Saturday, March 25, 2006
Now that I've finished what I was doing and had a little 'me' time, I'm free to respond to what is clearly the political event of the week - David Farrar's linking to GQ's list of reasons Republicans are better in bed.
In the comments section a small percentage of humourless responses on both sides and much increasingly good-natured entertainment.
Anyway, I though I'd have a go at a response. As an exercise, you understand, rather than out of any personal politicosexual insecurity.
For convenience and marketablitiy, I have kept the original's US focus and the general implication that the person we're trying to convince is a hetrosexual female, while dropping the pretence that the author is in fact a woman. The use of 'Democrat' also saves me from using 'liberal' as the opposite of 'conservative' and annoying all those neoclassical liberals such as Mr Farrar himself.
And this way I don't have to imagine Labour MPs having sex.
On that note...
Reasons Democrats are Better in Bed
When Bush accused his opponent of taking more than one position, enormous crowds of his fellow Republicans joined in a chant making fun of this. In fact, Republicans seem to think that taking any position other than the official one is evil. 'Nuff said.
A Republican will insist that, seeing as you know best what your needs are, you should be left to pursue them without any interference from him. Democrats are more interventionist.
Democrats are famously insecure. A Democrat will pleasure you endlessly in a desperate attempt to win your approval.
The Democrat domination of drugs and rock 'n' rock naturally extends to sex.
Republicans have this habit of declaring "Mission Accomplished" as soon as they make it all the way in.
Seriously: would you rather be humped by a donkey or an elephant?
If you complain that a Republican's actions disproportionately benefit males, he will start whining about people who ask for "special treatment".
Take those voting machines: Republicans need artificial assistance to get an election. Not a coincidence.
Clinton, Kennedy. Bush, Reagan.
I'm guessing that when your pharmacist won't supply contraception and you can't get an abortion, this doesn't do much for you ability to relax and enjoy yourself.
Democrats are reputed to be pussies, while conservatives are all assholes. I guess it's really a question of personal preference.
During the sign-up process, 84% of Republicans ask Satan for riches rather than sexual pleasure.
A Democrat will stimulate all of your senses and carress your whole body to bring you to the heighs of ecstacy. With Republicans, it's all about the Bush.
There's a distinction in political economics between 'wet' and 'dry'. Republicans tend to be 'dry'.
Democrats care. A Democrats will remember your name. A Republican will know your name too, but only because he's been supplied with transcripts of your phone conversations.
Democrats want to tie things up in red tape. You're into that, admit it.
A Republican will refuse to even consider withdrawing, no matter how fucked you are.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
I hate people who don't post or write for ages, then get all guilt-stricken and make extravagant promises about blogging regularly from now on. So I make no promises. I'll probably be a slack bitch and hardly ever post on here, ok? That way when I do, my posts will be like rare gems.
I now live in Wellington. Admittedly the move was a while ago, but it does take a while to settle in, I've found. And I had to go back to Dunedin for three weeks in the middle, so that threw me a bit too. But I think it's fair to say that I am now established. I have ten-trip bus tickets, coffee loyalty cards, people I see on the bus everyday and don't know whether to smile in recognition when I see them off the bus, and a job.
I've crossed over – without ever actually being a proper journalist – to the dark side - PR. But PR for the good guys isn't really bad, right? I should be clear, since I'm working for a political party, that my views on here aren't those of the party I work for, and vice versa. I'll mostly just ramble about myself anyway, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I probably should also mention that a magazine I edited got banned. Unfortunately, it happened at a time when there was no editor at Critic – I'd just left and that new guy hadn't yet started – so Critic wasn't able to respond publicly. But I'm over it. Hamish and Lyndon did an admirable job of talking about the decision when it came out, and I'm happy to leave the FT contribution to the issue at that. I guess I'm a smut peddler now, though. Cool.
That should do it for a re-introductory post. I promise not to promise to start posting on a regular basis with actual intelligent comment on pertinent issues from now on.