A story about Kevin

It would be remiss of me as someone who comments about comments on news.com.au to not mention a lovely chap who contributes to many a discussion. His story is really quite involving. He is part of the upper crust club, residing in one of Australia’s most affluent suburbs. He is married, has a son and runs a successful business. I am, of course, referring to Kevin of Double Bay.

His is the story of a troll who became a celebrity in the news.com.au lunchbox.

Kevin of Double Bay has recently been quite forthcoming on some details in his life. He is quite the well-grounded family man, but he gained his notoriety as a hoity-toity, snobby, cantankerous council-harasser who campaigned mercilessly to have people of lower standing banned from his suburb. A cause noteworthy by its sheer incredulity.

What he has revealed from his comments is:

– He thinks people with visible tattoos are of low standing

– Equal only to people with piercings in places other than ears

– Private school education is mandatory if you want to live in his investment property

– He has a son named Winston

– He has a wife named Prudence

– … who has a hand-selected European tennis coach named Andre

His normal contributions to discussion involves polarising the argument and going to extremes of the equation to formulate a conclusion. You know, the typical journalistic method used by 60 Minutes.

You see? Take one small thing and blow it right out of proportion. It’s designed to outrage, and outrage it does… constantly. And Hilariously. I, like many who read the comments areas of news.com.au, absolutely love the contributions of Kevin. They prove to be entertaining, and the fallout is often bemusingly firey – as laughable as Kevin’s contributions on their own. It’s like the people don’t actually realise that he’s taking the piss. Or is he?

The story of Kevin of Double Bay is not a happy one, though. However, he maintains a stiff upper lip through times that would drive others batshit insane. Take for instance the time when tennis coaching had to be cancelled.

Tragic. Equipment problems? Oh dear. But it’s not something that his wife, Prudence, is taking lying down. Or is she?

Tennis camp? Oh, tell me isn’t so! I watch on like a home-ridden mother, salivating over Days of Our Lives…

Look out, Kevin! Things aren’t right in your Double Bay mansion!

But I admire Kevin’s blind trust in his wife. It’s the kind of unconditional love enjoyed by only the most affectionate and understanding of people. And dogs.

I will try to watch the Kevin of Double Bay story unfold.

(I feel I must offer some applause for the person behind Kevin of Double Bay. They have created a very compelling character who seems to so consistently offend, even with his notoriety on those news.com.au pages. People just don’t seem to realise that Kevin is simply doing the time-old Australian tradition of taking the piss, no matter how much of a caricature he is. Oh well. Kevin of Double Bay, I salute you!)

Do something, except parent

It often strikes me as a little strange that as a people, we seem to get our stuff a little skew sometimes. As a fully functioning, taxed to the eyeball society, we often demand things of our government. We ask that the intelligent of our society do something which needs to be done. Governments set up committees, forums and think tanks in order to solve problems. You know, full-blown important things which the rest of society cannot wrap their heads around.

Like, preventing people from getting crushed by enormous, loud, heavy, hard vehicles used for transporting people (from a story earlier this year). You see, people are totally incapable of comprehending that ‘dem big fings called “trams” just might hurt a little if you walk out in front of them.

On the flip side of the coin, when someone has conducted research into things that are simple, then we want them to nick right off. These are the kind of things that regular, normal human beings just nonchalantly shrug off because the task is just so simple.

Like raising a child.

Well, according to the comments in today’s story regarding how an academic recommends that parents be charged after spanking their child, raising a sprog is a simple case of snotting them a few times. The comments in this story all pretty much read the same.

I’ve outlined before that I’m not a parent, so I’m definitely not qualified to comment on this story. My point is that the great masses out there seem to be so desperate to have our Government protect us because we can’t use our brains, but the moment that someone might suggest that we proactively use our brains, scorn is heaped onto the offending sanctimonious prat.

Even this week we’ve had a couple cases of kids hopping into the Skill Tester machines in an effort to feast upon the goodness inside. Whilst I am insanely jealous that they can fit in there, I am still bemused by the parent’s remark.

“The company that makes these machines needs to look at their design.

“As we found out if you try and pull the kids out the slot, the door comes down cutting into their body.”

Yeah, those machines should be easier to get out of should you have the inclination to climb in there and steal stuff.

“… there wasn’t a sign to stop me… but fuck those signs, what do they know?”

*image courtesy of AdelaideNow

Comparisons

Alright. We get it, people. Top Gear Australia bites more than, well, lots of things. An alive Marlon Brando at a pie eating contest. Whatever. I can’t think of a good analogy right now. So, whenever the show gets a mention on news.com.au, everyone chimes in with their disdain for the show, as though it were some kind of new revelation. Like today for instance. If you scan through all of those comments, you’ll probably find that most of them have very little to do with the actual story itself.

For example:

Elegantly put…

Yes, I have my own opinion too, and it revolves a bit around cultural cringe and mostly around the fact that the writers should’ve stayed writing Brainiac, that the hosts could learn to not recite their lines as though they are four year olds learning to read, and that the segments they do are about as interesting as a bowl of rice bubbles in lukewarm water.

But there is also this reoccuring assertion from the non-knocking side of the fence.

Okay, fair enough. You know, I could forgive Top Gear Australia for lacking the chemistry (whatever the fuck that means), the production values and the wit of Clarkson. What I can’t get past is that when the hosts are delivering their lines, it’s like they’ve gotten ahold of the latest Big Book of Dad Jokes, and they read from it with the aplomb of a deaf comedian who doesn’t realise he’s dying on stage. Genuinely curious, though, I went on the internet, delved back to 2002 to find the first series of the current incarnation of Top Gear. And I found this…

(no, it’s not smut)

Now, it’s a simple news segment. It’s not reliant on huge production values, and it’s only got two of the hosts rattling on. So, to compare it to our local version should be pretty cut and dry as you don’t have the sheen of fancy filters and 26 frames per second shooting to make you ooh and aah. I know something like this is subjective, but I still found the UK one more entertaining than this:

I’ve heard better jokes from my old man after he’s downed half a slab of beer. And he has better diction and delivery whilst doing it. The only thing missing was a gratuitous fart joke followed by juvenile cackling. Seeing as they also touched on the whole “road sign” thing, below is the UK version where they start their campaign against stupid signs.

Far more entertaining, I think – even though that was from the last series of Top Gear (which is currently screening on SBS at the moment). Now, I’ve also noticed that with radio hosts that the more that they giggle at their own jokes, the more infectious their humour is. Hamish and Andy rely on it all the time, and I partially think that the UK Top Gear still does have a bit of that as they have a huge audience erupting behind them like the pommie sychophants they are.

It’s still far more entertaining than what the Top Gear Australia guys serve up.

Okay, so perhaps they need time to warm into their roles. Perhaps they need to learn to be more comfortable in front of a camera. Clarkson, Hammond and May weren’t just plonked in front of the camera and had a whip cracked over them with loud commands to “be entertaining!” No, they’re seasoned broadcasters and journalists, and they have the wanky certificates to prove that.

However, I’ll give the Top Gear Australia producers a little hint that I think is important:

Guys. Seriously. We don’t give a shit who hosts the show. You could have a guy standing there, slapping his head in morse code and screaming as he’s introducing things. We wouldn’t care. It’s really about the cars. The hosts just move things along. The more the hosts try to stand out, the more we hate them. The more jokes your “writers” write, the more we hate them too.

So, in short; more cars, less wank.

Keep bailing

Friday turned up a few stories that usually strike up the heated discussions. First up it was a real double whammy as an Islamic school had the sheer audacity to decide to not use an anthem that has nothing to do with their religion (accompanied by the media’s typical definition of the term “ban”), coupled with the regular national past time of rubbishing another state’s city in blinding display of what Australians call Mateship.

However, the discussion generated by these two stories paled in comparison to the realisation that yet again the gubbermint is running to the aid of an industry flailing about in the choppy surf that is the Global Financial Crisis – car sales. Following the withdrawl of major car credit makers GE and GMAC, the Feds have decided to waltz on in and guarantee vehicle financing – the cost of which will be palmed off to consumers.

We all have the image of the dodgy car salesman. The sheer thought of him rolling around in OUR taxpayer dollars is enough to send you flying off the handle. And people do.

Um… the story mentions nothing about individual manufacturers getting bailed out here, sports. All that’s going on here, from what I can gather, is that car yards can now access finance that wouldn’t have been there before due to the big boys pulling out of the teeny tiny pool of a market that calls itself Australia.

This has been a new little catchphrase for a while: Privatise Profits, Socialise Losses. It’s probably been spouted by the anti-“Chairman KRudd” brigade who think they’re clever by comparing Australia to China, or something. It’s far too easy to look at this development as a “bail-out” instead of a “guarantee”, however to use this commenter’s definition, the Government has actually bailed out the Australian individual as well.

But when you call it a “guarantee” it makes everything seem so much more convoluted and complicated. Calling something a “bail-out” is far more outrageous. Throwing buckets of money at a problem seems to get so much more attention than simply ensuring that a bunch of numbers behind the screen don’t go red.

I think Government must be annoyed that not even interstate rivalry and the supposed erosion of our way of life can’t distract the masses from their actions, no matter how boring they make it sound.

you wan' finance, honey?

Generation Google

This story hits probably a little bit close to this site’s heart, mainly because it takes public opinion and then tries to refute it. The inspiration behind this idea lied with constantly hearing people whinge incessantly about something which was well beyond their comprehension, but they thought they were enlightened because their mate had mentioned something to them about it down the pub.

For example, interest rates, the economy, politics, immigration, fundamentalist extremists, aboriginal policy, binge drinking or the hotness of Stephanie Rice (the last two might be related).

There had been a number of occasions where I had been forwarded an email by someone, with the starting comment as “hear, hear” and I would read on in sheer horror as the following thousand words gurgled out an opinion piece that could’ve been written by a bigoted, hateful five-year-old with Tourettes Syndrome.

It baffled me that the internet provided people the world at their fingertips, and yet many seem to use it to spread bullshit. In fact, BIS Shrapnel seem to revel in their blatant circulation of dung.

What was worse was that most people simply swallowed what they were being told, as though the lies were a smooth hot chocolate, that made them feel all warm and gooey inside. Pity no one cared that it all ended up as faeces anyway.

So, I started this small thing up, hoping to refute general consensus with some actual research. Truth be known, it just involves using Google a lot and then forming smarmy sentences like I’m some kind of truth dispensing vending machine that laughs at you before running away.

My faith in my methodology has just been shaken by a story on news.com.au that outlines that the little ones are relying more and more on the Google-tarians for their answers, rather than using the self-flagellating techniques taught by sadist educators of yore.

Comments do make a few points:

I think you might’ve missed the point of the article, though. I don’t think they are advocating that the internet is the be all and end all of information out there. Rather, it is a tool that you work with to get the facts surrounding it, which then assists you in determining your opinion. Of course, if you doubt the source you can always try many other sites to try and validate the other source. Or, you can simply look at a bug and then count the legs…

Fair enough. We don’t ever want to see this kinda thing, do we?

But… that ad was for an internet service provider. Telstra says that their internet has the right answers…? Oh, who to believe?!

I am reminded, though, of a recent story which outlined that Wikipedia is just as reliable as Britannica. This sorta again reinforces the point that the internet is just a tool to use, rather than an answer. You can scour the pages of Britannica, and yet it still isn’t a full replacement for a dedicated reference book on a specific subject, written by recognised experts in the field.

It all boils down to the intellectual curiosity of the individual, I think. Are the kids vapid enough to simply accept the Googe-tarians’ algorithms as fact, or will they delve a bit deeper, getting their hands dirty and coming out more enlightened as a result?

Oh, and 1 + 1 isn’t 3. It’s a Ukrainian-speaking TV channel. Idiot.

Go and be bogan… elsewhere.

I’m guilty of a bit of snobbery. Oftentimes I’ll be holed up in my little corner of town, sipping lightly on a nice glass of scotch, indulging in a little bit of civilised conversation. This lasts about five minutes before the door to the place is knocked down, and a procession of knobs wearing matching t-shirts (presumably to help identify friend or foe later in the night), all squealing like imbeciles as they each fetch themselves a round.

“Shut the fuck up…” I’d mutter into my drink, quietly so as to not anger the notoriously ill-tempered creature that is known as the bogan. I don’t consider a pint glass a fetching accessory to wear on my face.

As tough as that makes me sound…

So, yes. I’m guilty of a bit of snobbery. And so is Melbourne’s Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Robert Doyle. If you were to believe the headline, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the guy had pledged to put up boom gates around Geelong to prevent the natives from getting free:

Reading the actual story doesn’t reveal anything about a “ban”, though. Maybe there was a mention about city being a “bogan-magnet” and dealing with alcohol fuelled violence. But this isn’t the first time that the media has used the word “ban” in order to misguide their readers. Remember the “flag ban” at the Big Day Out, which was actually just a plea to punters from organisers who wanted a music festival to be about… well… music? Not nationalism.

But in this case, it appears that the Mayor just wants knobs to move on. Not “banning” people. Anyway, I’ve always been on the impression that if you want people to do something, tell them to not do it.

I should put a ban on people coming to my place to mow my lawn. But I digress.

As much as I admit to my snobbery, some of the comments on this story make me appear tame.

He’s taking the piss, surely. Nobody can be that snobby… at least I hope he’s taking the piss. If so, he’s got nothing on news.com.au regular, Kevin of Double Bay.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one as it contains a couple baffling things. At what point is this story suggesting the erosion of our “culture”. I’m pretty sure that America has buskers and bogan equivalents. Also, if the bogan is our national identity, then the V8 is our national emblem and its exhaust note our national anthem.

And here I was thinking that our national identity was built around our native fauna that could kill you in seconds.

Naturally, when people are discussing the various classes of people out there, things inevitably descend into interstate rivalries where everyone tries to “outclass” each other. Classy.

I think the prize comment goes to this one, though.

Now, I’ve been a snob, I admit. But I don’t think that I have at any point been able to cram jingoism, snobbery and hypocrisy in the one paragraph. Seriously “min”, if you’re going to mock a group of people for having a slanging match with each other, best not begin your mocking with a barb of your own, yes?

But as I said before, banning something only makes people seek it more. This is exceptionally true in the case of a bunch of people who wear their titles of “bogan” with extreme pride.  You might as well try and sell them champagne… it ain’t a top idea.

It’s about here where I make a wisecrack about how the Aussie concept of “mateship” is well and truly dead, if judging by these comments (and I do, as this blog is about how comments are a kind of barometer for these things), but in the interest of balance, I think I’ll finish with these two fellows who so articulately and succintly sum up their position. Bless ’em.

I think this is another clear case of “my idiocy is better than your idiocy”.

——

(I think at this point I should probably point out that I don’t have a particular hate of bogans. I think people of all persuasions are equally capable being complete knobs, regardless of economic standing, sexuality, gender, political alignment, state of dress, or ability to fit their fist in their mouth)

Best defence a good offence

This story has been going on for a little while, due to the courts pushing things back and constant reschedules. So, for legal reasons, the court of public opinion has been silenced, and we largely have been spared the vitriol.

But, I think something needs to be said, and it’s up to a traffic-less site to say it.

Swimmer and part-time thug Nick D’Arcy has pleaded guilty to the charge of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. D’Arcy has maintained throughout that his attack was purely in self-defence, and therefore totally justified.

You know, like how our defence forces are currently in other countries, “defending” our great nation.

I guess there are different ways to defend yourself, and even avoid situations in where things get inflamed to the point where we break out into fisticuffs. I mean, I can understand if people have a few too many, they are inclined to not be thinking too straight. In fact, by monitoring the bodies lying on the side of the road and viewing the antics on any given Saturday night in the city, I think that thinking is far from the agenda for people.

Some people may react by walking away from a confrontation. Some might yell a bit before walking away. Others might push others around before pretending that they can’t fight because their mates are “making” them walk away. These still seem like far more better ideas than slamming someone’s face in… you know… in self defence.

But in this black and white world, where Google can give us an answer – and therefore make you feel like your opinion is credible – I cannot look past this site. But what would the Police know?

Of particular note:

Further, self defence cannot amount to retribution. If an accused was assaulted by another person, then while defending him or herself, continued to fight the original attacker to the point that he or she becomes the aggressor, then self defence will not apply. The reason is that the victim did not do what was needed in the circumstances, but went beyond what was needed to defend themselves.

I’m no lawyer, and I’m sure that these things can be massaged a little to work out a defence that sorta fits with all involved. And yes, I wasn’t there either, so I don’t have any right to weigh in on this.

But, I’m sorry. I’m still not convinced that smashing in another person’s head is “self defence”. Just as much as I’m not sure that burping loudly and farting is “scintillating dinner conversation.”

Eating cake

The world is in a funny state at the moment. There’s been meltdowns so crazy that it’s caused a wee bit of mayhem on Wall Street. Big companies which might’ve been considered unshakeable have been brought to their knees by the realisation that investing make-believe money into houses which occupy people with make-believe personalities, who work in make-believe industries who then take out more make-believe money to purchase trash, with the belief that their house is making them make-believe-rich… isn’t exactly the most sustainable business plan.

But more has been written about that by more smarter people than I. Besides, this site and its lack of traffic is testament to people contributing to a make-believe cause.

A story was just published about how Australians believe that we’re already in recession, despite the fact that Australia has shown no signs of negative growth, let alone a continued period of negative growth, which is the technical definition of recession.

Solutions to our current turmoil have been to stimulate things by giving breeders money, through to simply using methods not unlike The Secret to simply wish it away.

The latter seems to have been run with in some of the comments.

They probably missed the constant stories of politicians reassuring us that our economy is just apples.

Although they do raise the point about how the media should only report the facts, which is a little bit of a no-brainer, especially for someone like me who prays idealistically for an educated and ethical press, but is instead force-fed shots of either Australian Idol losers or headlines about Jennifer Hawkins’ boobs (which leads to a story about everything but…). But they mention fully gagging the media unless they only say things that are factual and don’t do any damage to Australia.

… which seemed to be where most of the controversy about Australia’s anti-sedition laws stemmed from. Or, for a more tenuous link, the proposed mandatory net-nanny which is looking to ban things that are unsavory for Australians.

So… what the fuck is it? Free information, unhindered by the powers that be, and therefore a more informed populous which can make informed decisions about the direction of the country, or a state in where we have fields of tulips broadcast on 12 foot screens, and have sunshine systematically blown up our arses every two hours to remind us that all is well?

Geez, and I thought we preferred people telling it like it is…

Dearly De-folded

I’ve only just recently been tuning into the commercial radio stations in the morning for some reason. There’s something strangely compelling about listening to people ramble and then giggle inanely at each others’ jokes.

I caught the tail-end of a competition on SA-FM’s breakfast show in where the winner gets their loved one flown home from halfway around the world in order to reunite people in a sea of tears and clusters of hugs.

Apparently a loved one had to answer a series of questions, and the amount they answered correctly determined the length of time the loved one was going to stay in the country.

So, the competition winner was flown all the way home from the other side of the globe, where they could potentially be back with their family for a whole hour. Of course, this beggars the question, who on earth thought that this would end well?

Because he only could stay for an hour.

I’ve done the leg all the way around the world, as many Australians have. When you get to the other side, your temper is a bit on edge. You could snap within a minute. Considering the contempt with which I treated the poor lady at the Charles de Gaulle train station, I’m not surprised that the French are considered arrogant pricks.

If I were to fly halfway around the world to get to a destination in where I spent an hour before nicking off back from where I came, you can be pretty sure there would be blood. Lots of it.

After considering this idea, it seemed to smack of the usual Reality TV philosophies, ie promise the world to contestants only to instead prod incessantly at their weak spots until they eventually snap in an explosve tantrum, the size of which Naomi Campbell would “tsk-tsk”, shake her head in disdain and utter “well that was a bit over the top”.

But the community of Adelaide rallied behind the family, demanding that the breakfast team stop being Hitler-esque jerks and allow him to stay a bit longer.

Their blog exploded with comments:

Sarah says

This sucks – this is a CRUEL and HURTFUL game – Your should never have done it in the first place – Playing with peoples emotions for your own sick pursuit of ratings – How Dare you do this to a family that have been apart for 2 years – it is DISGUSTING – You have lost me and a lot of people from my work as listners – Absolutly horrible. What did you think would happen Amber – Did you think it would all be happy familys – Questions were far far far to hard!! What sister knows her siblings favourite Football star – I know i dont – For god sake rSAFM redeem yourself and stop this stupid game and let chris stay!!

Posted Thursday 20 November, 2008 8:26 AM

I can’t find the rules on the website, but I’m pretty sure that there’s no clause in there about how the questions have to be easy. Also, the “pursuit of ratings” point seems to lose its sharpness when you realise that’s how these stations function. That’s right, if there’s no ratings you can be pretty sure that your trip in the car to and from work will either be silent or blasting with the sound of starving Uni students (both presenting and playing the music).

Regardless, the fear of being lynched by an angry mob of family supporters and irrational, ravenous girls that make up their core demographic got too much for the suits and they folded quicker than an origami champion. It was possibly helped along by Amber Petty, who steadfastly and repeatedly maintained on air that this competition “never sat well” with her. Pretty easy to say that when you face being spat on in the street and being called a witch.

Although, I can understand that when it was another department that dreamed up this car crash, and the breakfast team were simply the blaring car horns.

I must say, though, that I bet the competition organisers are rueing bringing a soccer player back, though. We all know how peaceful and calm soccer supporters are, don’t we?

Chinese Internet

Let me just first say that I oppose the current gubbermint’s idea of putting in internet filtering. It’s pointless. Sure, we need to protect the kiddies out there, but I’m pretty sure most responsible parents would be monitoring their children’s usage of the internet.

And I’m also of the impression that if you deny someone access to something, the harder they’ll work to get it.

See prohibition in Chicago, back in those days. Yep. The city was free of drunks, I’m sure.

I read the story on the http://www.news.com.au website, and I see that the majority of the comments agree with me. So I’m not going to have a dispute with the gist of what they’re saying. However, it’s this little chestnut that has me raising my eyebrows.

Well, there were so many to choose from, so I doubt I picked the best example. Either way, what they’re saying seems to be along the lines of:

OMG!!! They’re taking away our freedoms!!! We’re going to be the next China, and have everything taken away from us. We’re a communist nation now!!!

Seriously curious about how the Chinese filter their internets, a rudimentary search turned up the wikipedia article on it, and a list of things that the Chinese aren’t allowed to look up.

As far as I can gather, what is being proposed in Australia is about restricting access to illegal material. I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in there about anti-Government material (which was supposedly covered in Australia’s anti-sedition laws… which seems to be working well, if judging by comments that flagrantly encourage people to vote against Labor), previous protests, alternative Government structures, and content relating to incarnations of a religious master (who might’ve pissed off the Government at some time).

So, in short, what is being proposed is ludicrous and I feel only encourages more stupidity. However, comparing our stupidity to China’s stupidity is a little… misguided, I feel.

Late addition: It appears that the UK Cleanfeed is an opt-in only, thereby the link between our ISP filtering and the UK filtering is bunk. Shove your response up your arse, Conroy.