After the conclusion of the Trade union royal commission, the CFMEU's Dave Noonan was interviewed. Not surprisingly he claimed it was all a witch hunt:
"Blind Freddie knows this royal commission was set up to smear Julia Gillard, to smear Bill Shorten and to smear the trade union movement," Mr Noonan said.
Struck me as a tad insensitive that Noonan should make such a discriminatory remark, given that lefties are all supposed to be caring, sharing, right-on types. Not sure what the PC term for mocking the optically challenged is ("sightism", perhaps?) but the above quote surely merits a serious counselling session or two for Mr Noonan.
Unless he was talking about an actual mate of his, that is... Which may well be the case. See, not only did Mr Noonan use this offensive moniker just recently without fear of a lawsuit from HREOC, he has spoken of this character before in the same terms, like back in 2014.
Outside court, the CFMEU branded the royal commission a political "distraction" from the Abbott government's unpopular budget.
"I think even blind Freddy knows this is all about politics," the national secretary of the CFMEU's construction division, Dave Noonan, said.
And this same guy is quoted as an expert in this pro-unionist article. Popular fellow, is Fred:
This whole Commission is starting to look like a giant sham. Here are six times even Blind Freddy could see that it was a politically motivated witch hunt.
Well, whoever this man actually is, it's pretty clear that his judgement isn't what it used to be. Sure, he's rarely referred to these days because everyone is so wary of causing offence. But back in the day, when he was the go-to guy for numerous issues he clearly had a reliable knack for seeing -- or rather, perceiving -- the bleedin' obvious.
Now? Now he's a fucken idiot. So what happened?
Well, here's my theory: With the advent of PC a coupla decades back his fame nosedived and he became very depressed. Shuffling aimlessly along the docks one day, he fell in with a crowd of big drinking wharfies. As we all know they're thick as thieves with other unionists, and that's how he got to know Dave. Noonan has sought his counsel occasionally, but Fred's been utterly munted the whole time.
So he should get off the grog ASAP. If he does that, and people shrug off their politically correct fears (which they seem to be doing), he could easily regain his worldwide fame and authority. He'd become the Blind Freddy of yore, a simple but straightforward bloke who would know without a doubt that far from being a witch hunt, the trade union royal commission was an undeniably worthwhile exercise that uncovered widespread corruption -- corruption that should be tolerated no longer, particularly by union heavies such as Dave Noonan.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
If feminists think Jamie Briggs is trash what do they think of Shorten?
Even though we're in the midst of the silly season, with Canberra battles far from most people's minds, a pretty big political story has broken. That's the removal of Mal Brough and Jamie Briggs from their current positions. This prompted more than one keen eyed observer to invoke Oscar Wilde:
Speaking of whom: It does seem way OTT for Briggs to have to fall on his sword because he said a female staffer had piercing eyes, put his arm around her and pecked her on the cheek. Inappropriate, sure, but did it deserve this result? Briggs' own wife reckons it's all a huge over-reaction. And from what I've read I'd have to agree.
Not surprisingly the handbag hit squad and their allies in the meeja (mainstream and social) are having a field day with this. But as is so often the case with such sex-scandal beat ups, their vindictive and opportunistic reaction reflects more on their collective character (or lack thereof) than on that of the so-called perpetrator.
Take that world class sob sister Tanya Plibersek. In between her trademark smug chuckles, exaggerated eye-rolls and exasperated sneers she has likened the removal of Briggs (and Brough) to "taking out the trash". In typical bullying social justice warrior fashion, barking bolshie bimbos (and bimbeaus) in Plibbers' Twitter trollective have piled on with great gusto.
The alternative is that she does honestly believe Shorten is completely innocent. In that case Plibersek has no integrity as a feminist, and only uses it for personal and political advancement (the personal being political as we all know). And she just couldn't possibly be that cynical now could she?
Either way, it's not such a great look, to say the least.
To lose one minister may be considered a misfortune, two looks like carelessness...
Brough *and* Briggs quit Cabinet.
— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) December 29, 2015
In this vein these developments could be seen as the latest plot twist in the ongoing political farce that is the Impotence of Being Malcolm. (Though on second thoughts "impotence" might be the wrong word. Could actually be a sign of his power. Briggs was a supporter of Turnbull's nemesis Abbott, after all. So, losing his gig could have been as much to do with payback as anything else.)Speaking of whom: It does seem way OTT for Briggs to have to fall on his sword because he said a female staffer had piercing eyes, put his arm around her and pecked her on the cheek. Inappropriate, sure, but did it deserve this result? Briggs' own wife reckons it's all a huge over-reaction. And from what I've read I'd have to agree.
Not surprisingly the handbag hit squad and their allies in the meeja (mainstream and social) are having a field day with this. But as is so often the case with such sex-scandal beat ups, their vindictive and opportunistic reaction reflects more on their collective character (or lack thereof) than on that of the so-called perpetrator.
Take that world class sob sister Tanya Plibersek. In between her trademark smug chuckles, exaggerated eye-rolls and exasperated sneers she has likened the removal of Briggs (and Brough) to "taking out the trash". In typical bullying social justice warrior fashion, barking bolshie bimbos (and bimbeaus) in Plibbers' Twitter trollective have piled on with great gusto.
— DeeMadigan (@deemadigan) December 29, 2015
Pretty clear that this characterization of Briggs as trash is motivated in major part by their "feminism". They're striking a brave blow against the patriarchy for their silenced sisters, natch. They're immediately siding with the alleged victim in this case, totally trusting her claims. I mean, that's what feminists are supposed to do, right?
Okay. Nicole, you raped me. #ListenAndBelieve pic.twitter.com/l8Ba1ylrAa
— Janet Bloomfield (@AndreaHardie) December 6, 2015
Given this feature of their ideology, what of those rape allegations against her own party's leader? Plibersek, model feminist that she is, must've thought those claims true, right -- even while keeping mum (or is that "sis"?). Her private view of the Labor leader must be very dim indeed. Since she reckons Briggs is trash for what he was accused of, surely she secretly sees her own leader as a putrid sack of toxic muck. (Though you'd never guess it from the way she supports him publicly, of course.)The alternative is that she does honestly believe Shorten is completely innocent. In that case Plibersek has no integrity as a feminist, and only uses it for personal and political advancement (the personal being political as we all know). And she just couldn't possibly be that cynical now could she?
Either way, it's not such a great look, to say the least.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Kerri Sackville's road rage rant is car crash feminism
If you have any doubt that feminism has completely lost the plot, then you should read a recent gargle by Kerri Sackville. She is one of this nation's leading, er, "feminist thinkers"; a prolific columnist at Mama Mia and similar online publications where she, along with a bunch of other privileged white chicks, rails against imaginary oppression in the most petty and infantile way imaginable.
The piece I wanna talk about is funny, sad and a tad disturbing all at once. See, someone, who I'm certain isn't nearly as sexist as Ms Sackville describes, called her a slut in the heat of the moment after she tooted him from behind in heavy traffic. Our feisty feminist heroine saw dark -- or should that be, pale -- patriarchal forces in this momentary expression of anger, and penned a surreal screed in which she cast herself as some sort of omniscient representative of her entire gender.
This paragraph encapsulates her "argument":
When a woman is insulted by a man, he will frequently use sexual slurs. A man might be called an ‘a***hole’ or ‘d***head’, but a woman is called a slut or a whore. And this reflects a deep, ingrained sexism within our society.
Well, not really. It's just a swear word. The greater the frustration a person feels, the more offensive will be the word they, er, choose to vent it. When someone blows his top, he lifts the lid on his id. That's why the c-word is often used -- and far more frequently by feminists than any other group, it seems.
And to use her paragraph as a template for a reply: When a bloke is insulted by a feminist she will almost invariably use misandrist slurs. A woman might be called a slut or whore but a man is called sexist or misogynist. And this reflects a deep, ingrained stupidity within the feminist ideology.
Fair enough to feel insulted by being called a slut. But to be falsely accused of misogyny (that's hatred of women, not just lookin' at your watch when she's speaking, by the way) by many in the mainstream media (female and male) is far worse, particularly when it can result in the loss of your job. And this kind of nasty gender war is waged day in and day out by Ms Sackville's ilk (and to great effect, which is why they keep doing it of course). Blokes tread on egg shells the whole time, packin' death they might say anything that can be, er, msrepresented as misogyny.
Anyhoo, you gotta wonder why Kerri and her ilk are so fixated on this word. Readers will no doubt recall how her fellow trollumnist Clementine Ford (Joan of Snarc herself) got some bloke fired from his job for using it against her on Facebook. Seems entirely possible that the antipodean sob sisters, who spend every waking hour lookin' for spurious reasons to feel violated on behalf of all chickdom, have gotten together and agreed to demonize the s-word above all others now -- probably because so many of them have racked up way too many tweets and Facebook updates in which they'd used that other unmentionable the c-word to abuse others, conservative women most of all.
But back to Kerri's misandrist rant, in which she proves herself to be as car-hatin' as she is bloke-phobic:
I’m angry at you, Red Jag, and not for the reason you think. I truly don’t care if you believe I’m a slut or a whore, as bizarre as it would be to draw that conclusion from my driving habits. There is nothing wrong with having lots of sex with lots of people ... What makes me angry is that you reduced me to your perception of my sexual worth, something you would never dare to do to a man.
Sheesh, what a word-wank! Talk about auto-erratic ...
Firstly, if there's nothing wrong with having sex with lots of people, why does she insist on being offended by the word slut? And what's this thing with "Red Jag"? Bloke may love his car. But don't conflate him with it. That's commodification! As that famously eccentric Italian billionaire Giuseppe Merici once so memorably wailed in a press conference "I ama not a Fiat-a! I am-a not a Lamborghini! I am a humana beinga!"
And clearly, Kerri is not a slut-a -- not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. But there's certainly another epithet that springs to mind: princess. And one who should really toughen up in my humble opinion.
(She should count herself lucky, too. If I hadn't chosen Rufus for that sightseeing jaunt and selected one of my dozens of less valuable cars instead, she wouldn't have just copped that unfortunate and regrettable outburst. Would have been in for a real feminist fender bender, then.)
The piece I wanna talk about is funny, sad and a tad disturbing all at once. See, someone, who I'm certain isn't nearly as sexist as Ms Sackville describes, called her a slut in the heat of the moment after she tooted him from behind in heavy traffic. Our feisty feminist heroine saw dark -- or should that be, pale -- patriarchal forces in this momentary expression of anger, and penned a surreal screed in which she cast herself as some sort of omniscient representative of her entire gender.
This paragraph encapsulates her "argument":
When a woman is insulted by a man, he will frequently use sexual slurs. A man might be called an ‘a***hole’ or ‘d***head’, but a woman is called a slut or a whore. And this reflects a deep, ingrained sexism within our society.
Well, not really. It's just a swear word. The greater the frustration a person feels, the more offensive will be the word they, er, choose to vent it. When someone blows his top, he lifts the lid on his id. That's why the c-word is often used -- and far more frequently by feminists than any other group, it seems.
And to use her paragraph as a template for a reply: When a bloke is insulted by a feminist she will almost invariably use misandrist slurs. A woman might be called a slut or whore but a man is called sexist or misogynist. And this reflects a deep, ingrained stupidity within the feminist ideology.
Fair enough to feel insulted by being called a slut. But to be falsely accused of misogyny (that's hatred of women, not just lookin' at your watch when she's speaking, by the way) by many in the mainstream media (female and male) is far worse, particularly when it can result in the loss of your job. And this kind of nasty gender war is waged day in and day out by Ms Sackville's ilk (and to great effect, which is why they keep doing it of course). Blokes tread on egg shells the whole time, packin' death they might say anything that can be, er, msrepresented as misogyny.
Anyhoo, you gotta wonder why Kerri and her ilk are so fixated on this word. Readers will no doubt recall how her fellow trollumnist Clementine Ford (Joan of Snarc herself) got some bloke fired from his job for using it against her on Facebook. Seems entirely possible that the antipodean sob sisters, who spend every waking hour lookin' for spurious reasons to feel violated on behalf of all chickdom, have gotten together and agreed to demonize the s-word above all others now -- probably because so many of them have racked up way too many tweets and Facebook updates in which they'd used that other unmentionable the c-word to abuse others, conservative women most of all.
But back to Kerri's misandrist rant, in which she proves herself to be as car-hatin' as she is bloke-phobic:
I’m angry at you, Red Jag, and not for the reason you think. I truly don’t care if you believe I’m a slut or a whore, as bizarre as it would be to draw that conclusion from my driving habits. There is nothing wrong with having lots of sex with lots of people ... What makes me angry is that you reduced me to your perception of my sexual worth, something you would never dare to do to a man.
Sheesh, what a word-wank! Talk about auto-erratic ...
Firstly, if there's nothing wrong with having sex with lots of people, why does she insist on being offended by the word slut? And what's this thing with "Red Jag"? Bloke may love his car. But don't conflate him with it. That's commodification! As that famously eccentric Italian billionaire Giuseppe Merici once so memorably wailed in a press conference "I ama not a Fiat-a! I am-a not a Lamborghini! I am a humana beinga!"
And clearly, Kerri is not a slut-a -- not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. But there's certainly another epithet that springs to mind: princess. And one who should really toughen up in my humble opinion.
(She should count herself lucky, too. If I hadn't chosen Rufus for that sightseeing jaunt and selected one of my dozens of less valuable cars instead, she wouldn't have just copped that unfortunate and regrettable outburst. Would have been in for a real feminist fender bender, then.)
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
White knighting white males lift whitegoods to stop male violence. WTF?
Andrew Bolt often says that a major characteristic of the cultural Left is that they think that seeming to be good is more important than actually doing good. Boy is that ever true. One of the main reasons this is the case is because the former is piss easy and requires little or no thought. The latter, however, can require physical, emotional, and intellectual effort -- and sometimes sacrifice. Lefties -- being such lazy, gutless sods -- will naturally avoid that particular option like the plague.
Given that the Left are so dominant in our institutions and other stratas of society, being a seemer not a doer can be a very good career move. All manner of socialists practise this grotesque hypocrisy. But no group is more guilty of it (and shamelessly so!) than feminists. Take their current nationwide "anti-domestic violence" push to attitudinally reconstruct all of Oz blokedom.
The whole thing is a joke, based on an utterly false premise. Misogyny is definitely not the cultural norm (at least in the West) as the shameless sob sisters keep sayin'. The vast majority of men are appalled at any kind of violence -- particularly against women and children. The problem of blokes beating women does not come primarily from gender inequality. It's a very complex social scourge that will probably never be completely eradicated, least of all by a bunch of non-violent males mindlessly mouthing meaningless PC cant.
But still they keep doing it, and with gusto! Take this bunch of Melbourne removalists, who've decided to get their kits off for the cause. Forget the ribbons, it's a White Kniting White Underdacks campaign.
The whole thing is so unutterably stupid, you could write a comedy routine from just about every line in this this article about it. Aside from the proceeds going to domestic violence services the calendar's effect on the problem in this country will be one squillionth of sweet far call!
But one point before I go: While the calendar is balls-achingly (and, I suspect, balls-freezingly) right-on in its intention, it does ultimately seem to confirm, rather than subvert, one of the main patriarchal stereotypes alleged to be at the heart of the domestic violence problem. That is, it shows men lifting and moving heavy objects.
Shouldn't any feminist worth her (or his!) bolshie bile be outraged by these images? Aren't all the sisters doing this for themselves these days?
Just sayin' ...
Given that the Left are so dominant in our institutions and other stratas of society, being a seemer not a doer can be a very good career move. All manner of socialists practise this grotesque hypocrisy. But no group is more guilty of it (and shamelessly so!) than feminists. Take their current nationwide "anti-domestic violence" push to attitudinally reconstruct all of Oz blokedom.
The whole thing is a joke, based on an utterly false premise. Misogyny is definitely not the cultural norm (at least in the West) as the shameless sob sisters keep sayin'. The vast majority of men are appalled at any kind of violence -- particularly against women and children. The problem of blokes beating women does not come primarily from gender inequality. It's a very complex social scourge that will probably never be completely eradicated, least of all by a bunch of non-violent males mindlessly mouthing meaningless PC cant.
But still they keep doing it, and with gusto! Take this bunch of Melbourne removalists, who've decided to get their kits off for the cause. Forget the ribbons, it's a White Kniting White Underdacks campaign.
The whole thing is so unutterably stupid, you could write a comedy routine from just about every line in this this article about it. Aside from the proceeds going to domestic violence services the calendar's effect on the problem in this country will be one squillionth of sweet far call!
But one point before I go: While the calendar is balls-achingly (and, I suspect, balls-freezingly) right-on in its intention, it does ultimately seem to confirm, rather than subvert, one of the main patriarchal stereotypes alleged to be at the heart of the domestic violence problem. That is, it shows men lifting and moving heavy objects.
Shouldn't any feminist worth her (or his!) bolshie bile be outraged by these images? Aren't all the sisters doing this for themselves these days?
Just sayin' ...
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Stoner Sloth laugh-fest used as reason to legalize cannabis -- seriously!
Still on the subject of everyone's favourite aboreal hash hunter: Hardly surprising that pro-legalization lefties would seek to take advantage of the Stoner Sloth campaign's massive social media debacle. They'll use anything they can find to push their cause. And they always seem to do it in an intellectually dishonest way. (Though maybe they're not that smart. Perhaps what appears to be deceitfulness is actually stupidity caused by years of bonging on? Not totally sure.)
Anyhoo, take this dopey gargle on The Drum. It's as dodgy as all get out! The summary reads:
The Stoner Sloth campaign is a symptom of our poor drug conversation. If we legalised marijuana then we could discuss how it's used without euphemisms, hypocrisy and bizarre furry animals, writes Jeff Sparrow.
Typical leftist sophistry. It's like saying: "If you quit resisting and simply go along with my side of the debate, then we can have a real debate. The fact that you disagree with me is what is stopping us rationally discussing different points of view."
Sparrow then goes on to imply that because Barrack Obama was once a "big time herbsman" cannabis is clearly benign. If anything, that fun fact says more about Obama himself -- along with the culture of the Democrats, as well as the mainstream media for generally sweeping it under the carpet -- than it does about whether pot should be legalized in Australia.
He then drops this little nugget of comedy gold:
The teens targeted by Stoner Sloth are not stupid.
That's almost as funny as the campaign itself, and in the same unwitting way!
Of course they are stupid. And not just because they're off their faces on weed. As well as being emotionally and intellectually immature due to their young age, they mistakenly believe that smoking is entirely benign, and that they can keep indulging in it without a worry in the world. (And this stupidity has resulted in part due to the rosy picture of pot smoking painted by people like Sparrow himself.)
It's this ignorant nonchalance that the Stoner Sloth campaign seeks to disabuse teens of. Numerous studies have proven that marijuana can be addictive and that heavy long term use causes significant psychological damage. So you shouldn't let yourself sleepwalk into a habit, particularly at such a young age. That's what the campaign is trying to convey, albeit in a hilariously clumsy way.
This undeniable fact is inconvenient to Sparrow, which is why he pretty much avoids it throughout the article. Instead he focuses on demonizing the law and comes up with this hilariously revealing line:
As every stoner knows, most of the dangers about toking weed are a direct consequence of the legal prohibitions on its use and sale.
This knowledge he speaks of, is it possessed by said smokers while they're high as kites, or straight? Because there's a big difference in those two states of consciousness. And it's actually the main reason dope smokers do what they do ... with their doobies.
See, they don't like reality. So if they're stoned all the time they end up being completely detached from it. As a result, what they "know" doesn't really count for much now does it?
Anyhoo, take this dopey gargle on The Drum. It's as dodgy as all get out! The summary reads:
The Stoner Sloth campaign is a symptom of our poor drug conversation. If we legalised marijuana then we could discuss how it's used without euphemisms, hypocrisy and bizarre furry animals, writes Jeff Sparrow.
Typical leftist sophistry. It's like saying: "If you quit resisting and simply go along with my side of the debate, then we can have a real debate. The fact that you disagree with me is what is stopping us rationally discussing different points of view."
Sparrow then goes on to imply that because Barrack Obama was once a "big time herbsman" cannabis is clearly benign. If anything, that fun fact says more about Obama himself -- along with the culture of the Democrats, as well as the mainstream media for generally sweeping it under the carpet -- than it does about whether pot should be legalized in Australia.
He then drops this little nugget of comedy gold:
The teens targeted by Stoner Sloth are not stupid.
That's almost as funny as the campaign itself, and in the same unwitting way!
Of course they are stupid. And not just because they're off their faces on weed. As well as being emotionally and intellectually immature due to their young age, they mistakenly believe that smoking is entirely benign, and that they can keep indulging in it without a worry in the world. (And this stupidity has resulted in part due to the rosy picture of pot smoking painted by people like Sparrow himself.)
It's this ignorant nonchalance that the Stoner Sloth campaign seeks to disabuse teens of. Numerous studies have proven that marijuana can be addictive and that heavy long term use causes significant psychological damage. So you shouldn't let yourself sleepwalk into a habit, particularly at such a young age. That's what the campaign is trying to convey, albeit in a hilariously clumsy way.
This undeniable fact is inconvenient to Sparrow, which is why he pretty much avoids it throughout the article. Instead he focuses on demonizing the law and comes up with this hilariously revealing line:
As every stoner knows, most of the dangers about toking weed are a direct consequence of the legal prohibitions on its use and sale.
This knowledge he speaks of, is it possessed by said smokers while they're high as kites, or straight? Because there's a big difference in those two states of consciousness. And it's actually the main reason dope smokers do what they do ... with their doobies.
See, they don't like reality. So if they're stoned all the time they end up being completely detached from it. As a result, what they "know" doesn't really count for much now does it?
Monday, December 21, 2015
Stoner Sloth satires spell doom for star and similar campaigns
The "Stoner Sloth" campaign has been a rolled gold (or should that be joint?) disaster for the NSW Government. It's spawned several online parodies and since everyone's yucking it up over the surreal ads their anti-drugs message seems to have been well and truly lost.
Secret sources from deep inside Macquarie Street tell me that the Stoner Sloth social media yuckfest has resulted in the scotching of a whole series of planned spinoffs.
These included:
A "Keep Australia Beautiful" style promo starring a rubbish throwing feline called Litter Kitty.
A series of positive body image messages aimed at young men featuring Longer Langur the Penis Extension Monkey.
The self-destructive misadventures of a marsupial adrenaline junky called Thrillby Bilby.
Hard hitting anti-binge drinking ads showing a herbivore overdoing it at his local watering hole. His name: Will Da Beast (otherwise known as Spu Gnu).
An STD awareness campaign based on the brazen bed-hopping of a randy rodent called Root Rat.
Sadly, none of these social awareness epics will see the light of day. But the advertising firms behind them will of course still be paid. Typical! More tax dollars down the drain ...
But back to the Stoner Sloth campaign: While the reputation of the creative team behind it has taken a battering, they're unlikely to suffer any long term consequences.
The same cannot be said of the poor sloth who starred in the series. Countless tales of celebrity meltdown are testament to the deleterious effects of instant, fleeting fame on the human psyche. But what if the subject is an animal (or "non-human person" as the more PC like to say)?
By jetting to the big smoke and taking on the challenging role the hirsute thespian was already out on a limb. And if he wasn't off his tree during filming (as any true method actor would have been) he almost certainly is now due to all the stress!
As we all know, dope is a gateway drug. He'll be Smacked Out Sloth eventually. Death by overdose is sure to be the final, tragic outcome. But it won't be over quickly like what happened to Knut. Given his species' characteristic slowness, his journey toward the final curtain is sure to be an excruciatingly drawn out one.
How terribly, awfully, horribly ... gradually ...eventually ... finally ... sad. Yet all the while we humans will be laughing at him online!
Man's inhumanity to man is appalling enough. But his inhumanity to sloth is far, far worse.
Secret sources from deep inside Macquarie Street tell me that the Stoner Sloth social media yuckfest has resulted in the scotching of a whole series of planned spinoffs.
These included:
A "Keep Australia Beautiful" style promo starring a rubbish throwing feline called Litter Kitty.
A series of positive body image messages aimed at young men featuring Longer Langur the Penis Extension Monkey.
The self-destructive misadventures of a marsupial adrenaline junky called Thrillby Bilby.
Hard hitting anti-binge drinking ads showing a herbivore overdoing it at his local watering hole. His name: Will Da Beast (otherwise known as Spu Gnu).
An STD awareness campaign based on the brazen bed-hopping of a randy rodent called Root Rat.
Sadly, none of these social awareness epics will see the light of day. But the advertising firms behind them will of course still be paid. Typical! More tax dollars down the drain ...
But back to the Stoner Sloth campaign: While the reputation of the creative team behind it has taken a battering, they're unlikely to suffer any long term consequences.
The same cannot be said of the poor sloth who starred in the series. Countless tales of celebrity meltdown are testament to the deleterious effects of instant, fleeting fame on the human psyche. But what if the subject is an animal (or "non-human person" as the more PC like to say)?
By jetting to the big smoke and taking on the challenging role the hirsute thespian was already out on a limb. And if he wasn't off his tree during filming (as any true method actor would have been) he almost certainly is now due to all the stress!
As we all know, dope is a gateway drug. He'll be Smacked Out Sloth eventually. Death by overdose is sure to be the final, tragic outcome. But it won't be over quickly like what happened to Knut. Given his species' characteristic slowness, his journey toward the final curtain is sure to be an excruciatingly drawn out one.
How terribly, awfully, horribly ... gradually ...eventually ... finally ... sad. Yet all the while we humans will be laughing at him online!
Man's inhumanity to man is appalling enough. But his inhumanity to sloth is far, far worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)