HAND PUPPETS: THE WAY OF THE FUTURE [guest starring Schapelle Corby]
Bricktop351's curiosity gets the better of him:I don't understand shitloads of stuff, which is why I question everyone and everything whenever my Suspicion Meter reading exceeds the recommended daily allowance. In fact, I don't understand more than many of equal height or weight to me, and also those of greater or lesser height and/or weight, for that matter.
Case #1:
People named James and the abbreviation of said name to Jim. What's wrong with Jam? It's an abbreviation of James and it sounds sweet. If my name were James, I'd rather be called Jam than Jim, but I'm not and so I don't need to correct people when they inquire, 'Hey, Jim, is that a new tattoo?' because I wouldn't even know they were addressing me. I'd probably be drooling as I looked in the general vicinity, attempted to make eye contact where I could focus enough to make out who was addressing someone with the absurd name of Jim, slur something or other about Jim being an absurd shortened-form for the name James and then giggle and/or puke. But that's drugs for you and I'm not James nor Jam nor Jim.
Case #2:
Arguing about something where someone has no reason or personal involvement whatsoever in what they're arguing about. Example using imaginary hand puppets, if you will, Herr Ubermensch. Righto, gov'na.
Mr X: 'The colour of Parliament House is all wrong. It doesn't portray adequately the bravado and confusion contained within its hallowed walls.'
Ms Y [a.k.a. Cynic - no relation ; )]: 'You're full of shit. What would you know about colours or anything for that matter? Clamlapper! Cornhole! Cunt!'
Changing the subject, but not really. How many of you guys vote?
'We all do, BT3. We're of legal age or look like we are and we're conscious of our vote having meaning, impact and say in the result that follows the voting process. If we didn't vote, then the turgid backwater of the world and the people with kayaks that are powering through it will overwhelm the predetermined political outcome with a tsunami-like force of socially unacceptible wanton destruction. What kind of fucking question is that, BT3? Are you a numbskull? Have you been sniffing glue? Do you believe in Santa Claus?'
One question at a time, dear people. I don't mean that kind of voting. I understand and fully support that kind of voting, having voted at least twice since my 18th birthday [and attended every other time in order to have my name struck off as having voted/attended as I couldn't afford the $50 fine], you schleprocks with knives for tongues. We're more fortunate than most to live in a society that allows us to walk to the nearest Primary School, dodge the Pamphlet Nazis and waltz on into the Booth of Secrecy to slide another unsuccessful candidate's vote into the Bin of Half-truth. I demand a fucking recount!
I'm talking about the other kind of voting: online voting for polls.
Nine msn dot com dot au is great for this kind of shit. Today [Sunday, May 29th] is no exception. The poll asks: 'Do you think the Schapelle Corby verdict is fair?'
[A brief run-down (a.k.a. optional paragraph):
Aussie chick flies to Bali. Gets asked to explain how a copious amount of weed got into her boogie board bag upon arrival. Uses the defence: 'I don't fucking know'. There's a media circus coz she's one of 'ours' and therefore newsworthy [here we go, here we go, here we go... you know the rest]. There's a trial; gets a cool 20, avoiding the death penalty because the judge likes 'surfie types' or perhaps because the Aussie government applied a bit of pressure via the media, which is always fair and unbiased; always. Somewhere along the line someone suggests baggage handlers in Australia are part of an internal drug smuggling ring and that Corby's brightly coloured bag missed the baggage handler's attention at the pick-up point in Oz before it was sent to a country where the importation of drugs is considered slightly more serious than instigating and executing the death of say, let's round it off to, 90 people coz the baggage handler at said pick-up point got distracted or was still drug-fucked from the previous night. Oops and all that, right?]
You know, I really had to think about my answer with this prickly-pear of a poll question [thanks nine msn for allowing me to scratch my temple with vigour usually reserved for mornings following a night at Paris Hilton's pad (twice in one post: fucking hell)]. Do I think the verdict is fair? Notice how the word fair has been italicised?
'Hmm,' I thought, 'that totally depends on how I interpret the question, doesn't it?'
Figuring there was nobody likely to provide a definitive answer to my question, I answered it on behalf of myself with a series of other questions. Again, hand puppets were used.
Me #1: 'Well, that all depends,' I said, 'on how you or I interpret the question, doesn't it?'It kinda went on like that for a while, as I took another few tokes of the weed that Cornelius had left at my place in a duffel bag - at least I think it was him; I'm almost 100% positive it was him - and I had a pretty good idea about whether or not the decision was fair. But I wasn't ready to vote just yet.
Me #2: 'Yes, of course,' I replied, 'but how exactly do you mean?' I added.
Me #1: 'Well, if it's a case of answering whether the court, judges and whoever assumed that she was guilty because they found a massive quantity of drugs in her luggage and that the defence didn't go half-way to proving that it was anyone's doing other than hers in order to change the court's mind and get that not-guity verdict, which seemed to be popular with the Australian contigent of the media, whereby the court then applied what it felt was a suitable gaol time to accompany the guilty verdict, then fuck yeah, it's fair. What else would it be? Indonesia has a way of doing shit, just like Australia has a way of keeping asylum seekers locked up behind bars. We do shit and they do shit and together we do a lot of shit; some of it which may seem like weird shit to some, it's quite above board and legitimate and fair coz there are rules, regulations, and other words beginning with r, in place.'
Me #2: 'What about the other perspective?' I asked.
Me #1: 'Which one?' I answered in the form of a question.
Me #2: 'The one that most likely someone else was the cause of the drugs and the Ms Corby had nothing to do with it. Squat. Zero. Nada. She is a woman in her twenties who will now miss out on things such as finding her ideal partner in life [or equivalent], a mortgage, having children and watching them grow up, voting for candidates who won't make it to power, holidaying on some beautiful island somewhere and generally doing what you and I take for granted because we weren't caught with drugs in our boogie board bag that may have been placed there by someone else. In short, dear other me, assuming that she didn't do it coz if she did she's not very good at concealing things, and that she's now got the most important and productive part of her life rearranged in a way that probably doesn't suit her, can you honestly tell me that that's [!] fair?' I asked myself.
Me #1: 'Ah, no, that's rediculously unfair, you twat,' I replied, adding, 'and if you think you're fucking funny, I ain't laughing, fuckhole.'
Me #2: 'Easy, tiger,' I said, adding, 'I'm not on trial here.'
Me #1: 'Fair enough, Big Fella,' I said, seeing I was getting all worked up about something I wasn't involved in, could ever be involved in and, for that matter didn't even care that much about, seeing as the seed of thought was planted in my head by the media in the first place and that I happened to be inflicted with the burden I didn't wish to shoulder by reading other people's blogs and web site thingies.
Instead, my mind turned to whether the arseholes responsible for thinking up these fucking retarded questions and then posting them online for fucking retarded fuckwits to vote on really thought the questions were fair and/or unbiased or whether they thought that placing the most rediculously and obviously influential questions on a web site frequented [figuratively speaking] by hordes of fucking retarded fuckwits would somehow change the verdict, result or history? Notice how the word history is italicised?
What is the purpose of a poll about something that has happened? 'Do you think Arsenal should've won the FA Cup?' But it's over and they did win it. What kind of question is that? 'Do you think the US should have invaded Iraq?' But they did and they've fucked it all up anyway and it's been fucking ages since that happened. What kind of question is that? 'Do you think it's fair that chicks wear mini-skirts and boots?' WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF QUESTIONS ARE THESE?
Do these questions exist to voice disapproval of something and if so, why dress it up as something that it is not? A fair, unbiased poll? My pimple-ridden arse [thanks again, Paris (three now)] it is. Isn't it someone else's role to manipulate the way we think or ought to think? Isn't that the role of a government or a representative of some kind and not of a news-gathering force?
'But wait a minute, BT3. Governments and the news-gathering force[s] you speak of are one and the same, surely. United, under four or five Gods, we quote examples: Iraq War x 2. Waco, Texas. Cigar-smoking saxophonist Billy Clinton. OJ [Original Juicehead] Simpson. Wait, BT3, there's more. We're thinking and drinking tea at the same time and we're still a little stunned by the Schapelle Corby verdict, BT3. We'll leave comments when we think of more. Promise. Plus, where does it say that the media ought to be fair and unbiased and NOT aligned with a government? Where, BT3. Fucking where?!'
Ahhh... You guys are a fucking tough crowd to mame.
The media is more than a fucking circus with clowns and animals that frequently shit where they're not supposed to. It's a circus that's performing daily/nightly in front of a giant mirror, and the performers don't realise it's really themselves that they're looking at and 'competing' against, so they try with every fibre of their know-how to out-perform and to out-shit those clowns and animals that are shitting with such frequency and passion right in front of their eyes.
Fuck you, nine msn dot com dot au and fuck you baggy green dot com dot au for insinuating many moons ago that Michael Clarke Esq. DIDN'T deserve his precious medal. Of course he deserved it, you retarded fucks, impregnated by a mutated thinking gene. I know he deserved it because A) the votes tallied in his favour [end of story; no opinions required, thanks] and B) he's wearing the fucking medal around his neck.
Why have a 'poll' about something that's obviously leaning so far to one side of opinion, as was decreed by the editor/alpha male/cunt of whatever trashy online publication at the time? The most difficult part of these kinds of questions is working out whether or not they're for real. They may as well slam a banner ad up saying: 'We happen to think [insert name of topic here] is bullshit, because we happen to think that the masses will agree and therefore align themselves with us, even though what we think means squat-all as it's all over anyway. Click this banner to agree. Don't click it to disagree.'
And later, they can claim: '12,657 people think [insert name of topic here] was bullshit; see, we told you so. We were right - as always,' forgetting to quote the 54 billion who didn't vote, coz the notion that instigated the question itself was dipped in shit, as trodden in by clowns and animals from their travelling circus freakshow.
Where's the option for voting, 'Vote here if you think this question is invalid'? I'm casting my vote by not participating in online polls.
[Dr. DogChop's hectic schedule has rendered him impotent to add to this mass of marginal thought. Apologies on behalf of his clients and the man himself.]


