Proving just how ineptly the average Australian politician handles new social media, the Jullia Gillard twitter account will pretty much auto-follow anything account that follows it. Furthermore, despite the number of tweets I’ve ever sent in the direction of the Julia Gillard account, there’s not been one response. I’m not suggesting that everything I say to the PM’s twitter account is worthy of response, but it certainly seems that the PM’s office has a rather convenient definition of what an official pleb communication is…

Social media, it seems, for most politicians, is still a way to shout out the same trite messages to people. It’s like flinging shit, quite frankly. Fling enough of it, and some of it will stick.

So anyway, back to just how little politicians understand of social media. Overnight I was advised by Twitter that “Settle Male 2009” was now following me on Twitter. Following through to their website, that’s a “Gay Dating for Gay Men & Women, Chat, Search for Love and Romance | No Membership fee’s [sic]” website.

Now, anyone who follows the gay rights debate in Australia would know that Julia is very much against the notion of same sex marriage.

Based on what her Twitter account follows though, it’d appear that Julia is very keen for us to continue to date and have sex with one another. Which is … I don’t know – a good start at least?

Julia Gillard follows Anything

That’s a pretty progressive PM. She’s wanting to follow gay/lesbian dating sites.

She likes to think she’ll listen to all of us. So if someone follows her, she follows them right back.

This is fundamentally the problem of politicians on social media – they just don’t get it.

Social media isn’t a conventional media environment, where you just throw stuff out into the internet and have “I have more friends than you” competitions. If you think that’s social media, you’re thinking like an ’80s advertising executive. Which means you’re behaving like a twit.

It’s twitter, not twit.

Social media is not just another broadcast forum, it’s an interactive forum. It’s about responding, listening, and reacting. It’s about throwing an idea out and listening to what people have to say back.

Auto-following anything that follows you though is just an 80s-style pissing competition. A race to the most followers is a race to the bottom. It’s a race to the finish of the Bogan Popularity Contest.

Still, it’s reassuring to see that Julia seems interested in our options to root like there’s no tomorrow…

 

I’ve been living in Melbourne now for 3 months – or I will have, on the 1st of September.

Today I came back to Sydney for the first time since I left. The trip got off to a less than desirable start in that the plane had an engineering fault. Not the sort that makes you worry – it was just a failed exhaust fan in the rear galley.

So, twenty minutes after our plane was due to land in Sydney, we took off, and an hour and twenty minutes after that, I was off the plane and heading into the CBD for my first meeting.

And that’s when it hit me. The smell of Sydney. You see, for most people the smell they equate to Sydney is the beach, or the sea air, or some other similar smell. But that doesn’t exemplify Sydney to me. It doesn’t sum up or properly capture my memory of Sydney. Smell is a powerful memory trigger and encapsulator. A single smell can bring back the most intense and vivid of memories, and in that vein, there’s a particular smell which, every time I encounter it, immediately not only brings back a thousand memories, but also simply, unequivocally tells me I’m in the NSW capital.

It’s Cityrail.

There’s something about the electric train network in Sydney that has a unique smell I’ve never had matched on any other train I’ve caught, anywhere. It’s actually not a pleasant small, either. But it’s unique, it’s recognisable, and is powerful:

  • It’s one part partially singed rubber.
  • It’s one part electrical spark.
  • It’s one part sweat.
  • It’s one part ‘other’ body odours, regardess of what they are.
  • It’s one part grimy metal.

Mix those five parts together and you’ve got a smell which I don’t think you’ll find anywhere else in the world.

But Sydney? You’ll find it in abundance. It may not be pleasant – and it isn’t a reflection on my opinion of Sydney, but it is my memory trigger for Sydney.

 

Whenever a major hurricane threatens the United States, they always give it the most boring of names. As a geek, I get quite pedantic about naming standards, and I think this one isn’t nearly interesting enough.

The latest – Hurricane Irene? C’mon, Irene? I swear we can do better.

I think – and hear me out here, that hurricanes should be given drag queen names. That’s right. If something’s gonna blow and scare the fuck out of a large group of largely conservative Americans, it should be named after a drag queen.

So, in preparation for 2012′s Hurricane Season, I’m suggesting the following:

  1. Hurricane Amber Alert
  2. Hurricane Barb Debris
  3. Hurricane Connie Lingus
  4. Hurricane De Flaytable
  5. Hurricane Emma Roids
  6. Hurricane Windy Blows
  7. and so on.
Honestly, wouldn’t the news out of America during hurricane season be a thousand times more interesting if they only had better names?
 

Some of the opponents to same-sex marriage claim that if we start letting men marry men, and women marry women, we’ll end up in a situation where, say:

  • A man and a man want to marry another man;
  • A woman and a woman want to marry another woman;
  • A man and a woman want to marry a woman;
  • A man and a woman want to marry a man.

So here’s a question that may cause some to spontaneously combust … why would this be a problem?

If we’re seriously evolving marriage to be inclusive of same-sex couples, it’s time to look at that outmoded notion that it’s about monogamy, as well. If you look at the number of marriage breakdowns that happen because of partners cheating on one another, isn’t there some justification to consider that maybe, just maybe, open relationships suit some people better than monogamous ones?

Clearly, some people can and do live in monogamous relationships without that sort of tension. But others don’t, and people would be foolish to think that monogamy is the only natural state we can live in, given our evolutionary background. In my post, “What’s so scary about polygamy?“, I linked to someone’s very clever “map of non-monogamous relationships“. If you think that monogamy is the norm, you may want to have a good read over that map, and – all humorous examples aside – see that there’s a much bigger world out there.

I had someone comment a while ago on a post I’d written, railing against the hypocrisy of people in open relationships wanting to get married to one another. “Marriage is about monogamy!” he declared piously. ”Well, maybe for some”, is my response.

But a quick glance around the internet tells us this is a broken idea for a lot of people. A five second Google search finds “Infidelity facts“, which provides statistics from 2006 in the United States – one of the most openly pious countries in the world:

  • 53% of marriages end in divorce
  • 41% of marriages has one or both spouses admitting to infidelity, either emotional or physical
  • 57% of men admit to having an affair
  • 54% of women admit to having an affair
  • 74% of men say they’d have an affair if they knew they wouldn’t get caught
  • 68% of women say they’d have an affair if they wouldn’t get caught

What does this say? If it’s statistically accurate and broadly representative, it means that a lot of people out there actually want to be in open relationships. But, because it’s something that’s sexual, the discussion of it is taboo in so many places in society.

Since the perceived default heterosexual relationship is one of monogamous marriage, there’s a false perception out there that it’s all hunky dory. Yet statistical evidence (a 10 second Google would continue to reveal more statistics backing the above) would suggest that marriage as a monogamous institution creates all sorts of tensions that people don’t like. (A cynic might suggest that a monogamous relationship is only one partner removed from celibacy, after all.)

So, if we accept that statistically a lot of playing around does happen in marriage, it comes back to a central point – why should marriage be deemed a monogamous relationship?

Anecdotally, it seems a strong fact that the gay community has far more successful open relationships than the heterosexual community has monogamous marriages. Sure, jealousy is something that is openly discussed as a possibility, but tell me where that’s different from a typical marriage? And a simple fact – the difference between couples who cheat on each other, and couples who are in an open relationship? It’s called communication. Cheating is about hiding – open relationships are about telling.

So, coming back via a circuitous route to my main point – if we allow same-sex marriage, then we’re starting the process of accepting that there can be non-monogamous marriages. I’m not saying that all same-sex couples are in open relationships, but there’s a good bet that there’s going to be a bunch of them who have been in open relationships for years, possibly decades, who’ll still want to tie the knot. For them, marriage has nothing to do with sexual monogamy, and everything about a recognised relationship.

But honestly, why stop at 2 person marriages?

There are equally people out there who live in 3 or more person relationships – and healthy ones. I’m not talking freakish religious leaders in the southern states of the USA who ‘marry’ a bunch of barely legal girls. I’m talking consenting adults who form a mutual 3-way or more bond which can only possibly be described as a loving relationship.

Why should they continue to be denied a legal and fair recognition of their relationships? Why should such relationships remain a taboo topic, leaving people unable to ask questions about them or discuss them openly?

One thing seems clear to me – if we look at those marriage statistics regarding infidelity, and expand them more broadly, looking at say, the success of celibacy for certain religious orders, etc., it’s clear that we don’t actually talk about sex enough in society. It’s a semi-taboo subject for a lot of people, which leaves a lot of others in the dark in terms of whether what they want is “normal” or not, what their feelings mean, etc.

If we stopped pretending that marriage has to be about monogamy, those discussions could start to freely happen, and humanity, collectively, could get the bugs out of our arses.

 

Are there any good Science Fiction songs written any more?

I’m not talking “let’s go to the moon” style songs, such as Bowie’s “Space Oddity” (“Ground Control to Major Tom”), or Elton John’s “Rocketman”, but I’m talking honest to goodness science fiction songs.

I personally think the pinnacle of Sci Fi songs was ’39, by Queen. It tells the story of a group of people who fly off into space for a year, but due to relativistic effects of flying close to the speed of light, when they come back over a hundred years had passed:

ELO certainly managed to haul out a few science fiction songs in their day, too. In particular, the entire album “Time” was about future life. Two great tracks on that album were “Yours Truly, 2095“, and “Here is the News“:

Let’s face it, “Yours Truly, 2095″ has some awesomely surreal lines, such as:

I met someone who looks a lot like you
She does the things you do
But she is an I.B.M.

Possibly because I was reading it at the same time, but I have to say “Here is the News” always dredges up memories for me of M.K. Wren’s “The Phoenix Legacy”:

Of course, Queen’s “Machines (Back to Humans)” sounds like it should have been the anthem of the Borg:

There were a few mocking ones that came later, such as “Star Trekkin” by The Firm:

And who could forget the KLF’s “Doctorin the TARDIS” hit:

However, about the only “new” science fiction song that immediately springs to mind is the entirely spoof based “Robots (Humans are Dead)” from the Flight of the Conchords:

So, what other science fiction songs are out there? Is this a song form that’s mostly dead?

 

Psst!

You know how us gay people always have an agenda? You know how the arch conservatives and those who trumpet themselves as the moral guardians of society are banging on about how we’re just a bunch of rampant fornicators intent on the destruction of society?

Well I repent, I’m going to let you in on the Gay Marriage Conspiracy we’ve been plotting for years.

It was all decided in the last meeting of all the gays in Australia. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s an annual convention, and we hold it in out of the way places so the media never notices. Last year the AGGBS (Australian Gay Gang Bang Society) held our annual convention in Woy Woy, NSW. I was quite chuffed, because it was close enough that I could wear arseless chaps in the taxi to the event, rather than having to fly wearing them.

Here’s the checklist:

  1. Get gay marriage introduced – gay men can get married to each other. Oh, lesbians can marry each other too.
  2. Introduce gay conscription – all Australian men, when they turn 18, will be required to “go gay” for a year. No ifs, plenty of butts.
  3. Barnaby Joyce’s daughters to die as spinsters – that’s right, we wrote a special clause in for him, and that devious bastard discovered it.
  4. Stop having babies – gay conscription will be the Trojan Condom. After that, all young Australian men will stay gay. Mwahahaha. Then Australia will stop having babies.
  5. Australia taken over by New Zealand – with no new babies, Australia’s population will rapidly age. By 2070, New Zealand’s army will be bigger than ours, and they’ll overcome our defences in a matter of hours. After all, pink and gold lamé uniforms won’t exactly be great camouflage.

You see, the AGGBS is actually bankrolled by the New Zealand government.

Bob Katter, Barnaby Joyce and Julia Gillard are right to fear this dreadful movement.

Resistance is futile. You will be fabulated.

 

Hi Mark,

I grew up in Parkes, and became aware I was gay at the age of 14. This was a very challenging time for me, being a closeted gay youth in a small country town. Nonetheless at times I was lucky enough to find acceptance, and I had hoped that others who followed me would have had an easier time.

So, I’ll be perfectly blunt – your opposition to same-sex marriage is narrow minded and clearly states that you and the Parkes electorate don’t want those people living in the region.

The only problem? Australia has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the Western World, and it’s estimated that at least 1 in 6 youths who commit suicide do so because of a lack of acceptance in society towards their sexuality.

Your opposition to same-sex marriage is nothing short of a disgrace, and tarnishes an electorate whose name derives from one of the founding fathers of this country.

Cheers,

Preston de Guise.

 

Bob Katter showed his true colours last night – cowardice.

We’d always known he was a bit of a bully. That loud mouth guy who big notes himself and pontificates loudly (and oft-times incoherently) on the basis that if you shout louder than your opposition is talking, you win.

Well last night, Bob Katter went silent.

The event was a simple one – Bob’s brother, Carl, got on national TV to discuss his homosexuality. To quote The Age, “No gays Bob? Try closer to home“:

His brother Carl last night burst on to the nation’s television screens to announce that, as it happened, he was homosexual – and if he met a man he’d like to spend his life with, he’d hope to marry him.

As to his big brother’s views, they were ”hurtful, dangerous, damaging and really inappropriate” and amounted to the ”perpetuation of hatred”.

To a degree, this is just the sort of “karma” that so many people like to see happen to loud mouth bigoted politicians. For years, a lot of people were secretly hoping that Pauline Hanson might have had a gay son, or an aboriginal step daughter or some other suitable comeuppance. But here comes Bob – Big Bigoted Bob, getting shown up for who he is by blood ties.

So Bob is always quite vocal on any topic he gets asked about, right? And what did he have to say about last night? As you’d expect of any cowardly bully:

“Attempts to contact Bob Katter failed last night. A message on his mobile phone advised that it was turned off.”

Bob, it’s time you find the door to Australian politics – and don’t let it hit your arse on the way out. You’re a bully, and a coward.

 

Growing up, our family always had dogs.

We all loved them, each in our own ways. My mother loved them at a distance, my father and brother loved the rough and tumble you get with a dog, and I loved the companionship. That’s probably boiling it down way too simply, but it’s as good an explanation as ever.

Unfortunately that rough and tumble side though meant that sometimes what started as genuine play became teasing, and of course, if an animal bites or growls or anything – well, that’s not appropriate, because it’s “all in good spirits” – it’s “just a game”.

In reality I have zero tolerance for that. If you tease an animal, and it strikes back, it’s likely you’re getting it back in equal measure to what you gave.

But I’m not dredging this up because of old memories of pets long gone. This morning I got to thinking about this, and realised a basic fact.

Sometimes I was the dog.

Maybe I had a sensitive side early. I certainly wasn’t interested in sport. Maybe my severe speech impediment as a kid affected me more subtly than I ever gave it credit for, and left me reserved enough that team activities had no appeal to me. Whatever. Somehow, somewhy, I’d end up being the dog. Who can say how frequently? If I had to guess, I’d say at least fortnightly, or maybe even weekly at times. “Teasing” was a part of our household.

That meant that sometimes a cigarette lighter would be casually lit against my leg hair “because it’s fun”, or I’d be jabbed for a few hours until I snapped, but regardless, the process was almost universally the same. Jab jab. Jab jab jab. Jab jab jab jab jab. SNAP. Explosion. “You’re a bad sport, can’t you take a joke!?”

I think my brother realised it went to far when, after a particularly lengthy jab session that lasted several hours, my snap involved him barricading himself in his bedroom, a hole the size of my knee in his door, and me wondering why I had a knife in my hand. But it was all a joke, right?

Being the dog sucks.

Trust me, I have better control of my temper these days – such a snap would never happen again. I was young, hormonal, and well, only my brother could ever drive me to such a rage. At the same time, I do admit to having a bad temper, and sometimes, I’m ashamed to say, it’s directed to the people who least deserve it. But, in learning to own and acknowledge it, I’m also regaining the focus to deal with it.

One day, I’ll stop being the dog.

 

You want to go on a rant about how one platform is better than the others and that anyone who believes otherwise is a mindless zombie captured by the marketing forces of the company you currently loathe?

I’ve got news for you, fanboy.

Yes, fanboy. You’re a fanboy. You use the word derisively against others who disagree with your point of view, failing to see that in doing so, you become the worst sort of fanboy yourself – a hypocritical one.

What am I?

I’m a technologist, and I’m proud of it. What’s a technologist? Let me answer that by telling you what I appreciate:

  1. I appreciate that before any other computer company, Apple grasped that computers should become consumer tools.
  2. I appreciate that Microsoft came up with a strategy to commoditise and simplify administration of previously annoying infrastructure components, like printing, file serving and email.
  3. I appreciate that Solaris was the sort of easy-to-use Unix that led it to be hugely popular in a plethora of businesses.
  4. I appreciate that AIX pioneered strong Unix security models.
  5. I appreciate that OpenVMS not only demonstrated excellent file versioning decades ago, but also gave us clustering technology so rock-solid that there are clusters that have uptimes of more than 12+ years.
  6. I appreciate that Linux fundamentally altered the server industry.
  7. Indeed, I appreciate that every operating system has (for its time) had something praiseworthy about it, and has equally had something to castigate it about.
  8. I appreciate that midrange virtualisation proved the mainframe approach to resource sharing and segregation was right all along – we were just waiting for technology to catch up.
  9. I appreciate that in any healthy market there must be multiple competitors.
  10. I appreciate that we are now in a period of computing where we’re standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before us.
You want to disagree with the above? Go right ahead, fanboy.
© 2012 unsane Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha