the NSW Victims of Crime organisation told The Daily Worry "this apology is completely meaningless and totally disingenuous. If this is all a blogger has to do to escape their obligations these days we're going to see a spate of these cases over the next few years. The government needs to make a stand against these types of breaches of trust right now."

Analyst Robin Stevens has refuted these suggestions, proposing that "bloggers are responsible people like you and me. These new laws give bloggers the freedom to choose when and how they operate their blogs and allow for more effective negotiations between bloggers and readers. Its all about flexibility and choice, which is why we've named these laws BlogChoices."

Research conducted by The Daily Worry's work experience student shows that this is only the third time since the invention of email that a blogger has admitted liability for a lack of posts and issued an apology for excessive delays. The editor claims he spent several days in rehab in the Philippines and has issued photographic evidence. Critics have suggested however that he also spent time catching up with friends in Malaysia, citing leaked photos as proof.

Next Issue: Evidence - the photographs that will shock you!

McKew to Challenge PM: ABC faces further cuts

Yesterday's announcement that former ABC journalist Maxine McKew will stand for Labor preselection in the NSW seat of Bennelong, prime minister John Howard's electorate, has sparked outrage among senior Liberals, who had hoped nobody would notice the large number of recently married male doctors in the area.

Whilst Mr Howard himself remains tight-lipped about the challenge, Senator Helen Coonan has already begun firing ABC boardmembers.

"For over ten years now this government has been the sole source of funding to the ABC, and look how they repay us" said one senior Liberal. "It's scandalous, really bloody disgraceful what's going on here. All these years of interviewing Liberal politicians and claiming to be unbiased - the public should feel betrayed. This explains why she wasted so much of our time with those really annoying questions about refugees and stuff."

Liberal Party strategist Clayton Roby was similarly disgusted, telling The Daily Worry that it was the role of the ABC to remain unbiased against the government - "look, you don't see A Current Affair attacking James Packer do you? The ABC has become a breeding ground for anti-conservative hacks. I've always had my suspicions about Kerry O'Brien, and that Tony Jones is just a nightmare. The public is demanding action."

Asked what the Liberal Party planned to do about the anti-government culture at the ABC, one junior minister explained that the government had a plan to increase the efficiency of the ABC by decentralising its operations and outsourcing them to existing providers - "it's basically a rehash of the Job Network scheme, except Kevin Rudd's wife can't get rich off this one."

Debnam's Fury: Small Penises Not Funny

Sources close to Peter Debnam have today revealed details of the NSW Opposition Leader's outrage upon hearing of a lewd text message sent by Brenton Pavier, the now disendorsed Liberal candidate for the Central Coast seat of Wyong.

A staffer in Mr Debnam's office has told The Daily Worry that the Liberal leader began frothing at the mouth shortly after reading a transcript of the offensive sms, and started choking on his own bile to such an extent that an ambulance was nearly called.

The message is reported to read "The video you have ordered about how to have sex with men with small penises is ready for collection and the DVD titled Anal Sex with Goats is overdue."

Mr Debnam last night issued a statement saying that although the sms was intended to be hilarious, it was in fact not funny at all because having sex with men with small penises is the same as having sex with a man with a larger penis, and just as satisfying - "in fact, often less painful for the woman."

Critic's say the Opposition Leader's endorsement contract with swimwear giant Speedo has created a conflict of interest.

The Great Debate

In a thrilling televised debate on Friday, the articulate NSW Premier Morris Iemma went toe to toe with visionary Opposition Leader Peter Debnam. Through the course of the hard fought and often heated debate, Debnam was able to successfully convey his message that he would cut 20,000 public sector jobs in order to fund his many election promises. Premier Morris Iemma was able to contend with equal vigour however that Debnam would cut 20,000 public sector jobs in order to fund his many election promises. After the debate the Worry Poll found Quentin Dempster leading as preferred Premier, closely followed by Noni Hazelhurst.

Oakes still hates Latham

Laurie Oakes confirmed in this week's edition of The Bulletin that contrary to recent speculation, he does in fact still hate Mark Latham for calling him fat. The Daily Worry has obtained an exclusive extract of the article titled 'Surge of Blood to the Head'. The article's header features a treat for fans - a brand-new picture of Oakes smirking, this time from the right side of his mouth.

"John Howard has been as reckless as Mark Latham. His attack on Democratic US presidential hopeful Barack Obama is comparable with Latham's bagging of George W. Bush. Not as crude, of course... But Howard is prime minister, with the kind of responsibilities Latham - thank God - never had."

By God, you know you've stuffed up when Laurie Oakes compares you to Mark Latham.

Journalist Uncovers Global Warming Conspiracy

The Daily Worry can report that Sun-Herald journalist Miranda Devine is the early favourite for this year's Gold Walkley award after uncovering a vast international conspiracy over global warming.

In her brilliantly constructed article, Devine first demonstrates Labor's response to the issue to be little more than "hyperbolic scaremongering" on the basis that their proposed response would 'wreck the economy' and cost jobs. She proves this by noting Peter Garrett's endorsement of Professor Tim Flannery, a man who is on record as saying that "Ultimately there is only one set of accounts that matters at all. It's not what John Howard says or what the current account balance in the Australian economy is - it's the one held by the atmosphere".

From this Devine is able to extrapolate Flannery's motto, the core belief by which he is driven and by which he lives his life, and once again it seems we've all been taken for a ride. Flannery's motto has nothing to do with rescuing humanity from the folly of its unremitting march toward cataclysm. No - we finally learn that "forget the economy, is Flannery's motto". Labor has painted itself into a corner. It seems that by "hitching its wagon to climate-change catastrophists" Labor is choosing to ignore a large body of scientific evidence from climate change sceptics, most notably The Fraser Institute, described by Devine as a 'Canadian thinktank'.

The implication against Labor is clear. By choosing to ignore the opinions of a body describing itself as a 'thinktank', Labor is preferring the opinions of bodies which are not thinktanks, and thus cannot lay claim to be thinkers.

Devine has, with powerful and brilliant logic, pointed out that by ignoring an independent thinktank whose noble mission statement is simply to advocate economic rationalism, free trade and deregulation, and which is so independent that it receives no government funding at all, instead relying on the generosity of such companies as logging giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Labor has shown itself to be entirely close-minded on the issue.

Having established the danger and ridiculousness of left-wing global warming alarmism, Devine comes to the only logical conclusion - that global warming is a conspiracy hatched by left-wing scientists and politicians to unite the world against an abstract and defeatable enemy. "Nice idea if it works" she concludes sarcastically and with clear contempt for the evil idea of uniting a world in which so many are Muslims who support terrorism.

Once again Devine's logic is as brilliant as it is infallible - any scientist who supports the notion of global warming as posing dramatic and imminent consequences is clearly biased since they don't support the Howard government and are thus left-wing. Since left-wing people like Muslims who like terrorists, this whole global warming thing must be little more than a ploy to divert the world's attention from its hatred of terrorists, thus ensuring that Al Gore will be elected President in 2008.

Miranda Devine will not only win a Walkley for this report, but probably a Nobel Prize for Science too. After the Royal Commission of course.

Turnbull v Garrett

Summary of Debate between Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett on The 7.30 Report, 08/02/2007.

Turnbull: We're saving the Murray-Darling.

Garrett: You can't save it properly without doing something about global warming.

Turnbull: You're being alarmist. There's no need to scare people.

Garrett: But global warming is real and Australia will be amongst the hardest hit nations. We need to do something dramatic right now.

Turnbull: There you go being alarmist again. No, we need to take a measured approach.

Garrett: What do you mean by measured approach? It seems to mean a slow approach.

Turnbull: No. It means a sensible approach. We're going to take a sensible approach.

Garrett: How sensible?

Turnbull: Very sensible.

Garrett: No, I mean what are you actually going to do about it?

Turnbull: I told you, we're going to take a measured approach.

Garrett: And what does that involve?

Turnbull: Well we can't be alarmist about this. Why do you Labor people want to go around scaring people? The Liberal Party want everyone to be relaxed and comfortable, which is why they vote for us. Maybe if you stopped scaring people they'd vote for you too.

Garrett: But people need to be worried about this, its the biggest problem facing the world today!

Turnbull: Bigger than terrorism?

Garrett: Well... yes.

Turnbull: You would say that. You're soft on terrorism.

Garrett: What?! No, look, we need to do something about this and we need to do it now.

Turnbull: Why do you hate the economy?

Garrett: Eh?

Turnbull: Clearly you must hate the Australian economy.

Garrett: But we can impose emissions restrictions and a carbon trading scheme which will stimulate business. That's a myth that environmentalism hurts the economy.

Turnbull: You just said you want to restrict business. Therefore you hate the economy. And can I just also say that you also love recessions and debt.

Garrett: You're not making any sense.

Turnbull: Yes I am, you just wouldn't understand because I'm talking about the economy and only a Liberal government can understand the economy.

Garrett: Look, we need to do something about global warming, and we need to do it now. We need to invest in renewable energy sources.

Turnbull: And where's the money for that going to come from?

Garrett: Well where's the money for your magic nuclear power stations going to come from?

Turnbull: From the economy. You wouldn't understand.

Garrett: China uses more renewable energy than we do.

Turnbull: Yes, but they pollute more than we do. There's no point in us doing anything about global warming if they're not going to.

Garrett: But China is saying the same thing about Australia and the US!

Turnbull: Well I don't think its helpful to go playing the blame game. Why do you want to put us at an economic disadvantage?

Garrett: We need to work together. We need to sign the Kyoto protocol for a start...

Turnbull: That's just a piece of paper.

Garrett: No its not, its a multi-lateral agreement...

Turnbull: Why are you so obsessed with a piece of paper?

Garrett: Why won't you sign it if its just a piece of paper?

Turnbull: Because its a piece of paper that will hurt the economy. People will lose their jobs. I would say to everyone at home that if you don't want to lose your job, don't vote Labor.

Garrett: You're the one scaring people with all this rubbish about losing jobs!

Turnbull: No, we're taking a measured approach. The economy, jobs... you wouldn't understand. Did I mention that we've pretty much got this saving the Murray thing sewn up?

Hicks not nice: Henderson

Supporters of David Hicks were this week shocked by Gerard Henderson's revelation that in fact, David Hicks is not a nice person. Henderson's groundbreaking expose on Hicks draws heavily on research which led him to discover little-known footage of the Adelaide man's letters to his father. The footage has remained unseen for many months now, because it was broadcast in prime-time on the SBS network.

"I was stunned to hear of this" declared human rights campaigner Selma Ramos. "If I had known all this time that David Hicks once had a commitment to radical Islam and said some anti-semitic things, I'd never have got on board with this case."

Other campaigners have expressed similar disappointment. Stewart Barr, president of Amnesty International Australia told The Daily Worry "Look this really is heartbreaking, we feel lied to and betrayed. His dad told us he was a nice boy who'd done nothing wrong. I mean, we knew he'd met Osama Bin Laden, but it didn't click with us exactly what that meant until Henderson pointed out that Bin Laden doesn't 'mix with idiots who have made unfortunate career decisions'. David is obviously following the career-path he chose, so we should leave him to it."

Asked if Amnesty International would continue to campaign for Hicks, Barr replied "absolutely not. Amnesty only stands up for the rights of people who are nice, because yucky people deserve whatever they get."

Greens leader Bob Brown was similarly disillusioned. "The Greens completely support due process and the right of habeas corpus. We believe that people should be quickly tried under a fair and impartial judicial system and should not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or extended periods of solitary confinement. But only if they're nice people."

Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja was likewise excusatory. "I'd just like to say thankyou to Gerard Henderson. If he hadn't pointed out that David Hicks had changed his name to Mohammed Dawood some years ago, I'd still be supporting him."

Asked whether she'd be offering the government an apology for her misguidedly persistent badgering over Hicks, Ms Stott Despoja replied "look, I don't subscribe to the black-armband view of history so I'm not going to go apologising for things which happened in the past."

Man runs out of space on iPod

A twenty-six year old Sydney man today found himself unable to upload any more tracks to his 60gb iPod. Terry Anderson of Mortdale encountered the calamity whilst attempting to upload Shakira's 'Hips Don't Lie' to his black video iPod.

"I was shocked" he told The Daily Worry. "You just don't expect this kind of thing. I mean, I'd heard stories about it happening to other people, but you just don't expect that kind of thing here in Australia. Apple say that this thing holds fifteen-thousand songs, but I say that's rubbish. I haven't counted exactly, but I'm sure I probably had less than fourteen thousand on there. I've had to delete 'The Very Best of Plastic Bertrand' to make room for my new Anthony Calea album, its a disgrace."

Apple spokeswoman Jessica Allsop, when asked to comment, insisted "we only claim that the 60gb model holds 'up to' fifteen-thousand songs, the actual number depends on the size of each song. Plus he should have bought the 80gb model, the 60gb iPod is not designed to accommodate Plastic Bertrand - it says so in the End User License Agreement embedded on page forty-two of the multilingual manual inside the shrinkwrapped box."

Mark Henderson SC of Henderson & Birch believes Apple is guilty of a vast conspiracy. "Everybody, absolutely everybody on the entire planet is sick to death of Apple's weasel-worded hyperbole. Its a clear breach of the Trade Practices Act. Apple have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and should be persecuted at the Hague."

Steve Shields, spokesman for rival Creative Audio agreed. "Look, Apple have been inflating these figures for years, and something needs to be done about it. Their products are clearly inferior. I would say to people unhappy with Apple that they should try our new 60gb Zen model, which holds up to sixteen-thousand songs."

In the meantime Anderson says he'll just have to deal with a more limited selection of music during his train ride to Central each morning - "It takes six hours to get into the city these days. If the government won't fix the trains they could at least subsidise 80gb iPods."

New Blog

Today I created this blog and moved some of the posts from my MySpace blog here. The MySpace blog archive is still available at http://blog.myspace.com/nathanworryaboutitlater - comments included. Its also a MySpace music account, so you can check out some of my new tracks (when I get around to uploading them).

I got a bit sick of the rigidity of the MySpace blog, particularly the fact that only MySpace friends could comment.

Debnam Blackballs Forbiddance

NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam today made headlines with his visionary plan to ban the banning of the Australian flag. In a grubby attempt to win some cheap political points from this adroit plan the NSW Greens immediately retorted with a communist plan to ban the banning of bans on flags. The Young Liberals then responded with an intelligent plan to ban the banning of tobacco advertising, but determined that marijuana should remain banned, and the Green Party should also be banned for their plan to ban the bans on it. Still, in amongst all this rotten politicking shone clear the forward-thinking logic of a great and unifying alternative leader.

"Im not prepared to stand back and let our national flag be banned... It's just not on. Next they'll say we can't sing the national anthem at the football."

Our glorious anthem puts the fear of God into the hearts of the opposition. We don't want to run the risk of not being able to sing our great and rousing anthem at the footy, so whoever 'they' are, Debnam's plan to ban them makes sense.

Debnam also promised to end the iniquity between thousand year old sites housing irreplaceable ancient Aboriginal art and spiritually significant artefacts and relics, and plaques outside of RSL clubs. "If you desecrate an Aboriginal site the fine is $11,000; if you desecrate a war memorial it's $2200... That's wrong and we're going to change it."

Debnam stresssed that "as someone who served in the navy and served under the flag" he felt that the time had come for NSW to lend a helping hand to the rest of the nation, and for us to join our fellow man in making a stand to protect the motherland. Debnam wants you as a new recruit.

Debnam's proposal for a national symbols bill includes the following:

- The flag should not be subjected to indignity or displayed below any other, because it is better than any other flag.
- It should not be allowed to fall or lie upon the ground, punishable by public flogging.
- It should not cover a statue, monument or plaque, or be used as a table or seat cover, but can be used as a cape, bandanna, dress, picnic rug or call to arms at music festivals.
- When the flag is raised or lowered, or carried in a parade or review, all present should face it, to make sure nobody steals it. Men should remove their hats and all should remain silent, because the flag hates hats and noise.
- Those who refuse to kiss the flag on request should have the shit kicked out of them by skinheads.

The Flag Thing

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ban-big-day-out-not-flag/2007/01/22/1169330794734.html

Warning: The Following commentary does not contain satire, or any of the devices thereof, including, but not limited to, hyperbole, irony, mockery, selection of detail, juxtaposition, euphemism, litotes or any form of understatement. Anyone with a history of aversion to serious comment should consult their doctor before ingesting this article. In the event of offence or outrage, induce vomiting.

The Big Day Out organisers have made a perfectly reasonable policy decision to discourage the exhibition of Australian flags at the Sydney leg of the festival in an attempt to avoid ethnic violence. So obviously the Telegraph and every politician under the sun feels the need to jump in with their two-cents worth in an attempt to score some free points with the proletariat - what a disgraceful bunch of opportunists. What was the Premier's response to this announcement? Thoughtful contemplation of the complex issues surrounding our national identity? Musings on the multi-faceted significance of the flag as a symbol of nationhood? Perhaps an expression of sorrow and a sincere apology that his government has not done more to douse the flames of bigotry in this state? Of course not, his response was as boring as it was predictable. He expressed 'outrage', a thoughtless, meaningless, knee-jerk response to a serious issue, proving just how unimaginative and intellectually bankrupt Australian politics has become.

There have been plenty of occassions where I've decked myself in green and gold and cloaked myself proudly in a gigantic Australian flag, but the BDO doesn't seem like the time or place, especially since its not an Australia Day event this year. The fact of the matter is that the Australian flag is used to incite ethnic hatred and violence. The politicians clamouring to express their disgust at this decision will be the first to point the finger at anyone who isn't white when the violence starts - we already know that Peter Debnam, our alternative NSW Premier, wouldn't mind seeing a few Muslim youths 'rounded up' and summarily punished. We can't keep dismissing violent racist white people as 'hooligans' every time this sort of thing goes down - at some stage it comes time to ponder whether perhaps there are more racist whiteys than we'd like to admit. But hey, in the meantime lets just throw shit at anyone brave enough to fess up to the blinding reality and bring these issues to the fore.

Displays of the flag must be put in proper context. At a cricket match such exhibits declare, "we're Australian and we're going to beat you". In Cronulla they suggest "we're Australian and we're going to beat you up". Anyone who insists that the flag is a 'symbol of unity' should pull their heads from their arses - its got the Union Jack in the corner, a symbol of Anglo pride if ever there was one. Since when did we become so nationalistic? At what stage did we become so convinced of our superiority? We're supposed to come "from all the lands on Earth", yet it seems that no refugee can join the club without a lengthy hazing in prison first. Are we supposed to feel some surge of patriotism this week as we reflect on these things? Or do we just forget about all the negative shit for a while and pretend everything is alright? The last thing I'll be wearing on Friday is an Australian flag. 219 years since invasion doesn't seem like such a great thing to celebrate. I don't think David Hicks will be celebrating either.

Field Day 2007

An article I wrote for Tranzfusion. My journalistic integrity is for sale any time, all it takes is free vip tickets.

http://www.tranzfusion.com/articles/shownews.asp?newsid=6139