Some free advice for Tony Abbott

There are reports that at least 22 people have drowned and 70 more are still missing after their boat broke up and sank on their way to Australia.

Tony Abbott spent three years campaigning with a relentless mantra of Stop the Boats.
It would be awfully easy to play politics with this and rub the new government’s nose in the fact that their policies have not yet stopped the drownings but I will not do that, partly because a new government deserves time to let its policies (however abhorrent) work, but mainly because it would trivialise the death of children.

However, one aspect of Mr Abbott’s response – or lack thereof – to the tragedy cannot pass without comment:

When asked about the incident when he was leaving an early Grand Final function, Prime Minister Grownup ignored reporters’ questions and just kept walking.

Wrong response.

No fair person should expect the prime minister to be fully briefed on an event as it occurs or have a fully thought out reaction to it. It would also be wrong to say anything before seeing all the relevant information. But to simply ignore questions on the topic looks callous at best.

Here’s how a pro would handle it:

“We are deeply concerned about these reports. We will have more to say when we have all the information to hand. Thank you.”

Would that have been so hard?

  
 

The Rules of Attraction

This piece is partly prompted by Rhys Muldoon’s lovely column today, and partly something I have been thinking for quite a while on the subject of whether or not we choose our sexual orientation and who to love.

I can’t approach being anywhere near as eloquent as Mr Muldoon on the subject of love so I will be writing about the mechanics of sexual attraction. I am writing from the male perspective because that’s the only perspective I have, but I would love to hear from women on the topic too.

The question of whether people choose who they are attracted to can be answered in one very blunt sentence of five simple words:

You can’t fake an erection.

It’s that simple. You can’t.
Of course, there are many things that can cause an erection that have nothing in particular to do with sexual attraction, especially if you’re a teenager. It could be a whiff of perfume, a cool breeze, a particular underwear fabric, the way the train jiggles, or even something as simple as waking up. This doesn’t mean you want to marry your bed sheets.
I’ll say that again just in case Cory Bernardi is reading:
This. Does. Not. Mean. You. Want. To. Marry. Your. Bed. Sheets. Is that clear?

An erection is by no means an infallible sign of overt sexual attraction but it is the body saying Mmm, I like that! You can’t just make it happen, it’s completely involuntary. The only way to make an erection happen in a situation that you don’t find arousing is to think of something that you do find arousing – whatever that may be.

You also can’t stop an erection. There’s no saying ‘Down boy, we don’t choose to be turned on by that kind of thing.’ If it’s going to happen, then it’s going to happen and you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. You might – and I stress might – be able to control it a little bit by thinking unattractive thoughts but your chances aren’t good. Arousal is like blinking or getting goose bumps. You don’t do it because you choose to, but because it is (pardon the pun) hardwired.

Every man knows this is true. Almost every woman knows this is true of men. I can’t speak for women (and again, I would welcome women to comment), but given that female arousal is generally a more complex process than in males, I strongly suspect it would support my premise that you can’t make it happen if it isn’t happening and you can’t stop it happening if it is. Women are fortunate that they can still be a bit mysterious and dignified in their arousal, but the penis never lies.

So why on earth is anyone still suggesting that a person’s attraction to another person is some kind of lifestyle choice and not basic programming? Is it because it’s a barely plausible excuse to treat people differently?
And why are some who have finally come to accept the fact that it’s simply how someone is built suggesting that it’s okay if they’re built that way so long as they don’t act on it. That’s like saying it’s okay to be hungry so long as you don’t eat.

If you’re still not convinced, do the experiment yourself. Pick something that doesn’t attract or stimulate you, and try to get off on it. You will not be able to do it. If you can, then it only means that it really does attract and stimulate you. And that’s perfectly alright too.
  
 

The Rules: Charity

If you contribute a lot to charity, either through work or money, that's wonderful.
Well done! We applaud you. Carry on.

However,
If you ever feel the need to boast about it, then it's no longer charity - it's PR.
  
 

Everyone has their mandate

Let’s be honest and admit that any discussion of mandates, either by a government or an opposition, is always going to be an argument of convenience.


The rest of this piece can be read at AusOpinion.
  
 

Words never said...

Fair’s Fair

I have had many unflattering things to say about Mr Abbott.

However, according to our rules of government and the Westminster system, he will form government and become our 28^th prime minister.

Therefore, he deserves all the respect that he afforded previous prime ministers who came to power under exactly the same rules.

Which translates and demanding a redo every day for three years if you didn’t like the outcome.

Go for it!

  

 

Other “poorly worded” Liberal policies

Thursday was a real dog-ate-my-homework day for the Coalition.

First there were the long-awaited policy costings which, by their own calculations, offer a measly $6 billion in savings over four years. Then there was the internet filter fiasco. The mandatory internet filter which everyone, including the Liberal party opposed when Labor proposed it, and which was quietly dropped by Labor last year would have been back under a Liberal government. I say “would have been” because they reversed the policy a couple of hours later. Tony Abbott said that he quickly read the policy the previous night and though that it meant optional PC-based software (presumably there isn’t a Mac version) and shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull tweeted that the policy “wrongly indicated” support of an opt-out system.

It can only lead one to wonder what other “poorly worded” policies the Liberals have rushed out that give a misleading view of their intentions and may not be picked up in the next 24 hours…

• “WorkChoices dead, buried and cremated” should read: “Dead, but being resurrected.”
• “Paid Parental Leave,” is a typo. Should be, “Maid parental leave,” which is the coalition’s policy for compensating the head of the house when their domestic staff take leave.
• “Operation Secure Borders,” actually refers to safer online book shopping.
• “Stop the boats,” has a word left out. Should read: “Stop reporting the boats.”
• “Direct action,” is not actually a policy but a page from the script of one of their television commercials that fell into the wrong folder.