In this age, good and brave deeds stand out for their rarity. This week, two brave men accomplished very different, but admirable achievements.

Shane Crawford didn't have to cycle from Melbourne to Perth to raise money for breast cancer research. In 2012 he walked from Melbourne to Adelaide for the same cause.

But, like all people of Crawford's calibre, he felt he could do more. Brave.

Harry O'Brien didn't have to reveal his emotional demons to anyone. He didn't have to front cameras, calmly and bravely revealing a "long and complicated history of sexual abuse."

O'Brien's composure was inspiring. He is a courageous person who should be, and will be supported.

Crawford and O'Brien have contributed towards bettering, even saving the lives of millions of people.

Crawford's fundraising means more money towards research and, hopefully, cures for cancer.

O'Brien's candid revelations might just give depression sufferers the inspiration and incentive to come out and talk about their troubles. Crawford and O'Brien are just human. But they showed a superhuman courage this week.

The Ruddbama Awards

Proposal: the creation of a new award of demerit for the most ungenuine, fake politician. The award to be known as the Ruddbamas
A politician qualifies by being a fake, a poser, a douche, or having delusions of celebrity.

The Rudd Express - the myth of the "Honeymoon Period."

I don't know which is slower. The computer I'm using now, or Kevin Rudd at naming an election date. Remember when John Howard got flack for taking his time?

Ok. I accept the argument that Labor needs to preselect members for vacated seats before an election is announced. But shouldn't Rudd and his backers thought of that before they rolled Gillard. Surely Rudd would have been prepared for the possibility that a large chunk of the cabinet - Gillard supporters, and Rudd despisers - was going to quit now that Rudd was back.

All of this seems very last minute.

If Rudd thinks the polls are going to stay the same, or perhaps increase even more in his favour, he is deluded. Of course, there is no proof that is the reason for his reluctance to name an election date. It may be that Rudd is very much aware that the longer he stalls the less popular he will be come election day.

One mistake Rudd has made is believing the hype created by the myth of the "Honeymoon Period." No such thing exists. Despite appearances (and a lot of people do like Rudd). Despite the polls that say he is prefered PM (such polls mean nothing when it is the government we vote for, not the PM. And Labor still trails the Coalition)the "Honeymoon Period" is still a myth.

Rudd was scrutinised and attacked from his first day back in the Prime Minister's chair - the last day of Parliament before the winter break.

His past failings were brought up; his manner, speech and lack of skills in delegation were also mentioned in the media and in Parliament. There is no, and never has been, a "Honeymoon Period."

The Left may fawn and suck up to certain leaders like groupies after rockstars. But Rudd's political opposition has never, and will never, allow for any softness or niceities simple because it's Rudd's first month back. The scrutiny starts from day one.

That scrutiny will increase as more revelations about Rudd's involvement in the illegal shredding of documents relating to a child sex abuse victim come to light. The media has been silent on this. No surprise. It's a block in the road stopping the Rudd bandwagon. And we can't have a few little allegations of illegality get in the way of the Rudd Express, can we?

Crazy Green's Policies

One need only look at the Green's policies on Aboriginal affairs, and animal welfare, to see double standards and hypocrisy. Why do I highlight these two particular areas? Well, read this section, from their animal welfare policy statement:

A ban on the recreational shooting of all animals, including Australian native water birds

Native birds are already protected; but it's the Greens, so we can't expect facts.

Now see this from the Green's policy statement on Aboriginal affairs:

The rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to sustainably hunt, fish and gather native flora and fauna in line with traditional cultural practice

Hold on a minute. I thought the Greens wanted native fauna to be protected (it already is). Yet they propose a policy of allowing Aboriginal people the right to use traditional methods of hunting.

Traditional Aboriginal methods of hunting include the use of spears to kill kangaroos, and the burning of bush habits to scare animals out into the open. The Greens think this traditional form of hunting is acceptable, yet the more humane methods used by modern hunters is unacceptable.

Only in the Green's twisted world would spearing an animal to death be considered more acceptable than a quick, single shot from a rifle.

But that's the crazy Greens for you.

Nicola Roxon, this week, shamefully used her valedictory speech to federal parliament to highlight the negatives of Australian society, and to stir up even more "us against them" rhetoric among the pseudo victims of the feminista. Roxon spoke about an underbelly of sexism.

Yeah, sexism is so bad in this country half of us voted for a government lead by a female prime minister; while the other half, the Coalition voters, admire such great women as Margaret Thatcher, and have tremendous respect for Julie Bishop.

Sexism is so bad Nicola Roxon got the opportunity to rise to the position of Attorney General.

Roxon pointed to the "crass, sexist" behaviour the prime minister has been subject to, failing to mention that much of the criticism of Gillard has been constructive and warranted.

Yes, examples such as the Howard Sattler interview last week show a tendency for some to behave in a way they would not towards a male politician. But such examples are not indicative of an "underbelly of sexism."

Speaking on the same day, outgoing Labor senator Trish Crossin, who makes way for Nova Peris, said that were needed in parliament, but "not at the expense of each other."

What?

So a woman could replace a man, but a woman can never replace a woman?

And some people wonder how quotas are seen by many as sexist?

Labor, like much of the left, has yet to fully to understand the concept of individuality. It still thinks women are a single entity. It still blankets women under the cloak of "reproductive rights" as if they are a single vagina.

Roxon's speech did nothing but attempt to stir up fear and division. The Labor party is no doubt disappointed she retired.

Apologies

Apologies for the time between posts. I have been rather busy. I'm studying film, and working on a number of different projects at once.

One thing I have learnt is how one can use media to convey their message. As a passionate conservative with a slight libertarian lean, it annoys me that so much of what passes for film these days is leftist drivel and revisionist moralizing.

Films such as, Rabbit-Proof Fence, from my own country, portray historical events as a stereotypical, 2-dimensional cut-out. Very little cinematic attention is given to pro-conservative ideals and beliefs.

With this in mind, I have made it my aim to bring more of a conservative voice to film. Whether it be subtle, or obvious for all to see, conservative thought and opinion has a place in film and literature. It belongs in media just as centre left views do.

The Reality of Silver Linings Playbook

In Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence play Pat and Tiffany, characters with extreme emotional frailties who find a "silver lining" - SPOILER: it's each other. 

In the tradition of every American romcom ever made, love wins out in the end, and everyone lives happily ever after. Except the writers forgot to include the epilogue where, a year later, Pat brutally murders Tiffany and one of her many lovers. Oh, that didn't happen? Sorry. I seem to have once again mistaken Hollywood for real life. Silly me. Because, you see... 

In reality, Pat and Tiffany's respective issues, when put together, are the dating equivalent of being chased by every deadly animal in Australia, while balancing a crate of  nitro-glycerine on your head and dodging flying bullets every few seconds. 

"But, Keagan, you miss the point. It's a silver lining, man. Don't you see? Why can't you just be happy for Pat and Tiffany?" 

Well, it's hard to be happy when there's every chance that Pat is going to be back in the psych ward in a year; and Tiffany is going to be either dead, or in hiding with an AVO against Pat. 

Think back. What was the reason for Pats admission to the hospital? He flipped his pancake and committed an extremely violent assault. Why? Because he caught his wife in the shower with another man. He beats up the showering Casanova to the gentle tones of Stevie Wonder; his wife then leaves him; and he winds up in the hospital. 

Tiffany's woes begin when her husband his hit by a car after buying women's lingerie. Because, hey, why the hell not, right? She spirals into a deep depression, which we learn about from her candid conversations to Pat. 

So how did Tiffany cope with this depression. How did she handle her loss?By banging the hell out of everyone at her workplace - men and women.  She is fired soon after. 

So, you have a woman who responds to stress and depression by spreading her legs for whoever is willing; and a guy whose reaction to being cheated on is to perform his own WWE shower smackdown. 

You can see how this is going to wind up. Add to that the conspicuous fact that Pat doesn't believe he needs medication; and Tiffany doesn't believe she needs therapy. 

All Tiffany needs is to be fired from another job, or for a family member to die, or some other stressful event, and she's back to being the town carousel. 

And we all know how well Pat would handle that situation. 

At least when he's back in the psych ward - Tiffany's blood stained dress in his arms, White Stripes playing on rotation - he can be confident in the knowledge that there's always a silver lining. There's just a whole of silver misery on top of it.   

   

Homophobia Rife in KAP

Bernard Gaynor, a senate nominee representing Bob Katter's "Katter's Australia Party", yesterday tweeted. "I wouldn't let a gay teach my kids."  

In a spectacularly ballsy (sorry) move, Gaynor effectively committed political suicide. Which is pretty impressive considering an election hasn't been called yet, and Gaynor isn't even a senator yet, and most political hopefuls wait until they have POWER before putting their foot in their mouth. 

But the hilariously named Gaynor just can't seem to wait to express his paranoid and unjustified views. 
    
People like Gaynor hold these incredibly backward views because they want to shield their children from a lifestyle that they consider sinful and full of vice. 

But, by refusing to let gays teach their kids, parents like Gaynor are unintentionally exposing their children to the things that they intended to shield them from. 

Think about it. Most children before the age of 12 know "gay" only as an insult or an exclamation of disapproval or displeasure. As in: this homework is gay. 

Most 8 year olds aren't thinking, "I wonder what Mr. Green does in his bedroom. Is there a misses Green? Does he like Abba? I wonder where he's stuck his penis?"  

Most 8 year olds are thinking about whose turn it is to be batman; and how many more girls they can sit next to before girl germs reaches epidemic proportions. 

The one thing 8 year olds are not thinking of is whether their maths teacher fantasizes about George Michael and hot tubs. 

And as much as sick, backward, juvenile, dangerous lunatics like Gaynor like to say they are only trying to protect their children, the fact is, they are unwittingly, and ironically, drawing attention to an issue that they wish to hide their children from. 

As I sarcastically commented to Mr. Gaynor on Twitter, "when your kids are learning their times tables, the sexual lifestyle of their maths teacher is SO important." 

  

    

Little Book? So, Piers, You Want to Talk About Little?

Piers Morgan, like many who share his view on guns, doesn't like silly facts getting in the way of emotion and sensationalism. 

Morgan calls for a ban on assault weapons because the last 4 mass shootings in America involved those particular firearms. When Ben Shapiro pointed out that most gun murders in America are with handguns (many of those murders gang related) Morgan continues his inane tirade against assault weapons. 

For crying out loud, Piers. It is numbers, percentages that tell the truth about the severity of a particular problem. The fact that the last 4 mass shootings in America have involved assault weapons is irrelevent. Most gun crime is committed by crooks with your typical, run of the mill handgun. 

I also found Morgan's dismissal of the "tyranny" argument as quite naive and dangerous. Morgan, like many who want us to place all our faith in government, makes the mistake of thinking politicians will always do right by the people; that they will never abuse their powers. 

There's a good little lamb.   

Transcript is here.  

Member of Congress Says Obama Should Bypass Congress

Seems not even the White House believes the President can use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling. Thank God, America, Nancy Pelosi isn't your president.