This week's compendium

Here’s this week’s compendium. This week…

1. tennis player Lleyton Hewitt and his wife charged fans A$2 for the wondrous privilege of finding out the name of their newborn child [1a]. Is there no limit to the greed and bad taste of so-called celebrities. Anyway it’s Ava [1b]. Big whoopee.

2. the Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 was announced [2a]. Canada’s 6th best, Australia 8th, UK 20th, USA 22nd. [2b]. Israel’s 30th and Iran 146th. Ho hum.

3. consumer magazine Choice announced its 2010 Shonky Awards – for the shonkiest products and services [3a, 3b]. Ho hum again.

4. Mohammed (spelt various ways) was the most popular name for newborn boys in England and Wales in 2009 [4]. This ended Jack’s 14 years as number one.

5. austerity measures were announced for the 2011 Australian F1 Grand Prix [5]. The best one of all would be to cancel the bloody thing.

6. low-dose aspirin was confirmed to help prevent bowel cancer [6a]. Lifestyle choices are effective too [6b].

7. and heavy smoking was shown to double the risk of various types of dementia [7]. Is there no limit to the downsides of smoking.

8. Sweetheart Vivienne participated in the Melbourne Jewish Book Festival [8a, 8b]. Apparently she aced it. I wish I was there.

Finally, I wish you, dear Farmdoc’s Blog readers, a wonderful week.

farmdoc's blog post number 593

Today’s ‘List Friday’. Once upon a time I was a pretty angry fellow. No – very angry (and it wasn’t pretty). I’m not sure of the reason(s). And it probably doesn’t matter now. For with the passing years and decades, I’ve mellowed. That’s not to say my feelings are less passionate. But rather I’ve come to understand that outward expressions of anger aren’t helpful to anyone – giver, receiver or bystander. It’s a lesson worth learning. But I doubt you can learn it merely by reading these words. Rather, you have to learn it from your own actions and their consequences. Self evidently, though, angry people still exist. (Is there a difference between angry people, and people who get angry?) And the famous aren’t immune. Today’s list is Top ten celebrity dummy spits, taken from The Vine. The items on this list sure show some full-on dummy spitting. I’m ashamed (or proud, I don’t know which) to tell you I’ve heard of only four of the ten dummy spitting celebrities. Can you guess which four? (Or maybe you know, ergo you don’t need to guess.) This list makes me wonder if the celebrities spit the dummy because they’re genuinely angry. Or do they spit it to seek the resultant publicity for image and profile reasons – like making the list of Top ten celebrity dummy spits. Ho hum.

farmdoc's blog post number 416

I’ve previously written of my distaste for the age of celebrity we live in. And I’ve also written about the ordeal of miners Brant Webb (photo, left) and Todd Russell (right). Here in Tasmania, this island with a population of only half a million people, parochialism reigns. And so Webb and Russell are celebrities. (A celebrity being a widely known person.) In some circles they’ve been afforded folk hero status. Maybe they deserve it, maybe not. I think fate placed them in an horrific situation which they dealt with courageously and tenaciously, but the real heroes were their rescuers who voluntarily assumed potential mortal risk. Anyway last Friday Webb announced his candidacy for the Australian Labor Party in the Tasmanian State seat of Bass, at the State election next March. Thus he joins a growing list of celebrity political candidates – mainly sports stars and media personalities – of whom most (I think) have been elected. Webb has no political background, and no stated vision for Tasmania or even Bass. He doesn’t live in Bass. And, based on my meetings with him, he’s not a man of notable intellect. So as a candidate his only asset’s his celebrity status. Here is the official spin. I think he’ll be elected. So much so, I have a 2-cent bet riding on it. In our problem-ridden Nation and State, we need to elect the best people. Not just the best known.

farmdoc's blog post number 392

Here in Tasmania, last Monday was cold, so I wore my ‘Emily – life is but a dream’ t-shirt – for the first time – beneath my windcheater and business shirt. Putting it on, I noticed it was made by Bonds (in Australia, too, stone the crows). Which got me thinking about bonding – the defining characteristic of herds. Sheep are herd animals. And though, like wombats, I’m not one myself, humans are too. Last Monday night in Sydney before the 2009 Vogue Entertaining +Travel Produce Awards presentation, darling Kate and Brendon socialised with the other finalists from the Daylesford area. Good bonding, I’d say, before the big event in the big city. Especially as all three were winners. But some bonding can be bad. The revelation by former rugby league coach and noted sports writer Roy Masters – in his 2006 book Bad Boys and on Four Corners last Monday – that group sex has been used as a vehicle of team bonding, are abhorrent. Disgusting. Beyond the pale. ‘A girl might’ve accommodated three or four players,’ Masters said. Only three or four? Aren’t there 13 players on a rugby league team? ‘They are at a golden triangle of celebrity status, a lot of money and too much time,’ Masters added. So what? After thousands of years of so-called human civilisation, and hundreds of years after the Renaissance, is this the best we can do? I despair.

farmdoc's blog post number 337

Sure I’ve played a bit of chess, draughts, chinese checkers, Boggle, Pictionary, Monopoly, and even the odd game of cards. I’ve found them okay, I guess, but I’ve never become an aficionado of any of them. Probably the table game that’s stirred my juices most is Scrabble. Even though Scrabble’s my favourite, and I can’t remember when I last played it, it still fascinates me. So I avidly read Judith Thurman’s 6-page article titled ‘Spreading the Word’, in the New Yorker last 19 January. She writes of the 2008 Big Apple Scrabble Tournament, the Scrabble competition subculture and a book (Word Freak) about it, a Scrabble computer program (‘Quackle’), a ‘bingo’ (i.e. emptying ones’s rack by using all seven tiles), the bingo of a lifetime (‘bar[o]ques’, worth 311 points), Scrabble-playing celebrities, the word exercise routines of champions, online Scrabble, Scrabble in book and film plots, and speed Scrabble. Scrabble was first sold in 1948, its heyday was in the early 1950s, and a renaissance’s happening now, with 1-2M sets sold yearly, and 30,000 new games starting each hour worldwide. It’s made in 29 languages and in Braille. Will I play Scrabble in future? Probably not. During the Big Apple Tournament, the Quackle inventor said it ‘thinks almost like a human, which can’t be said of everyone here’. There’s the rub.

farmdoc's blog post number 175

Last Thursday the headline writers had a field day: ‘Not in Burke’s Backyard’ and ‘Don Burke becomes ‘Gunn for hire’’ The story is that Gunns Limited has hired Don Burke – an erstwhile celebrity gardener – as ‘environmental consultant’ to its proposed northern Tasmania pulp mill. It’s a feeble, transparent ploy by Gunns’ spin doctors, because another celebrity gardener – Peter Cundall – is an eloquent, heartfelt and unpaid opponent of the mill. Burke is chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation which operates from the address of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, and is commingled with it as well as Timber Communities Australia. The AEF is arguably a greenwash organisation: according to its website it’s pro GMO, it’s open to nuclear energy, it promotes climate change scepticism, it’s pro pulp mill of course, and it opposes peak environment groups. Very nasty, Donny boy. Cundall’s a man of impeccable integrity; Burke's a hired gun. Burke said he approached Gunns for the job, and he’s received assurances from Gunns’ chairman John Gay that his role will be independent of the company. Oh yes, you read right. ‘He asked me to monitor what’s going on, and work in the best interests as a green person,’ Burke said. But he doesn’t say in whose best interests; and he’s as green as horse shit. Stay tuned, folks.

farmdoc's blog post number 98

Paparazzi are freelance photographers who aggressively pursue celebrities, seeking candid photographs. That paparazzi exist means there’s a market for their services – which intrude upon the perceived privacy of public figures. Last Thursday Victorian Premier John Brumby berated protesters who were threatening to invade the privacy of himself and his family. When Mr Brumby chose to be a public figure, he gave up his right to privacy: 24/7 x 365. And the families of public figures are themselves public figures. How could they not be? In the year he’s been Premier, Brumby’s made decisions that have affected, pre-occupied, even consumed, some Victorian citizens 24/7 x 365. So should he and his family be permitted to partition their lives into public and private segments? The answer: No. As long as public figures reap the perks of public office, so should they be subjected to their opponents’ dissent provided the dissenters abide by laws which aren’t unfair and unreasonable. Of course the law is an ass – as in the recent British case where a judge – notably sans jury – awarded FIA President Max Mosely £60,000 damages for breach of privacy. I see no difference between the filming of Mosely’s orgy, and the paparazzi photographing some movie star topless in her garden. Covert footage of Mr Justice Eady – the Judge in Mosely’s case – could be interesting.

farmdoc's blog post number 63

Sheep are herd animals. And followers, so they mostly walk in single file. Thus my dictionary defines a sheep as a woolly ruminant mammal, and also a vulnerable and docile person who follows others rather than decides independently. I reckon our society comprises mainly sheep: followers of the media, politicians, moguls and celebrities. Logically, none of these groups deserves to be followed: the media’s primary objective is to sell advertising, if politicians aren’t psychologically damaged before entering parliament they become so soon after, moguls’ monetary wealth is often accreted by less than moral and socially responsible means, and celebrities are famous for talents which almost all others don’t and never can have. These four groups of so-called leaders coerce the population into vulnerability and docility – by locking them into long-term mortgage debt and consumer debt, thus forcing them to work in often menial unsatisfying jobs for long hours leaving them at best tired and at worst defeated and depressed. Little wonder, then, that in Australia volunteerism is in serious long-term decline, mass political protest is dead, and social capital is depreciating. In summary, civil society is not flourishing – at the very time it must because of the grave complex problems confronting us. Keeping the populace vulnerable and thus docile is what the media, politicians, moguls and celebrities want. But it’s not what I want.

farmdoc's blog post number 41

Sharon Stone, apparently a well-known actress, has opined that the recent major earthquake in China was bad karma after Beijing’s policy in Tibet. While anyone is entitled to an opinion, I am amazed Ms Stone’s pap has been so widely publicised. As if her being famous in some way gains her insight into, or privileged access to, the truth. ‘Get real, farmdoc,’ you may respond, ‘we live in an age of celebrity’. I see that, but I also see people who are famous for being famous accreting untold wealth and conspicuously flaunting it. These people – A-listers, eh – are attention seekers. But are they role models, or objects of morbid curiosity, or both? Perhaps as role models they are harmless because their material wealth – and maybe also their appearance, carefully manufactured by publicly invisible retinues – is well beyond the reach of everyman. But it’s their opinions that worry me. Mel Gibson’s anti-semitism, for instance, attributed by him to alcohol (which to my knowledge is a disinhibiter and not a changer of cognition). Celebrities have ready if not unlimited access to the media. And the primary objective of the media is to sell advertising which, they have manifestly decided, they can help achieve by reporting celebrities’ opinions however bizarre they are. Indeed the more bizarre, the better. Is the end of this madness imminent? No.