The Homeless

Are you like most people and blank homeless people when they approach to ask for funds? Do you pretend to be on the phone or put your headphones on just as they come into view? I'm not putting a guilt trip on you for having the societal values of a lemon; I do it too. But it is interesting the conversations had when you do take a second to listen. And I'm not talking about hearing their life story or how they became stuck in a rut (that's for people with stronger moral fibre than I), I'm talking about the reasons homeless cite for needing money.

You can admit it, when you're asked for money your ingrained cynicism immediately ticks the drugs and booze column. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The other day I had an Aboriginal lady ask me for 40 cents. 40 cents? I thought if you're going to ask for money why not ask for a little more. But she had a reason - it was to pay for her Aunt's bus ticket. Fair enough, I have no reason to question that. In the same spot a week earlier a man was requesting cash but was not giving a reason. Maybe this lack of information is a telltale sign you're funding a life of alcohol and substance abuse.

The other way rough sleepers make it known they're in need of assistance is with signs. Always well written block letters, somehow at odds with the person beside it. Ken Johnson, a 52-year old living institution who resides on the corner of George and Market Sts in Sydney's CBD, changes his message occasionally but there's always one constant - "Not for drugs". He says it's to help a friend who is in need of a liver transplant. He sits there, all worldly possessions surrounding him, for well over one hundred hours a week and at an estimate earns AU$50,000 per year yet still cannot afford to move off the streets.
Many years ago I was asked by a man for a dollar. I politely declined. He insulted me before responding: "You'd give it to a bus driver!".  I thought to myself, "Yes I would because he takes me places. He provides a service. He participates in society. If you want my help that's not the right way about it". But I've since considered his statement was unwittingly prophetic. Many of us only give out of necessity, not out of kind-spirited volition. If we're honest with ourselves, maybe these people will be too.

Madhouse of Representatives

Has anyone seen Question Time recently? You know, the show with these really bad actors pretending to deal with important issues affecting our country?
In truth, our politicians' behaviour in this arena is nothing short of childish. It is one thing to discuss passionately your views and those of others but in this controlled medium where there are rules and regulations - some dating back to 1900 - it seems inappropriate to do so by standing and shouting across a room. Harry Jenkins Jr., the current speaker of the house, has a tough job keeping all in check. He's been in this job for just two years and already sounds sick of it. Half the time he isn't listened to or obeyed, much like a school teacher's attempts to subdue her class.
But unlike a class of kids, these are fully grown men and women. Members of Parliament. Prime Ministers. They will often debate topics that are critical to Australia's future; the discussions are more often than not interesting to listen to. That is however before these same men and women pipe up with incessant chants of "rabble, rabble" as South Park would put it. On occasions warnings are issued under Standing Orders. On rarer occasions expulsions are issued for one hour.
I find a great juxtaposition to be the respect held for the speaker when addressing parliament in contrast to the disobedience to the speaker when he is attempting to regain control of the house.
A typical couple of minutes in the House of Reps goes like this:
Mr Rudd - The government, in its response to the challenges of people smuggling, consistent with previous governments, always seeks to act in conformity with the principles and procedures of international humanitarian law (-ORDER!-). We have done so in the past, will do so in the future (-ORDER! ORDER!-) and we assume that those opposite would have done so when they were in government, but perhaps not (-ORDER! The Member for Bass will resume his seat. ORDER! The member for Fadden is warned.-)
In spite of the hollering, bickering, objections and lame jokes, Question Time is quite enjoyable ... or maybe that's because of the hollering, bickering, objections and lame jokes.

For Richer Or For Poorer

It's front page news. The talk of the town. "The most discussed relationship in Australian sport" as the Sydney Morning Herald puts it, is over. No, it's not Peter Sterling's relationship with Blue Haven Pools, but the union of Michael Clarke and Lara Bingle. Such a shame too because they'd just passed their 3rd anniversary (leather in anniversary gift terms) and were one year short of the linen/silk stage. What a pity.

I am of course being extremely sarcastic and do not care that they are not together, nor should anyone other than those concerned and their immediate friends and family. But in a society where we're more interested in the latest trend than the latest tragedy, it comes as no surprise that a woman - who as far as anyone can tell does nothing for a living - has been paid over $200,000 for her "story".

It's even more absurd that this happens just as Clarke's PR firm states the former couple "ask the media to respect their privacy during this difficult time. No further comment will be made." The next sentence should have read, "But if you want all the details buy the next issue of Woman's Day - It's Your Day!"

She should not have the option of selling her pointless story to anyone for such ludicrous amounts but we the public feed this monster on a daily basis. Our insatiable quest for the latest and greatest celebrity event knows no bounds, vicariously seeking out the most depraved acts to cast our opinions upon and empathise with yet let the tables be turned and the spotlight would blind us.

The biggest lesson to come out of this, one that no one has yet mentioned, is never shower. We can all take something from that.

LAS Vegas

A short one this week ... for those dopey twats who can't get this right, let me spell it out for you. Literally:


It's LAS Vegas, not LOS Vegas. It's spelt 'L-A-S' not 'L-O-S'. It's not difficult. Unless you're a mong.


You don't say LAS Angeles, so why do you say LOS Vegas?




Think about it and get it right.


Because it bloody annoys me.


Thank you.