I like your thinking.
I just can't abide that woman and her ilk (mining arseholes who everything in the world is there for their exploitation.
Just a slight grammar note, since it's come up twice now:
It's toeing the line. From the days of bareknuckle fighting, where you had to keep your foot on the line drawn in the sand while attempting to beat the crap out of someone.
They certainly charge like wounded bulls in their restaurants now (for the quality and range of food), although I did like the $2 all you can eat jobbies at uni 20 years ago.
However, they really aren't so calm if you tell them "no", you are not going to give them a donation for those books they try to push off on you. And what makes it worse is the trend they have for going in mufti to do their proselytising (not the Friday evening danceabout). I still don't think much of the Sallies, but at least they're honest.
And, oh yeah, yet another gay-hating religion. Meh.
In terms of women's magazines, Marie Claire is one I can stomach, because they write good meaty articles. Of course, you have to page past 200-odd pages of glossy ads, but some people like pretty dress pics in amongst the meaty reading.
As for Bindel, I wish the Guardian would piss her off. It's tedious when you click on a potentially-interesting headline without noticing the byline, and then having to hit the back-button.
Thanks, Chris. I personally tend to agree with the thrust of the Times article, in that any association cannabis use has with mental health issues is not going to be a mechanistic cause/effect one. And this is with close personal experience of people who were cannabis-dependent and had associated issues.
Any arguments about risk reduction from cops are just ludicrous in the context of a state-supported alcohol industry, in any case.
Re Jobs and Young, eh, you're not going to bring such an influential and older-school musician home and crank up the Nano attached to your 5W boombox, are you?
I get a bit tired of the "marvels of vinyl" trope. Sure, if you had refernce-quality gear and kept records in archival condition, it sounded great. But neither if those things applied to anyone I knew.
While I'm ranting, the fake vinyl effect on some modern tracks winds me up. No, that crackle and hiss never occurred on some quirky off-beat of the music, and conveniently cut out at an 8-bar interval. Fake nostalgia, gah.
I loved the claims from the cops after the big pot bust in Wgtn last week that marijuana is the illicit drug responsible for the most hospital admissions. I suppose if you include psych admissions, it could well be true. NO mention of alcohol-related admissions, or how many of those stoned patients were also drunk. You never see those comparisons in mainstream media here.
THANK you, everyone, for the Rothko love. I will be perving at those links later. Seriously, the feeling I get in that room is pretty much what I imagine other people feel in church (which is the intention, I believe). The NGA in Canberra also has one, next to Pollock's Blue Poles, so I can get my modernist orgasms in one spot when I visit.
As for Tate Modern, awesome space. ...Variable quality to the art. Last time I visited, there was some "work" that was about some nutcase cutting themselves, and featured video clips and the bloody detritus from the various cutting sessions (scalpels, gauze, etc). Absolutely NO warning as to the content of the "piece" before entering the room.
I don't mind a bit of blood myself, but I want to choose the time and place I encounter it, thanks.
And yay for the pointer to the music site. I'll be checking that out throughly too.
I'm a bit allergic to the word "polygamy", it must be said. Most people are not thinking of the more technical usage of it being about multiple marriage, but instead have visions of Old Testament patriarchs (or those who aspire to be them) and their harems.
Too much sexist baggage there for my taste. But then again, I am evidently allergic to the "marriage" word and all THAT baggage, so if it becomes more known and acceptable in the context of different gender configurations and equality, I might get over it. Polyamory works just fine for me.
Eliminating polygamy was "redefining marriage", and we know how fervently you're opposed to that.
And wasn't it nice to have the Herald take their first foray into discussing polyamorous relationships with that lovely article about the guy and the female twins? No, no slippery slope-ism there.
Anyway, abolish marriage, civil unions only for all at the registry office. Like in France and Germany (I think). If you want to have a church (or other) ceremony, that's nice, but it should have no civil/legal relevance.
Also, I think that the whole powers of attorney/family contracts/trustees thing should be overhauled and made much cheaper and streamlined for adult individuals. I might want to have one person as guardian of my child and another to be tenant-in-common of my house and other to have my power of attorney for health issues. If you want the all-in-one jobbie, sure, that can be your "civil union". But with no reference to the amount of people you enter into these various contracts with. At the moment, if you do it yourself, you need to get lawyers to draw it up for the associated megabux.