Saturday, January 11, 2014



This is not intended to spark debate, start a flame-war or incur wrath. All of this blog has been swimming in my head, putting me in a foul mood so I decided to eject it into ASCII and throw it out to the interwebs. This is JUST a BRAIN-DUMP. You may not agree with anything in here, and that is your respected right. If you are offended by anything here, I apologise - that is not my intention.

Who knows though? You might learn something!



Some advertising companies, under the dictum of their clients, are labouring under the misapprehension that it is 1920, and families can all afford mortgages where the man goes off to work while 'mum' stays home to rear the children, iron, clean and cook all day. I do not know a single person whose home life resembled this either in the 80s or now. My generation might just barely be able to pay off a 450k mortgage before we're too old to enjoy it, but the kids I teach now have no hope of doing this at all - unless they are a dual-income, no-kids (DINKs) family. So why is this a template for KFC and Sizzler ads? ("Give Mum a break!"). Some families don't have a mum. Some families have two mums. Sometimes they are happier families than any heterosexual 'nuclear' family. There is no reason to perpetuate this myth. I've taught kids who's 'mum' and 'dad' were actually the grandparents or uncles and aunties because the natural parents were off in rehab or jail.

Advertisements and companies that promote infant and early years goods and services under the guise of 'mums know best' and 'here's something for mums!' offend me. When we found out our little man was coming into being, I made a silent vow to myself that I was going to be a 'present' father; involved in nappies, cleaning, bottle-feeding (when needed), laundry etc. I read to him every night; now it's every other night, but the evidence in his learning is there - his language is really developing well. I read books and attended prenatal classes and ingested as much information as I could to be the best father to him that I can/could. The subtext that 'dads don't raise kids' infuriates me; some dads don't - I know that, but again, it's not 1920. I'm willing to bet that the majority of dads step up and, like me, finish work, come home and start the second job of being a dad.

Girls should play with whatever they want. Boys should play with whatever they want. Boys can drink out of pink Barbie cups. Girls can drink out of blue Dinosaur cups. If you think this has any bearing on sexuality or gender identity, provide evidence/proof before speaking or writing about it.

Tabloid magazines are one of the worst things in the world. Why do they exist? So some people can get filthy rich, needlessly picking on people. They're bullies; pure and simple.


The reason why cyber-bullying is so much nastier than 'traditional' bullying is that it is insidious and can easily invade the once-safe spaces of the home and bedroom. Nowhere is safe. The dismissive bogan cry of 'turn your phone off' is missing the point, so very much. Bullying isn't about the physical artefact; it's about mind games.

I have no sympathy for bullies, of any age. It is NOT a 'part of growing up', so stop saying that.


Should everyone be allowed to vote? Should it be mandatory? I'm not so sure anymore. If, like the last federal election, people voted for a party and not the prime minister (largely because Labor voters lost confidence in the party and the Coalition has no personality) I think the Westminster system of government isn't working.

I used to be a Monarchist but in light of Australian politics of the last 14 years, I am now a Republican (in the sense that Australia should break from the Commonwealth - it means fewer medals but we can invent our own Games).

I know that for all my complaints about the current state of Australian politics, we have it very good here when compared to many other nations of the world. In some countries it's a criminal offence to even criticise the government. In Australia you just get called a Lefty poofter by Andrew Bolt.


Not every person receiving welfare/the dole is a bludger, and anyone who tarnishes them all with the same brush should be ashamed of themselves. Yes, some people abuse the system, but what about those people made redundant all of a sudden with mouths to feed? Workplace injuries not covered by insurance? People trying to escape abusive situations at home and having no way to find a new place? Stop letting Today Tonight feed your prejudices. Go spend an hour at a Centrelink and see who walks in.


The term 'climate change' was the deliberate product of a spin doctor, charged with inventing a new term to replace 'global warming', as the latter had a negative undertone. I believe this gentleman is on an episode of Pennbut what was the point if we're going to maintain our White elitism and deny people basic human decency?

I don't have the answers - and I'm sorry about that. I wish I did. The problem is not Australia's border security - they do a great job; one that I couldn't do. The problem is the state of the countries where the people are coming from. To reduce the number of asylum seekers/refugees (there is a difference) change has to happen before they step on the boat. Eliminate the reason for them to even think about coming.Think about this - if your life was so traumatic, dangerous, life-threatening and oppressed, witnessing daily horrors, and the opportunity arose to make a break for it, would you say "Sure I'd love to try and build a life in that beautiful country but I saw some bogan with a bumper sticker that said 'we're full' so no, better not." Fix your attitude.

Just a side note, who is that bumper sticker for? If you're reading it on the back of some dickhead's ute, chances are you're already in the country


It is not 1950. Rows and rows of cattle-like students in a classroom trying to memorise what a teacher says is NOT education. It doesn't work. With the benefit of science we have a better understanding of how the brain works and how people learn - and that is NOT like a Polaroid camera. Education, by its nature, IS progressive. It's progressive, innovative and challenging - it's a fantastic part of society when it works well under the administration of quality staff. When people like the current Education Minister start complaining about it being progressive, it's like complaining about cows providing milk. Hundreds of experts in education know current best-practice. Thousands of teachers do too. But the man with all the decision making power hasn't a clue. (hey I'm Dr Seuss!)

Think about your job. Now imagine you're at your job, working away, and someone comes in, says "No you're doing that wrong. Do it the way we did it 40 years ago. That worked for me. Therefore it should work for everyone." And you HAD to obey them. How would that go down on a construction site? Or a hospital?


I would never judge someone on their religion. I judge people on how they act, what they do and say - most of all how they treat other people. I am perceptive enough to know that the concept of devoting one's life to a religion is as foreign to me as my non-theism would be to them. Just like people who spend thousands of dollars souping up their cars makes no sense to me whatsoever, but I know that they probably wouldn't understand my disinterest in the subject. Does it matter? Not one bit. I was raised to treat people with respect as a default - and it was up to them to lose it.

Just so you know, same-sex marriage is going to happen in our lifetime. You're just stalling it. I hope you can live with the looks your grandchildren give you when you said you opposed it all those years ago

The good news is, unless you're homosexual and really want to marry your partner, it WON'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL! Even if you believe they'll burn in Hades! You'll be ok! Hooray for you!

Do you know who's responsible for the 'sanctity' of your marriage? No, not the gays! No, not the atheists, agnostics, people from the plenty of other religions operating in the country who are all allowed to get married! It's .YOU! Yes!

How did the animals go onto Noah's Ark? Wrong. Who cut Samson's hair? Wrong. What was the fruit the snake offered to Adam? Wrong. (not sure what my point is, but it's interesting what we take as 'common knowledge', isn't it?)


Stop writing/saying:

Suppose to. (you're supposed to say supposed to)

Could care less. (you COULD NOT care less, meaning you are at the absolute minimum of care factor)

Could of. Must of. Should of. What you need to write is could've (contraction of could HAVE). We say 'could uv', so it's an easy mistake to make. I don't hold too much annoyance over this one. The first two are just lazy English.

If in doubt about where to put an apostrophe, don't use one. It's the lesser of two evils.

Decimate means reduce by one-tenth. So if your 1000-head of cattle were decimated, you would have 900 left.

Thank you if you got this far. I encourage you too to have a brain-dump. I feel a lot better now!!!

Literally is not a superlative adjective. It means you did what the phrase says, and there is no metaphor or simile. 'I literally died' means you died. 'I literally walked over there' means you walked over there.
Full Post

No comments:

Post a Comment