The other day a friend of mine was reading an article, 6 Progressive Parenting Fads You Won’t Believe Are Legal.

According to the article there are parents out there trying to raise their kids to be androgynous – having no gender stereotypes. I guess it is an ultimate method to eliminate sexism. To create a society that has no sexes. They give their kids gender neutral names such as Ashley and dress them in gender neutral overalls.

The problem with this idea is that goes against reality. There are men and there are women. Some might wish that men could have babies and women could run the 100 metres in 9.58 seconds, but until that day comes there will be some kind of gender divide.

So in reality these people have probably just found an exotic way to fuck their kids up.

Here is an interesting article I found on Wired.com: Man Pleads Guilty to Trafficking Kidneys

Does this mean that all the donors have to give their illegally obtained organs back?

Sharky McFinnigan is to be extradited to The Hague to face numerous charges including crimes against humanity and terrorism.

Sharky was cornered late last week by a heroic group of fishermen who had tracked him across the southern Indian Ocean.

It is believed Sharky will use the, ‘I was only following instincts,’ defence. This has been compared to the, ‘I was just following orders,’ defence often used by Nazi death camp guards, but is probably better than the, ‘if humans did not want to be eaten why do they taste so good,’ defence used by other shark terrorists.

Human rights groups have been vocal over what they say were harsh interrogation methods used by fishermen and in particular the controversial practice of air boarding. This is where a fish is repeatedly brought to the surface to induce a fear of suffocation.

The head of the anti-fish terrorism task force, Mr Donnie Williams said that, ‘these methods are important tools in the toolbox to prevent the sort of undersea terror that these evil fish are willing to risk their lives to commit.’

A spokesman for celebrities against antiterrorism terrorism John Pilger responded to this saying, ‘now with the extrajudicial slaying of Osama bin laden, and the defeat of the fictitious Al Qaeda the West needs a new scapegoat. Sharks are to be to the West what Jews were to the Nazis.’

Lord Monckton disagrees stating, ‘John is plainly bonkers. Over a period of many years sharks have convinced the majority of us that they need protection. Did you know that in many parts of the world you can be thrown in prison for swearing at a shark? Wait, I’m not finished. These evil sharks are the people behind green movements around the world. Sharks don’t need protection, in fact they have been plotting the downfall of Western civilisation ever since their precious Soviet Union collapsed. Shark protection laws have also caused massive increase in shark numbers and it is this increase and the corresponding increase in fish flatulence that is the real reason behind global warming. I’m afraid, Chris, that the only good shark is a dead shark.’

Sentiments echoed by the Premier of Western Australia the Hon. Colin Barnett, who was heard to say while standing on one of Western Australia’s pristine white beaches, ‘We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the oceans, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!’

It is not a good day to be a shark.

The Prime Minister said on Q&A last night that he wouldn’t mind the drinking age being lifted to 21.

This is probably the dumbest idea since cutting back on the solar panel rebate. Lifting the drinking age would be counter-productive and unfair.

It is stupid for a number of reasons:

1. It would instantly double the number of underage drinkers making the problem that much worse. A problem that is already impossible to police would be even more difficult to stop.
2. Instead of getting drunk under supervision legally at home or in a pub young people will go to the local park instead and get paralytic with a bunch of their friends. Raising the drinking age is supposed to cut down on drunken violence in the city, but all it would do simply shift the drunken violence to the suburbs. In a park there is no bartender to cut you off or bounces to break up fights.
3. It is incompatible with our culture. The drinking age has been 18 now for so long that nobody considers it a bad thing to drink at that age. It is a rite of passage to finally be allowed to drink. At high school I knew the odd person that waited to till 18, but I just can’t imagine anyone waiting for 21.
4. You can’t drink responsibly if you are drinking illegally.
5. May increase access to other illegal drugs. If I remember back to when I used to drink underage in a park or at someone’s house whose parents were not home, there was always a group of guys on the couch smoking pot and a bunch of girls in the corner popping pills. If you are already doing something illegal you may as well do something that is only slightly more illegal.
6. It is bad for the economy. There are many clubs out there that cater solely for those under the age of 21. What would happen to these clubs and the people who work at them?
7. It is moving the goalposts. Many kids have been waiting for 18 and suddenly changing the age to 21 is just unfair. An age has to be picked where a kid is finally accepted as an adult.

Binge drinking, alcohol fuelled violence and drunk driving are all serious problems that kill teenagers, but increasing the drinking age is not the solution and might even make those problems worse.

Driving while drunk is already a criminal offence. Is somebody who habitually drives drunk going to remedy their behaviour if drinking at their current age is now illegal? If you live in the real world the answer is of course no.

Last night I was watching, Natural Mysteries: killer whale attack. I was absolutely dumbfounded by the stupidity of the commentary on the show. It was about a pod of killer whales in a particular bay in California. The killer whales would separate a gray whale mother from its calf and then kill and eat it. This apparently was unheard of behaviour.

What a bunch of fucking bullshit. They are called killer whales because like all other animals they need to eat and their choice of food is: other whales. Unfortunately, before a whale can be eaten it needs to be killed. It isn’t exactly a mystery when a killer whale kills and eats a whale. Or you can’t be bothered using your brain today it can be boiled down to 2 words: killer and (wait for it) whale.

This sort of thing really explains the ignorance of some young people these days. Kids who don’t know who Gandhi is or that the Lord of the Rings movies were based on a book (true story).

I guess you can’t expect an 18-year-old to know everything, but when a person has been through university, risen up the ranks, created their own documentary and are still not aware of the simplest fact, that is something else.

I laughed when a friend of mine said our civilisation was crumbling, but now I wonder…

There are a few things that pissed me off over the weekend.

I was thinking about donating some money to Wikipedia. They have that line graph that shows how many more millions of dollars they need on a banner ad at the top of the page. But then they started using guilt to induce people to give money, by changing that banner ad from the graph to a pleading, “I couldn’t ignore that banner at the top of the site any more… I use Wikipedia far too often to ignore the need!”

As if we need another fucking thing to feel guilty about. Starving kids in Africa, Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers, global warming, not having life insurance, not having funeral insurance, not having income insurance, not having health insurance the list goes on and on. And now Wikipedia decides to jump on the guilt train.

I believe I know why vampires are very popular at the moment. Vampirism is a surprisingly large part of our culture. What do you think those insurance ads are about? They make you feel guilty about something you don’t even need to think about. You fall under their spell they sink their teeth into your neck and suck all your money out.

What I want to know is how do the actors who do the, “imagine if you suddenly died,” ads sleep at night? I bet they go for the Nazi death camp guard excuse – “I’m only doing my job.” What really disturbs me is people that have lost someone close recently, every time they watch commercial television they are reminded of the death at every single ad break. It’s soul destroying. Its emotional and economic vampirism.

Why would you bother watching commercial TV if it hurts? And then the networks complain about people watching content they’ve downloaded legally.

Has anyone got examples of vampirism that doesn’t involve sucking blood? If so I’d love to hear about it in the comments.

David Marr is good on media watch but he really gives me the shits. Everything he says sounds rehearsed and he can’t help being condescending.

I do find him irritating, but he said a few things about the refugee crisis on last night’s Q&A that set me thinking. He said that Kevin Rudd is being way too weak with the opposition and the Australian public.

It is no surprise to anyone that a large portion of Australians seem to fear refugees. Kevin Rudd needs to tell us that there is no real crisis and that our fear is unjustified or something along those lines. Maybe he could also compare our refugee intake with that of other countries. He should underline the problems with the Pacific solution on the grounds of expense, practicality and the unfair treatment of asylum seekers.

David Marr also criticised Indonesia’s appalling handling of the asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking. The Indonesian government won’t accept the asylum seekers if force is used to remove them from the Oceanic Viking.

The thing is on any commercial vessel after rescuing asylum seekers the captain would go to the nearest port and drop the rescued people off, if they were belligerent force would be used. If force cannot be used in this situation and a ship is found in distress the captain has a very difficult decision to make. Being stuck in port with one hundred asylum seekers on a ship not designed to carry passengers and your cargo rotting away. It would be a lot easier and no doubt better for the career to sail on past. After all there are plenty of other ships out there one of them is bound to stop.

Kevin Rudd has been sucked into this asylum seeker crisis and really it isn’t his fault. Instead of just being carried along by it he should stand up and fight back.

I believe our society is in danger of juicing every little bit of fun out of life. The example of the five police officers stood down, a month ago, over a harmless buck’s night prank is a symptom of this. Brendan Fevola was basically sacked because of his drunken antics on Brownlow night. Brendan did not glass his girlfriend or assault anybody – he had too much to drink. Haven’t we all been in this position?

Football players and police officers are ordinary people. People mess up. Most importantly people have fun. As long as this fun does not injure anyone else what is the harm? In fact, I feel we are harmed by not allowing people to be people. What is the point of living if you do not enjoy life?

We all have had those great nights with our friends. We drink share stories, jokes and of course perform pranks. We have all been in a car and someone has pressed their bare arse to the window to shock passers by. My most memorable occasion were when a friend of mine lit his own fart. I don’t think I have laughed so hard since. It is not sick or perverted – it is normal and everyone does it in their own way. We might be the last generation to enjoy such freedoms unless we fight to maintain them.

It started with politicians being exposed for sexual indiscretions. We hold people in power to a higher standard than the common person. When a politician is exposed it is deemed to be for the public good. Many people have an inbuilt distrust of those who seek power. This probably stems from the fact that there is a long history of people being abused by those in power. In these modern times in most democracies we are protected from the abuse of the powerful. Our rulers are ordinary people, but we still hold them to a higher standard.

Many people felt this was okay, but it was the thin end of the wedge. Now sportspeople and just about any other person in the public eye is also held to this unrealistic moral standard. They are role models you see, we want our kids to grow up like them. Most disturbing of all, ordinary people are now starting to be held to this standard as evidenced by the five police officers being stood down for a harmless prank.

One day soon you might get too drunk at a friend’s birthday party. You may take your clothes off and run around the house naked. Some people will record it on their phones and pictures of your indiscretions will be posted on Facebook. The following Monday morning you will be called into your boss’ office and immediately stood down without pay. You may even be forced into a humiliating public apology on You Tube. Your life would be thrown into turmoil for a single harmless prank.

The way the world is heading everybody in a position of power, such as your boss, becomes the moral arbiter of everybody under them. Mobile phones with cameras and websites like Facebook mean all your indiscretions will be known about – you will be judged and held accountable.

This is the world we could be living in if we do not stop the slide into moral totalitarianism. We all need to show politicians and our bosses that they cannot judge what we do in our private lives.

Being cool in my opinion is not about your fashion sense or whether you were popular at school it is how you handle situations. Like being cool under pressure or not being offended easily.

A cool person doesn’t appear to be offended when somebody calls them an arsehole, but instead comes up with a witty comeback that makes their detractor an item of ridicule. I always thought young people were supposed to be cool as they had not yet been filled up with opinions, prejudices and had not yet developed a hatred for the human race.

In high school I remember this kid, who suffered slightly from small man syndrome. He yelled across the schoolyard to one of the larger female members of our class, “Why stroll when you can roll?” The girl not looking the slightest bit bothered, yelled back, “You should have been drowned at birth you little turd.” This response caused the boy’s friends to fall into immediate fits of hysterical laughter. The boy turned into a beetroot – the colour of one in any case. From this moment I strived to be cool in just that way.

The other day I was talking to someone much younger than me I work with about the current ‘refugee crisis.’ They said some extremely intolerant things possibly in an effort to make me angry. I continued arguing using logic and reason. They got very annoyed when I disagreed with them. I was damn sure that I didn’t actually say anything that was offensive (I asked them later and they agreed). But the person refused to speak to me unless to answer simple yes or no questions for the next four hours.

A couple of days later the same person broke a fingernail, I made a small joke about it and again they did not talk to me for the next two hours.

It is not just me that is having trouble with supersensitive ridiculously easy to offend people. At a pub this girl got cut off from the bar for calling the bartender a “fuckstick”. She went to the toilet or something and her friends started discussing the incident and whether or not it was a case of mistaken identity from the bartender. Later the girl flew into hysterics crying and everything because her friends were talking behind her back. What exactly do parents do to raise somebody that unstable?

I would like to know if anybody else is having trouble with supersensitive young people? If so I would love to hear about it in the comments.

Yesterday, I was reading the science-fiction classic Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. One of the characters in the book does not like religion very much and was complaining about the terrible things written in some holy books. The character mentioned chapter 19 of Genesis verse eight and 2 Kings chapter 2.

In chapter 19 of Genesis Lot offers a crowd of men around his house his two virgin daughters if they would just go away and leave him alone. By the way these men were from the town of Sodom and you know what they do there. These girls would have been brutally raped by the entire male population of the town. The thing is any bible basher will tell you what a great bloke Lot was.

Genesis 19

8: Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Okay so Lot was pretty evil, but now it is God’s turn. In this scene there was this guy Elisha who is travelling from town to town doing good things. Until that is he comes to the town of Bethel where the town’s children run out and start teasing Elisha about his bald head. He then curses the children and two bears come out of the nearby wood and tears the children into 42 pieces or tears 42 children into pieces – I’m not quite sure, but far out how bad is that?

2 Kings, chapter 2

23: And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Many Christians say they believe the Bible literally. If they are reading the same bible that I have how can they possibly believe their God is fair, just and good. If I met that God I would be forced to say, “see you next Tuesday”, if you know what I mean. Even if you don’t take the Bible literally what possible lesson could this passage teach you?

Some may say this is the Old Testament and that it doesn’t really matter any more. But it was the same God then as it was 2000 years ago and today. In my experience leopards do not change their spots.

But the world was a different place back then and who are you to question the will of God? I’m sorry, but there are some things that are wrong in any age if they are committed by any being divine or otherwise. In my opinion killing innocent children is always wrong.

There is a website devoted to evil Bible passages. There are atrocities in there attributed to God and many of his prophets, from mass killings to amateur abortions where mothers were ripped open to kill the growing fetus (Hosea, chapter 13:16).

In my opinion there is only one word to describe this and it is: evil!