Jul 192007
 

It’s day four of my lurgi (lurgy? lurgie?) laden lapse into a languid, lollygagging lifestyle littered* with tissues, Nurofen and un-pronounceable antibiotics. Apart from continuing to answer the mobile as if the world carries on regardless of my state of health (because it does!), despite my barely being able to make myself understood to callers, nothing much changes when you’re a finance broker except the place from which you normally broke.


Technology is a wonderful thing, overall. Despite harbouring a fervent desire to depart this vale of kleenex and nasal spray, I’m still able to log into my work computer, send and receive emails from, and on it and even lodge online applications from 40 klicks away. I will admit that Tuesday and yesterday, I’d gladly have shoved a fork into the nearest power point if I’d known the end would have been quick & painless, but sadly, I couldn’t get assurance of that point from anyone, so opted to simply moan, hold my face on and continue breathing through lips which are seriously starting to crack while carrying on business as per usual.

Today, however, has evolved into something slightly more tolerable. Clearly, medical science is taking it’s toll on this virulent form of bacteriological torture because nose breathing has returned, to certain degrees, and the rate of tissue attrition has decreased. While the face still aches, it’s at least still in place and the hearing does unblock at random moments during the day. The real clincher to whether or not my health is returning is a fading away of the palpable urge to croak "FUCK OFF!" into the mobile whenever it rings. Things are looking up.

Things must be looking up because I found myself actually reading, as opposed to skimming, a Piers Akerman column/blog a little while ago. As with a giant majority of these quasi-blog things spawned by the MSM in a bid to appear technologically ’with it’ while attempting to deny the fact that blogging isn’t the hair-brained domain of the ill-informed ignoramus*, I tend to ignore them as valued sources of news and views. They’re either blatant apology pieces for the author’s favourite ideological hobby horse, or simple, straight-out polemic purpose designed to raise ire or flatter fellow travellers. Akerman’s writings, I’ve found, tend to be all of the aforementioned. Amusing, but mindless mutterings aimed at the moronic sectors of society none the less.

Today’s was no different, but as I say, I found myself actually ’reading’ it. It’s about – in broad terms – the rather strange twist in the current electoral campaign tale whereby both sides of the divide have opted to embrace cyberspace as a means of delivering their respective messages. Just what they think they’re delivering remains a mystery to me. Howard intended to deliver a climate change message on You-Tube, all of 1 minute 56 seconds long, which has since been parodied so severely you’re hard-pressed to find the real thing on You Tube anymore. Labor posted a rather savagely pointed barb on the same platform depicting Howard as Ripvanwinkle snoozing on as numerous climate change alarms rattled off around him. In fact, Labor’s effort, I’d have to say, attracts more attention purely from the amusement perspective. However, seen it once and you’ve seen it. Better posted on You Tube than free-to-air television during the campaign proper, I suppose, but doesn’t doing so defeat the ultimate aim of drumming into the heads of the as-yet undecided swinging voters the message it contains?

Akerman’s polemic diatribe is aimed at the uselessness of politicians embracing cyberspace as the new soapbox, simply because the message, whatever it may be, can be avoided. I have to agree. Great swathes of Australian society, believe it or not, dear reader, just don’t engage on the subject of politics and never will. They accept that once every three years, they have to vote, but that’s the extent of their involvement. Putting a political message into an environment where only ones own disciples and antitheses can and might find it seems to me to be an extraordinary waste of so many different resources. Politicians on MySpace, for example. Why bother?!! Same general crowds. I’d go so far as to estimate that 25% of the MySpace crowd might understand a political issue, and even engage on more than a half-hearted basis, but as for the rest……. Is this what our politicians have devolved to, in a bid to prove they really do pay attention?

I had a damn good chuckle at some of the Akerman arsehattedness. I realise he’s writing for a Murdoch rag, but does he need to be so blatantly partisan? "Rudd, the Paris Hilton of Australian politics, is a YouTube natural." A master at the moment of mindless malediction*, Piers Akerman will never be found wanting for an abusive aside to his ideological antithesis, but is such drivel really necessary? I was, however, really stunned at the less than intelligent inclusion of the following passages.

It is mandatory for political leaders to make a goose of themselves whether it is kissing babies (not babes) or wearing colourful and unflattering national costumes when visiting around the region. Keating still has the award for donning a towering piece of Papuan headgear that apparently became the inspiration for much of the wardrobe in Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

But there comes a time to move on, and when the YouTube generation starts to wonder how the world really works it may be tempted to look at some of the hard issues and ask which parties have shown themselves best equipped by dint of talent and experience to deal with them. The answer won’t be found on YouTube, which is hardly the platform for a person of any stature or maturity to deliver messages of any substance, nor on the now ubiquitous blogs with their legions of ill-informed, hate-filled obsessives.

But a glance at the empirical record does help place things in perspective and, on that basis, Howard and his team are well ahead despite those who apparently see an antipodean Harry Potter when really it’s nothing more than Rudd, in make-up, mixing it with the juvenile generation. (emphasis mine)

I’m driven to ask Piers, just which empirical record he’s referring to. It’s certainly not the one reflected in public opinion polling over the last nine months. But the real cracker…..the absolute foot-in-gob, gather-around-the-barbie and well!-what-about-them-apples portion of that textual titilater* has to be the piece of self-flagellation Piers delivers, as a blog author himself. An ill-informed, hate-filled, obsessive one at that.

As much as I’m not one driven to join in these so-called blog-wars or blog -v- MSM wars which seem the new black in the OzSphere, I’d like to take the Murdoch MSM to task on this one. Are they really aware they’re employing a demented masochist as a principal weapon in their battle against the real blogosphere? Perhaps we’d better tell Uncle Rupert? But then, why spoil the fun?

Bring it on, I say. What say you, Piers? Got anything really important to write.

*Oh, just by the by…..the rampant alliteration which appears in this post must surely be a sign that the lurgi is on the outer. I wouldn’t have been bothered a day or so ago. Onward and upward, eh?

  2 Responses to “Piers Has No Peer”

  1. He’s obviously run across the TB(lair) crowd …. “ill-informed, hate-filled, obsessive “, could you put it better?

  2. Probably not, Fred