This is a piece I wrote just after the election had been called and that bounced its way around various editors’ inboxes but received no reply. The National Times was going to publish it last week but decided against it in an attempt to focus on non-election articles. Imagine now that its the first week of the election campaign and that Gillard still looked like she had a stranglehold over the Mad Monk…

We have our reigning champion and we have our contender. We have our crowd favourite and we have our underdog. We have our hype and we have our nervous anticipation. And now, with August 21, we have a date for our title fight.

The Australian political landscape bears many similarities with the world of professional wrestling and the notion of ‘kayfabe’ is no exception.

For the uninitiated, kayfabe is the wrestler’s code; the unspoken rule that obliges wrestlers to present the world of ‘sports entertainment’ as real. In reality, matches are decided before the competitors enter the ring, feuds and allegiances are scripted well in advance of their on-screen appearances and blows in the ring never quite land as hard as they should. It is kayfabe that seeks to maintain the suspension of belief for the audience.

While seeing Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott slug it out in a ‘Hell in a Cell’ match does have a certain appeal, the concept of political kayfabe is rather more subtle. In any given situation, it is the opposition’s role to oppose the government, regardless of the merits of the government’s argument.

If the government lunges forth with a new policy; the opposition counters with a stinging critique. If the government pulls some new legislation from under the ring, the opposition attempts to disarm them in the senate. One need only look to the events of the last year to see political kayfabe in action.

When the federal government proposed the introduction of a Resources Super Profits Tax in May the opposition dubbed it a ‘great big new tax which could effectively kill the Golden Goose’; the Australian mining sector. Yet when Prime Minister Gillard made considerable negotiations with the mining industry in an attempt to ensure a solid future for the industry, the Coalition continued their vocal disapproval of the scheme.

The issue of Labor’s internet filter is another pertinent example. While Abbott has been noticeably non-committal on the issue of internet censorship, Joe Hockey has been willing to offer his opinion, dutifully slamming the scheme. Yet, when Senator Conroy announced that the internet filter would be delayed due to community concerns, the Coalition was quick to offer their critique of the move, labelling the decision a ‘humiliating backflip’.

But the most indicative example of political kayfabe in action is Labor’s seemingly doomed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When the Rudd/Wong partnership announced their ETS late last year, the Abbott-led opposition was quick to hit it with the ‘great big new tax’ stamp. Yet, when Rudd announced the indefinite shelving of the ETS, the Coalition’s continued to criticise Rudd, accusing him of political cowardice.

Rather than have a rational debate about the issue of climate change, both the Rudd government and Abbott opposition continued to fight for their respective policies, unwilling to surrender. In the grapple that ensued, the real losers were the health of our planet and our future generations.

Sure, we’re all for a debate that provides us with several interpretations of an important issue; without such a debate we would hardly have perspective on the pressing issues that face our nation. And sure, you could argue that the opposition’s job is to, well, oppose the government. But on rare occasions our politicians have shown that political kayfabe can be set aside in favour of the greater good.

When Kevin Rudd made his now famous apology to indigenous Australians for the atrocity that manifested itself in the ‘stolen generations’, then-opposition leader Brendan Nelson followed Rudd’s speech, endorsing the then-prime minister’s message. Indeed the apology was supported by all but a handful of opposition ministers, showing that common ground is possible on matters of great import.

Why can’t this attitude of mutual understanding and compromise be taken as the starting point every time? Why can’t the important issues be discussed rationally without succumbing to the obligations of political kayfabe?

Professional wrestling can be entertaining even when we know that matches are decided before the combatants enter the ring. But wouldn’t it be nice to have the occasional fight where the outcome was decided in the ring? By all means have a debate about the key issues – this is a democracy after all – but why not start with the aim of creating solutions, rather than fulfilling ideological responsibilities?

But, with a title fight just around the corner, it’s almost certain that the current rules of engagement will prevail. After all, Tony Abbott is expecting Labor to run a ‘filthy’ election campaign and, if history is anything to go by, Julia Gillard should expect no less from the opposition. After all, it’s all in the script…

If professional cycling was a Hollywood starlet, it would have just emerged from rehab, teetering on the edge of another relapse. The sport’s reputation has long been tainted by those who have resorted to doping and a handful of such offenders are found every year.

In the 2007 Tour de France dual stage winner Alexandra Vinokourov was found guilty of doping and his Astana team immediately withdrew from the race. The following year, teammates Riccardo Ricco and Leonard Piepoli were fired from the Saunier Duval squad after both riders admitted to taking the banned substance, MIRCERA. In the 2009 Tour de France, stage 16 winner Mikel Astarloza was found guilty of doping in the weeks leading up to the race.

While this year’s Tour de France yielded no cases of doping, there is a storm brewing and it hangs directly over the sport’s greatest champion, Lance Armstrong.

According to Armstrong’s former teammate Floyd Landis – the man who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France victory after failing a drug test – Armstrong used banned substances in 2002 and 2003 while riding for the U.S Postal Service team. While Armstrong has denied the claims, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), International Cycling Union (UCI) and US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) have all signalled their intentions to investigate Landis’ allegations.

But Landis isn’t alone in making allegations against Armstrong. Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond told The Denver Post that the upcoming doping investigation would find “overwhelming” evidence of wrongdoing on Armstrong’s behalf.

In fact, Armstrong’s career has been littered with allegations of doping. On one such occasion, the French newspaper L’Equipe claimed that six of Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France had been found to contain the banned substance EPO. At the time, drug tests weren’t able to detect EPO – a hormone which induces red blood cell production – but later tests apparently found evidence of EPO use.  In 2008 Armstrong refused further testing on the samples on the grounds that they had not been properly maintained.

Despite this and other accusations levelled at Armstrong throughout his career, the seven-time Tour de France winner has never tested positive to an official drug test. The agencies responsible for investigating Landis’ claims will be hoping they don’t find cause to disrupt that record.

While the suspensions faced by riders like Vinokourov and Landis have damaged the reputation of professional cycling, to find Armstrong guilty of doping would be catastrophic for the credibility of the sport. After all, with the greatest story in cycling history, Armstrong has the most to lose.

After being given a minimal chance of surviving a bout of cancer that affected his lungs, testicles and brain, Armstrong not only made a comeback to professional cycling but managed to win the sport’s greatest race, the Tour de France, seven times in a row. The Texan’s cancer-comeback and unprecedented success at le Tour resulted in a huge increase in the sport’s popularity in the US and around the world. During Armstrong’s reign, television audiences for the Tour de France increased significantly and USA Cycling memberships rose considerably.

But for all of Armstrong’s influence on the popularity of the sport, the hard work will all be undone if he is found to have doped his way to the top. His frequent claims of innocence, his apparent “six hours a day” on the bike in lieu of drugs and his good-guy persona will all count for nothing if Landis’ damaging claims are proven to be true.

For the sake of the sport we can only hope that Floyd Landis is being as dishonest now as he was in 2006.

Image courtesy of the ABC

Given the lack of attention that Jason Akermanis has had over the past few weeks, I thought I’d spend some time analysing a little article that the Bulldogs’ forward penned recently.

For those that missed Aker’s charming attempt to play counsellor for gay footballers, the original article is well worth a read; if only for the story about a perfectly good team shower ruined by a gay team mate.

According to Akermanis ‘the world of AFL footy is not ready’ for gay players to ‘come out’, saying that such a revelation could ‘break the fabric of a club’. While I could terminate the discussion here by pointing to the excellent retort written by Gerard Whateley, I would be denying myself a tantalising opportunity to provide an overly sarcastic, holier-than-thou analysis.

Come to think of it, Akermanis is not that far off the mark. Sure, his assessment of the situation is fairly lacking in nuanced analysis but the idea that blokey sporting clubs aren’t ready for gay men to come out is, well, fairly spot on.

Having been a member of a decidedly blokey sporting club for some years I can confirm that sporting culture and empathy for homosexuality aren’t really the greatest of friends. I never played alongside any openly-gay teammates but the blokey banter was enough to leave me with a fair idea of the general attitude towards ‘poofters’. Indeed the use of the word ‘poofters’ should be indication enough.

I can also speak with some authority in agreeing with Akermanis’ suggestion that ‘locker room nudity and homoerotic activities’ are the norm in that environment. I always found it amusing when my teammates would slap each other on the arse during a match, happily shower naked together, and yet still use the word ‘poofter’ as an insult, completely oblivious to the ironic corner they had backed themselves into.

I also agree with Akermanis in saying that the outing of a gay man might tear at the fabric of an AFL club but, as Jack Marx points out, that might well be a good thing. The problem here is not that gay players are a threat to the manliness that football culture is built upon, rather it’s football culture that is a threat to gay players.

While it would be genuinely tough for an AFL footballer to ‘come out’ in the current football climate, few things could be more beneficial to the sport in the long run. What better way to combat institutionalised homophobia than to have proudly gay footballers declare their sexuality while being prepared to discuss it in the public arena? Sure, the footballing world might not know how to handle it initially but it would surely be a step in the right direction.

I mean, even Eddie McGuire thinks it’s a good idea for gay AFL players to come out, telling SX News that he ‘would love it’ were such a revelation to occur. Then again, Eddie also thought it was a good idea to describe figure skaters as not ‘leaving anything in the closet’ while commentating at the recent Winter Olympics.

But it’s not just sporting clubs that seem to feel threatened by homosexuality. If Channel Seven reporter Adam Walters is to be believed, the Australian public are so concerned about homosexuality that a story about David Campbell’s visit to a gay sauna is the biggest news story of the week. To foster a greater sense of connection between Jason Akermanis and the former NSW transport minister I would like to invoke the wisdom of Twitter user @heavyphotons;

‘Akermanis tells gay men to live a lie. David Campbell shows us how you’re treated when you do.’

For those that missed Adam Walters’ shameful excuse for investigative journalism, David Campbell handed in his resignation after ‘a 7News investigation’ filmed him leaving the ‘gay sauna’, Ken’s at Kensington. The initial accusation was that Campbell was at fault for using his ministerial car to visit the venue, but when 7News discovered that he was well within his rights to do so, the focus of the story changed.

As Jonathon Holmes explained on Media Watch last week, the issue morphed into a question of Campbell’s sexuality and the fact that he had allegedly been ‘living a double life’. Thankfully, 7News’ decision to run the Campbell story – ruining a man’s career and personal life in the process – attracted the scrutiny of many within the Australian media, not just the watchful folk at Media Watch.

Journalist and former Media Watch presenter David Marr was typically succinct when commenting for ABC TV’s Lateline: ‘Campbell was destroyed by Channel Seven for being gay, full stop.’ David Koch of Sunrise fame impressed many with his criticism of Adam Walters’ apparent double-standard and Crikey’s Andrew Crook took the criticism even further, accusing Walters of having a score to settle.

But perhaps the most telling reaction to the 7News’ ‘investigation’ was the collective damnation of the story by journalism educators around the country. As Crikey reported, more than 50 journalism academics put their names to the statement ‘we deplore what you did to David Campbell and his family’.

It goes without saying that the reaction to Campbell’s ‘double-life’ would have been far less had he been cheating on his wife with another woman. The fact that he seems to enjoy the attention of other men has turned a routine breach of a public figure’s privacy into a ‘gay witch hunt’.

Footy clubs have never been known for the progressive attitudes on matters of sexuality but David Campbell’s trial by media is a sad step backwards in our quest to achieve understanding and respect for everyone, regardless of their sexuality. Channel Seven’s attempt to assess  ‘public interest’ stories hopefully says more about the misguided direction of the network rather than society’s thirst for gay blood.

But lest we finish this evening in a cloud of doom and gloom, let’s be grateful that we Australians don’t have the likes of Fred Phelps throwing their weight around. Never mind gay ministers and gay footballers, if Mr Phelps is to believed, we Aussies have far bigger problems on our hands. The good pastor provided this glorious insight during the Black Saturday bushfires last year:

‘God hates Australia, land of the sodomite damned. The fag-infested land of Australia – the fire of God’s wrath is sending hundreds of those filthy Australian beasts straight to hell. We at the Westboro Baptist Church are rejoicing, and we are praying for the dear lord to burn many more Australians alive.’

All of a sudden, Jason Akermanis doesn’t seem like such a bad bloke…

For those that haven’t been following #matttheintern on Twitter, I’m currently into my second week of a three week internship at Crikey. It’s been an eye-opening experience thus far and my first week and a bit has presented me with equal parts despair and satistfaction.

I  was lucky enough to have had a couple of pieces published in my first week. First there was my wrap-up of the UK election, with a little help from deputy editor Jason Whittaker. Then there was a silly little post for Crikey‘s travel blog “Back in a Bit”, about my relationship with airports. And on Friday my piece about the Adelaide Advertiser’s decision not to run an Australian Sex Party ad made it to the front page of Crikey.

As fun as it is to talk about the pieces that I have had published, I’m also keen to share with you the pieces that didn’t get published. Early last week I wrote up a silly little piece about a local footy team that recently managed to get beaten by 401 points. The piece didn’t pass Crikey’s quality control checks (which are decidedly more stringent than the ones I impose on myself here) and as a result it didn’t get published.

The good news for you, dear reader, is that Crikey’s decision not to publish the piece doesn’t mean you won’t get to read it. Without further ado it’s my pleasure to introduce ‘The Discarded’, the pieces that didn’t quite make the grade, and epsiode one, ‘For the love of the game…’

To all the Richmond fans who have been lamenting their side’s fortunes this season, spare a thought for the North Sunshine Football Club. According to a piece published in The Age today, the Roadrunners haven’t managed a single win in their last two seasons of football and Saturday’s match against the Albanvale Cobras did little to buck that trend.

The Cobras piled on a staggering 67 goals and 22 behinds to pummel the Roadrunners by 401 points – the sixth largest margin in the game’s history, according to The Age. Three Cobras players managed to kick 10 or more goals with 14 players making it to the goal-kickers list. Matthew Mallach was the only Roadrunner to kick multiple goals, snagging two of North Sunshine’s three.

While Saturday’s 65 goal loss is an obvious lowlight for the club, it’s not the first time this season that the Roadrunners have been defeated by an extravagant margin. In their four matches prior to the Cobras loss, North Sunshine have lost by 236 points, 231 points, 184 points and a comparatively succesful 88 points.

But it’s not all bad news for the Roadrunners with former Richmond star Matthew Richardson offering to hold a training session with the team. Club President Mark Neicho told The Age that Richo’s offer would help to motivate the ailing squad.

“Knowing he’s going to come down and do a training run might pep the guys up enough and keep them motivated.”

I’m no sports psychology expert but I reckon it’s going to take a bit more than a single training session to motivate the team after a loss like that. As a junior footballer I played in one particular match where we found ourselves losing by the comparatively respectable margin of 20 goals. The memory of that slaughter at the hands of the Under-12 powerhouse that was the Vermont Football Club sticks with me some 12 years later; I can only imagine what it must be like to lose by 65 goals.

However, full credit must go to North Sunshine club president Mark Neicho for facing up to the flurry of interview requests that have come his way since the weekend. His ability to put a positive spin on things is quite impressive.

“These guys are local boys that enjoy playing for a local side and enjoy the mateship – playing football with their friends”, he told The Age.

I enjoy team sport and the associated camaraderie as much as the next guy but I can tell you now, there would be nothing enjoyable about being beaten by 401 points.

Once upon a time it was possible for professional athletes to ply their trade without having to deal with the stress of the modern media. It’s hard to imagine the ancient Olympians facing public scrutiny about their personal lives, for example. But nowadays, with the rise of the global media and a collective devotion to celebrity culture, being a professional athlete entails far more than simply being good at the sport in question. Just ask Michael Clark.

As attention on professional athletes has increased, so has an awareness that athletes need to be savvy when it comes to interacting with and participating in the media. Rather than allowing athletes to speak their minds, great care is now taken to promote good sportsmanship and maintain the reputation of the game in question. While a fight may well break out during an AFL match, for example, it is highly unlikely that the confrontation will continue off the ground, such is the desire to uphold the reputation of the game.

To this end sportsmen and –women are taught skills that will help them act appropriately when interacting with the media. For example, they are taught to be humble and not big-note themselves; they are taught to have respect for their opposition and for the game’s officials; and they are taught to take responsibility for their off-field actions.

While all this might sound fairly reasonable the reality is that it makes the whole process rather dull and predictable for the public. In his address at the conclusion of last year’s AFL grand final Geelong coach Mark ‘Bomber’ Thompson said the following;

‘Firstly to the St. Kilda footy club, footy sucks sometimes and you guys have had a fantastic year. You’ve done so much right and you’re one of the hardest teams to play against’.

An undoubtedly noble gesture, but also a rather predicable and unoriginal one. If only he had said something along these lines;

‘Firstly to the St. Kilda footy club, you only lost two games for the season and you finished two games clear on top of the ladder. You also outscored us in three quarters of today’s match and yet you still managed to lose the game. Good effort.’

Sure, it wouldn’t have made Mr. Thompson the most popular man in footy but at least he would have been the most original.

But more than making the whole process extremely predictable it would seem that the regulation of media interaction in the sporting world has reduced such interaction to a series of clichés.

An example of this can be seen when an AFL player is asked to assess his team’s finals chances. Rather than answering the question honestly the player will almost certainly revert to one of the great sporting clichés – ‘we’re just taking it one week at a time.’

Similarly, after a match-winning performance a player might well be asked to comment on his or her contribution. Rather than taking the opportunity to provide an accurate account of proceedings, the modern sportsperson will often reply ‘it was a great team effort’.

If the same player was on the losing side he might well be asked to explain why it was that his team lost. In this situation it is unlikely that he would call the opposition a pack of cheats, even if he had wanted to. The preferred response seems to be something along the lines of ‘we had our chances but let them slip away.’

There seems to be a cliché for every situation in sport and it’s not just the players that are getting in on the action. Sports commentators also seem to revel in language that is saturated with repetition and recurrence. Cricket commentators seem to be quite partial to the phrase ‘good line and length’, for example, while AFL commentators will often mention a courageous player’s ability to put his ‘body on the line’.

The final word today goes to The Australian columnist Chip Le Grand and his brilliant piece about clichés, jargon and the AFL. Hopefully someday I can write like this but until then I’ll just keep giving it 110% and taking it one week at a time…

Do you ever get the feeling that things are going backwards in this country? You know, the feeling that, rather than making progress on important social issues, we are heading back toward the dark ages?

For those that missed it, the Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls announced yesterday that a compromise had been reached over the proposed changes to the Equal Opportunity Act, striking a balance between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination. It sounds promising, I mean, we like compromise don’t we? The proposed changes to the Act will prevent religious groups from discriminating against an individual “on the grounds of race, disability, age, physical features, political belief or activity and breastfeeding”. Again, that all sounds fairly positive to me. But wait, what’s this?

“Religious groups would continue to be able to discriminate on other grounds including sexuality or marital status if it was in accordance with their beliefs.”

And here I was thinking that we were talking about the Equal Opportunity Act – silly me. Seriously, how does this even happen? I’m all for religious freedom – you can believe whatever you want to believe – but not if it’s going to be at the expense of other people’s job prospects.

Let’s keep things in perspective here – we are sacrificing the modern ideal of equal opportunity for the sake of religious dogma that was written between 4000 and 1500 years ago, depending on your monotheistic doctrine of choice. Isn’t the idea of giving everyone a “fair go” one of the foundations of our national cultural identity? 91% of Australians seem to think so, according to a Roy Morgan survey.

Where do we draw the line here? If I am an employer in a “religious group” and it is my opinion that Ephesians 5:24 should be interpreted and adapted for use in my workplace, am I justified in employing women only in the lowest-ranked positions within my company? After all, women are always subordinate to men so how could a woman ever be in a position where she might be in charge of men? I don’t wanna hear about Women’s Suffrage or anything like that, I can do what I like because my actions are in accordance with my religious beliefs.

Sure, it may be a pithy example but the point should be fairly obvious – if “religious belief” is justification enough for actions that might be contrary to the values of our secular society, hasn’t something gone wrong with the system? Let’s shift gears a little.

The other night after work I flicked the TV on and switched to SBS. Being after 10pm I was fully aware of the risk I was taking – chances are I was to be greeted by some ultra-weird Swedish arthouse film or some thinly-veiled soft-core pornography. It happened to be the latter, a Spanish film named Cachorro, translated into English as Bear Cub. The film followed a “bear” who assumed responsibility for his young nephew after the nephew’s mother was imprisoned for drug smuggling. The film’s opening five minutes contained the most graphic gay sex scene I have ever seen on Australian television and the following 90 minutes were littered with many more such scenes.

I’ll admit that I found the sex in the film a little confronting – not because of the explicit nature of the scenes and obviously not because of some philosophical or religious objection to homosexuality but because, well, I’m just not used to seeing gay sex scenes. It’s probably the same feeling I had when I saw my first heterosexual sex scene in a film.
As I discussed some months ago, it is pretty clear that our society is still not used to seeing displays of affection between gay couples and more often than not, such displays of affection are cause for major controversy. In fact, in spite of the concerted efforts of the last few decades, western society seems intent on forever ostracising members of the gay community.

Having experienced the ins and outs of “working class culture” in a cricket club environment over the last decade I have it on fairly good authority that being a “poofter” or a “faggot” is pretty much the worst thing you can be. You know the sort of guy I mean – the bloke that doesn’t smash a slab of VB every weekend after playing footy with his mates. Oh, and the guy that doesn’t slap his mate on the arse after kicking a goal? Gay. The guy that won’t shower with the boys after a win? Must be a homo. And don’t get me started on the guy that won’t let his team mates piss on him in the showers after the game – what a faggot.

I wish I was making this stuff up, but if you head to the change rooms of any football or cricket club in the country you will soon see what I mean.

I know I’m being overly idealistic in my attempts to foster a greater sense of respect for the gay community, especially among footy and cricket players – it’s a far bigger issue than a semi-informed rant can hope to deal with. On the flip-side I also know that there is not nearly enough positive exposure to gay culture in the modern media and that SBS should be commended for having the balls to run films like Cachorro. Finally, I know that in the struggle toward equal opportunity for all, regardless of sexuality, the decision to prioritise religious freedom over freedom from discrimination is certainly not going to help…

I don’t spend a lot of my time thinking about issues like animal rights but lately there have been some things that have forced the issue into my mind. Take this ongoing news story for example. For those that missed it, the Australian Racing Board announced back in March that as of August this year, a whole swathe of new regulations would be imposed on Australian jockeys. Some of the more controversial changes state that only padded whips are to be used when whipping horses, that a jockey must not raise their arm above shoulder height when whipping a horse and that a horse must not be whipped more than five times in the final straight, before the 200 metre-to-go mark.

Following the announcement in March there has been significant backlash within the horse racing community including a half-day strike by jockeys last week which allegedly cost Tabcorp $2.5 million. Since the strike there have been talks between the Australian Racing Board and the Australian Jockeys’ Association resulting in a compromise between the new regulations and the status quo.

To be honest, I couldn’t care less about horse racing or about Tabcorp’s daily takings. I’m more interested in the fact that there is an issue of potential animal cruelty here that is, for the most part, completely ignored. Who knows, maybe horses don’t feel anything when jockeys whip them, but good on the ARB for having the balls to bring the issue out into the open.

It got me thinking – surely there must be other issues of potential animal cruelty that are often overlooked, and then I remembered – Tim Minchin’s “Bears Don’t Dig On Dancing”. The song might be a little silly but the point seems to be pretty clear to me – sure, making bears dance is pretty cruel but what about all those other animals that are used to attend our every need? Coal-mine canaries for example? Or packmules? Or those poor horses that drag tourists up and down Swanston Street in those fancy looking carriages?

I’m not really saying anything new here am I? I mean, animal rights organisations have been preaching to us for years about how animals should have equal rights to those of humans, that we shouldn’t eat meat, that animals shouldn’t be used for scientific testing and so on. Part of me jumps up with fists in the air and yells “yeah, right on!” while another part of me can’t help but recommend this article to all and sundry, Seriously, “better dead than fed”?

I guess the point that I’m trying to pull out of this convoluted mess is that the animal rights/cruelty debate isn’t a clear cut one. Sure, I can fully appreciate that testing medicine on animals poses serious ethical considerations. On the other hand, without the knowledge that thousands of years of animal testing has uncovered, our understanding of disciplines such as biology, microbiology, toxicology and a whole lot of other -ologies would be severely restricted.

Something that has never really made sense to me, and something that is particularly relevant when talking about animal rights is the issue of de-sexing. Specifically, how is it that the process of neutering a pet is so widely accepted in our society? I’ve never met a single person that has decided not to neuter their cat or dog because they thought it would constitute an animal rights abuse.

Does the excuse “we can’t afford to have a litter of dogs running around” really justify taking a knife to your pet? As I mentioned earlier the issue of animal rights is a contentious one but surely your desire to only have two dogs rather than eight is outweighed by your dogs’ desire not to have their reproductive organs chopped out? What gives us the right to jump in and control the reproductive cycles of our pets? Oh yeah, the same rights that let us breed cats and dogs as domestic animals in the first place, resulting in out-of-proportion monstrosities like the British Bulldog. I’m not convinced that the positive health effects are justification enough for neutering our pets either. As this irrefutable source shows, the negative effects are equal, if not greater in number than the postive effects.

I might be missing something here – maybe there are genuinely good reasons for forcing your beloved pets to part with their reproductive organs. Either way, there is not nearly enough discussion about this issue in our society at the moment and it’s a real shame. All we need is for some psycho-parent to crack the shits at their teenage son for banging every chick in site, castrate him in order to prevent the advent of multiple grandchildren and then justify their actions by saying “but it worked on the dog”. Now that would generate some discussion…

It’s a little scary to think that the AFL season is almost over already. It seems like only yesterday that Geelong was making a mockery of Port Adelaide in last year’s Grand Final. Last Friday night I happened to watch Hawthorn dispose of the Western Bulldogs, or perhaps more accurately, Lance ‘Buddy’ Franklin dispose of the Western Bulldogs, a man who became the subject of an argument between Dad and I. See, Dad gets miffed when players celebrate extensively after kicking a good goal – something which Buddy certainly isn’t shy of doing – arguing that it shows an unnecessary arrogance.

I can see his point – ‘let the footy do the talking’ they say – but I dunno. I just reckon that if you are as good as Buddy then you are kinda entitled to a bit of show-off time. His namesake, Lance Armstrong, was never the most modest of blokes, but why would he be? The bloke beat cancer and then won a lazy seven Tours de France in a row. I think he is entitled to a bit of arrogance.

The Olympics saw Dad and I clash over the issue as well, in particular the antics of Usain Bolt. For anyone who happened to be living under a rock while the Olympics was on, Usain Bolt is the Jamaican guy who happened to win gold medals in both the 100m and 200m sprints, while casually picking up two world records in the process. Besides his extraordinary performances, Bolt has made a name for himself for his showboating – before, after and would you believe, during the race – and it is this apparent arrogance that Dad wasn’t all that impressed about. Like I said, I can see his point but I can also see how breaking the 100m and 200m world records in one meet is a fairly impressive effort, worthy of a bit of arrogance self-praise.

But at the end of the day, this post is merely a vehicle for the following YouTube clip – a clever and witty parody of Usain Bolt’s efforts in the 100m final and possibly the funniest clip I’ve ever seen on Youtube…