Not Fade Away

Sep 9, 2007 | Australian Values, Cultural Values, Democracy, Economic Values, Humour, Media Values, OzPol Values, Values

Not Fade Away

Howard tries to remember something before it (or he) fades away….

 

Prime Minister John Howard will call the Federal Election this week¹, probably Wednesday, according to pundits, Canberra insiders and the entrails of the Apec monster which tragically died in such ludicrous circumstances in the last few days. The Apec monster was to be the Magic Steed which bore Mr Howard triumphantly to yet another glorious, fairytale election victory.

Yet sadly the monster has died, poisoned by the pretender, Rudd the Slayer, with Syrup of Mandarin.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister is determined to make the victory charge on foot if necessary, pre-empting all challenges by calling the election immediately.

Already, Mr Howard has decided on a campaign message. He will complain to the electorate that his love for them is heartlessly unrequited. He will shame them into returning his love and returning him to office. He will tug at their heart strings. He will tug at their purse strings to spend their money on government “non-election” information advertising.

Howard is determined that he will not fade away into the night like a World Cup Cricket Final. And that is his campaign slogan and his campaign song, performed posthumously by Buddy Holly (of the Cricket ), the man from whom he borrowed his taste in eyewear. Mmm, bup, bup, a-bup-bup

Values Australia has scooped an advance copy of the song and the proposed lyrics. We believe such a message could be hard to beat.

 

NOT FADE AWAY

I’m gonna tell you how it’s gonna be
You’re gonna give your love to me
I wanna love you night and day
You know my love not fade away
Well, you know my love not fade away

My love bigger than a cadillac
I try to show it and you drive me back
Your love for me got to be real
For you to know just how I feel
A love for real not fade away

I’m gonna tell you how it’s gonna be
You’re gonna give your love to me
A love to last more than one day
A love that’s love – not fade away
A well, love that’s love – not fade away

¹ P.S. If you have not enrolled to vote already Wednesday may be the last chance you have.

It’s Madeleine Albright

Aug 26, 2007 | Australian Values, Humour, OzPol Values, USPol, Values

It’s Madeleine Albright

Stop us if you’ve head this one…

 

Early in his term as Prime Minister, John Howard went to Washington for a meeting with Bill Clinton. After a private dinner, Bill says to Howard, “Well John, I don’t know what you think of the members of your Cabinet, but mine are all bright and brilliant.”

“How do you know?” asks Howard.

“Oh well, it’s simple”, says Bill. “They all have to take special tests before they can be a minister. Wait a second”.

He calls Madeleine Albright in and says to her, “Tell me Madeleine, who is the child of your father and of your mother who is not your brother and is not your sister?”

“Ah, that’s simple Mr. President”, says Madeleine, “it’s me!”

“Well done Madeleine,” says Clinton, and Howard is very impressed indeed.

John Howard returns to Canberra somewhat concerned about the intelligence of the members of his own Cabinet.

He calls in Alexander Downer and says: “Alex, tell me, who is the child of your father and of your mother who is not your brother and is not your sister?”

Downer thinks and thinks and doesn’t know the answer. “Um, you know, um, you know that is a hypothetical question and so of course …”

Howard looks at him darkly. “You know that bullshit doesn’t wash with me, Alex. I invented it.”

Downer pauses. “Yes. You know, um, I think we need to, um…such an important question obviously deserves very serious consideration. It may take some time.”

“Take all the time you need,” says Howard. “You’ve got 24 hours.”

Downer goes away, thinks as hard as he can, calls in his team, but no-one knows the answer.

22 hours later, after a sleepless night, Downer is sick to his considerable stomach – still no answer and only 2 hours to go.

Eventually Downer says, “I’ll phone Ruddock, he’s clever, he’ll know the answer.”

“Phil,” he says, “tell me, who is the child of your father and of your mother who is not your brother and is not your sister?”

“Very simple”, says Ruddock, “it’s me!”

“Of course! Just wanted to make sure you knew,” says Downer. 

He calls John Howard.

“Prime Minister”, says Downer proudly, “I have the answer:    It’s Philip Ruddock”.

“No, you idiot!” says Howard. “It’s Madeleine Albright!”

Haneef “Not Uninnocent”

Jul 27, 2007 | Australian Values, Corruption, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Humour, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Haneef “Not Uninnocent”

 

The materials available to me

“While there are inferences that are available from the material I have, I am of the view that they are not sufficiently strong to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.”

– Damien Bugg, DPP

Did the Government interfere in any way with the investigation of Haneef, the charges brought against him and the withdrawal of his visa?

I am advised to aver that there are inferences that may be drawn from the material that is available and that such inferences are not inconsistent with any number of hypotheses, including that Mr Howard may have jumped up and down with glee when Dr Haneef was apprehended at the airport, that Mr Ruddock lit the black candle, donned his black hood, rubbed his skeletal hands with grim and cold satisfaction and began practising his hangman’s knot, and that Kevin Rudd said, “Shit! another wedging attempt! Memo to troops: say nothing and do nothing!” However, I am also bound to assert that whilst such hypotheses may not be inconsistent with the materials available to me, the material is at the same time not inconsistent also with other hypotheses which are themselves not inconsistent with innocence and which a reasonable person may think do not exclude the possiblity of lack of guilt.

You mean they were probably all over the Haneef affair like a rash but you can’t prove it?

Your hypothetical distillation of my exposition of the matters pertinent is unable to be confirmed by the person standing before you.

Why not?

I am not unconstrained by the requirement to utilise linguistic circumlocutions characterised by the passive voice, double negatives, arcane concepts and elaborately constructed sentences designed to confuse and obfuscate thereby ensuring that recipients of such communications are not unmistaken as to the purport of the communiqué.

You have to bloviate.

It may be not incorrectly hypothesised that a reasonable person might form the inference that the proposition which has been put by my interlocutor is sufficiently persuasive as to have a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.

Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd is reported¹ to have commented,

“Fuck! Fucking fuck! How the fuck can I fucking well claim a fucking moral victory now? Who’s the fuckwit who told me to say nothing, do nothing? Why didn’t the fucking bastards tell me they were going to fuck the whole fucking business up! Cunts!”

¹Whilst there are inferences that may be drawn from the material available, we are of the view that they are not sufficiently strong to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with Mr Rudd’s innocence of the use of the quoted expletives.

DIC to the Rescue!

Jul 25, 2007 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Corruption, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Humour, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

DIC to the Rescue!

Life-Hack: How to satisfy yourself!

  

We reported yesterday [Black Breath of the Nazgûl] that the terrorist legislation implicitly requires you to satisfy yourself that anyone to whom you provide a service, item or product of any kind —

 which might conceivably be deemed at some future time to be a “resource” which might conceivably be used in a terrorist act by a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, or what might conceivably be deemed a terrorist organisation, at some indeterminate time in the future –

 you are required, as we say, to satisfy yourself that the person or organisation to whom you provide such a “resource” is not, or may not in the future turn out possibly to be, a terrorist or terrorist organisation.

 It is of no interest to the AFP, the DPP, the Minister for DIC, or the Nazgûl, whether you provide the resource in Australia or overseas, or whether the ‘terrorist act’ is, or may, occur in Australia or some other, crappy, country (like England).

 Nor do you have to be an Australian citizen.

 If you are in Australia now, whatever crappy other country you came from, you can be charged with anything you did anywhere in the world which resulted in an unfortunate and unforseeable outcome  — again, anywhere in the world.

 Naturally this has alarmed many people who wish to carry on business, and normal social and commercial intercourse with their other human beings including family, with the least amount of disruption.

 How, for example, in the event that you are ‘visited’ by the AFP, can you convince them that you were not “reckless” concerning the terroristic nature, dark inner thoughts, connections and intentions of everyone to whom you give or sell something?

 How, that is, are you expected to satisfy yourself that someone to whom you give or sell anything is not a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organisation? And how are you to satisfy yourself that the person could or would not find some nefarious way to put your innocent “resource” to some dastardly use?

 Well…

 It is apparent that the Govermint has been taking heed of the warnings of Values Australia!  The Department of Mateship has come to the rescue! It has produced the simple Form 1984 which you can give to your prospective giftee or customer to fill out while they wait.

DIC understands that this may result in some delays at, say, Bunnings checkouts but points out that it’s all for your own good and that safety and security are far more important than your personal sense of entitlement to such trivialities as freedom, liberty and other so-called “rights”.

 The government will keep you safe no matter what it costs you!

 This form is all you need to ensure that you cannot be charged with being “reckless” as to whether the person is a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organisation. Never mind whether the person lies on the form. The form itself is sufficient. A bureaucratically measurable tick in a box beats reality hands down every time.

 Ideas: Put a pile of Form 1984s on your counter, pre-ticked for efficiency.

And if you’re travelling overseas on a working holiday, take a bunch of Form 1984s  with you just in case.

 View Form 1984 here

Did Dick? Dick Did!

Feb 22, 2007 | Australian Values, Humour, OzPol Values, Religious Values, USPol, Values, War

Did Dick? Dick Did!

 

My Dick dick is bigger than your dikdik

 

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has arrived in Australia. Dick is visiting to offer John Howard a reach-around for the upcoming federal erection.

Values Australia staff report that Howard welcomed Dick personally with the greeting,

“Is that a gun in your pocket or is it your huge erect Dick?”

Overseas Affairs Minister Robin Boywonder was overheard to add,

“I like Dick!”

Dick was dining at the restaurant.
Dick was?
Was Dick ever! It was on the tax-payer!
Clever Dick.
Slick Dick!

How tall was Dick?
Oh, Dick’s about six foot seven.
Big Dick!

Dick went to the doctor’s the other day
Did Dick?
Dick Did!
Poorly Dick?
Sick Dick!

Dick walked into the bedroom last night. His wife ripped off all her clothes, threw herself on the bed and said: “Do what you want.” Dick said “Really?” She said: “Yes! YES!! Do exactly what you want!”
So Dick put his jacket on and went out and bombed Iran.
Thick Dick!

“Thanks to that dick joke, my kids will have new shoes this Christmas!”

Thanks to that joke Dick, Iraq will have no Shias this Christmas.