Deveney Watch, 3rd June 2009

Oh, it was almost too good to be true.

La Dee was obviously enjoying herself during her Comedy Festival outings, getting away from the kids and her temporary (read the whole thing before you howl) sexual partner. She was writing good stuff, doing what she does best. Being funny, which she undoubtedly is.

But, I suppose in an attempt to whip up some controversy as a follow-up to her 'Animals in clothes' debacle, she's pumped out this piece:

Time for more than unhappily ever after.

As always, I have difficulty knowing where to start:

'It'S not working. And none of us wants to admit it. It's time we got more creative and honest about relationships. Instead of being prescriptive and judgemental, let's be descriptive and productive.'

Let's not be judgemental, she says. That's absurdly rich coming from her. As rich as it would be coming from me, in fact. At least I admit it.

Secondly, 'it's not working. And none of us wants to admit it.'

Oh, I see. Because Deveney is having a hard time with it, we *all* are. Right. Phew. Thank goodness someone has the guts to speak the truth (cue eye-roll).

'It's time we admitted we need to go beyond the fairytales and the outdated and unrealistic social models created by and for religious oppression, financial and gender inequality and social convention. We need to find a new relationship model.'

Really? A happy marriage is a fairy tale? Created by and for religious oppression? Granted, there is much oppression within marriages in certain religions and if not as a whole, within sects thereof. Marriage laws were certainly created in many cultures irrespective of religion to ensure the male hegemony continued. She's not wrong but the reality is human greed and often not the religion itself. But the modern Western marriage? Please. How would she know anyway? She's not married and I reckon my marriage is as progressive as anyone's without breaking the actual definition of marriage.

'At least a third of marriages end in divorce.'

Correct. And two-thirds don't. No, not all of them are happy, but two-thirds don't. At the same time those that fail are not examined. She's good at this. Bare stats are enough, let's dictate The New Way with them. Awesome. The population of the country with AIDS? Small. What should we do? Ditch 'em, according to her mathematical reasoning.

'Statistics on sexual outsourcing aren't available, but it's clearly something that occurs more than we'd like to admit. I'm not just talking about physical intimacy outside people's "official" relationships, I'm talking porn, sex toys, cyber sex and emotional intimacy.'

I don't know if that's strictly true. What she wants is something to support her view and she didn't/wouldn't/couldn't find it. So let's just plough on regardless. At least columnists like Bolt and Devine have fake stats to support their dopey views, this one drops all pretence. There are thousands of studies around this, all of it disturbing and none of it explicity denounced by the queen of the New Way.

'But consider for a moment the judgement embedded in these terms: infidelity, adultery, monogamy, virgin, slut and family values. These words and phrases are brainwashing tools embedded in our minds early in our lives to prevent us developing emotional and ethical templates beyond the two or three rickety versions in common use. Relationships are not one size fits all.'

The last sentence is correct. The rest, interesting. Here we have a woman who is with Richard Dawkins on the sexual jealousy front. In other words, we shouldn't be bothering ourselves with finding and sticking to one person. A slut is a slut, male or female, sorry to break it to you. Monogamy is judgemental, it would seem, rather than honorable and admirable for those who are within that relationship format. Virgin is judgemental only because she makes it so. Infidelity is the breaking of sexual trust between a couple (and therefore the fundamental trust) whether unspoken or declared. It is a rightfully judgemental term, it denotes an action and it's an abhorrent one no matter what the state of marriage. You say it, you stick with it. If you can't stick with it, for whatever reason, don't say it. Too hard for La Dee, it's all about the regret.

"Swans have long been viewed as a symbol of fidelity and everlasting love. But researchers from the University of Melbourne tested the DNA of cygnets and found that one in six is the product of an illicit encounter."

Gasp! Animals don't have a sexual conscience. Next you'll be telling me the sky is blue and the earth revolves around the sun.

'As with swans, so with us. According to some estimates, one child in every 10 is not biologically related to one of its putative parents. Almost a quarter of paternity tests conducted by one of Australia's largest DNA laboratories find the man submitting a sample is not the father.'

She's a genius, she's pointed out that people do The Wrong Thing. Except in her world, it's not the wrong thing, it's An Other Thing. It's not infidelity, it's scoring a root with someone else for the pleasure of it and getting a kid out of it. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it okay. A partner who does this is detestable and infidelity is heart-breaking.

'This suggests all children should be DNA tested at birth.'

WTF? No, no and a thousand times no. Most people don't *need* that (one in ten ring a bell? Someone get this woman a calculator). Yes, every parent and child deserves to know whose is whose but seriously, must we live in suspicion all the time? Shall we DNA test her kids? That would be fun. A whole TV show - Cath's Kids.

'This is not a new thing. It has not been caused by raunch culture, permissiveness, feminism or the move away from religion.'

Or towards it, for that matter. See, the funny thing about humans is that whatever label they apply to themselves, they're still humans.

'I know millions of stories. And so, I'm sure, do you. The bloke who recently found he had a brother from an affair his mother had when he was four. The dad with two families. A woman who left her husband because he was gay but now wishes they had come up with an arrangement whereby they raised the children under the same roof. A deeply religious woman, married for 25 years, who covers her head as prescribed by her religion but who has spent every Friday night for the past decade at a bondage club (she's always home by breakfast). And my happily married mate who goes to a sex club once a month — with his wife's blessing and clear rules on what's permitted and what's not.'

This passage amazes me. Boys will be boys in NRL is not good enough for her, but in here, it's all cool. It's just another model for relationships. Let's not worry about the real cost of this sort of thing. If this 'happily married mate' is happily married, why is he off shagging at a sex club? Why is his wife not going with him? Why is she silly enough to accept him breaking the vows of marriage (if they took them)? Good luck to them, can't wait to see them in ten years and ask them how it's worked out for them. The pair of them are half-wits and I assume the wife is just trying to hang on to something, however broken. Working hard for the relationship, despite the obvious gaping holes.

Except...well...

'Work hard, by all means, but relationship disintegration is not a failure. It's a fact of life.'

'Teach them that if something is not working, you try to change it. But also teach them to know when something is a lost cause.'

When it all gets too hard, give up. It's not a bad thing if you let your marriage or relationships die because you're too lazy or indisciplined. Marriage is a 'rickety' relationship model. Yeah, right on sister.

'It's time for us to bravely blaze a trail of truth and reality. It's tricky, but we're smart. The long way round might be the short way home.'

So, we're back to the Cath Deveney of old - hysterically blaming social normality ('religious oppression') for society's ills and suggesting we just drop certain moralities and head off into the wide blue yonder. To me, these sorts of columns are the pre-justification for her possibly impending relationship breakdown. The tone of the article is dark and I'll take a punt that things aren't rosy at home so she's just laying the groundwork for herself. I would be ecstatic if I were proved wrong - relationship breakdowns are a curse for anyone involved. I hate it.

This sort of stuff is poisonous - it's ill-thought out and is just a libertarian view of the human condition - do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But if you do hurt someone, and they tell you, then they are simply being judgemental. She is presenting little that is new. She quotes Esther Perel, the author of Mating in Captivity,

'[Perel] describes the human condition as being torn between "security and adventure". She speaks of the puritanical streak that runs through the heart and crotch of our culture.'

I don't see much of that and Deveney herself vacillates between the two extremes to suit her point. I don't think Perel meant what Deveney wants her to mean, by the by, but Deveney will take it where she can get it.

We are torn between security and adventure - that's why so many young people work for a few years to save up to go backpacking. That's a good thing. Going to a sex club when you're married (or at all, if you were to ask me) is not a good thing, it's destructive, selfish and stupid. If the NRL sex scandal was anything to go by, these models don't work and to preach them as a solution is hypocritical. She consented - look where it got her. Nowhere nice. Can she ever have a 'normal' relationship again? Unlikely. She is scarred for life. But of course, these are the exceptions to her rule, unlike her facile and unverifiable examples of 'good' relationships.

I am not saying that these 'alternative' relationships can't work. They feed the greed of those involved and can continue for many years, but plenty of people get hurt along the way. Of course, Deveney would condemn the polygamist Mormon or Muslim model because they're religious, but do the same thing outside it, then good for you. In fact, well done you, get in there. But speak to anyone who really knows about this stuff and they'll tell you the wreckage the majority of these relationships leave behind. Deveney often, and rightly (if self-righteously) preaches against greed, but here she is advocating it. She is advocating sexual and emotional greed to make it all work. But it won't because it can't, we're not wired that way, whether you believe in God or not. Whether you subscribe to religion or not. Humanity makes the same mistakes time and again to feed our greed and look what happens.

Just because 'I have a friend...' doesn't make it right, widespread or indicative of an alternative way. I have a friend who put his nuts in a vice and still had kids. So must we all do this? Er, no. Because the vice of greed, of any sort, hurts you one way or another, whether your nuts are involved or not.

On the other hand, I'm pleased this stuff gets printed, because it should be out in the open (she's such a pioneer, no?) to be dissected and, in the course of time, dismissed as the extreme view, which it is.

Plus, I feel better railing against her than I do yelling at co-workers.

Deveney Watch, April 15th

I really don't know where to start with this one. In the same article she writes these two things, unaware they conflict with each other:

'"What's a sin?" asked the 11-year-old atheist. I could have sung with joy knowing a child knew right from wrong and good from bad but knew not what the word "sin" meant.'

Interesting. She has already pigeon-holed (I daren't say brainwashed) an 11 year old into thinking her way.

Then, this:

'My mate and I debriefed about the deep-rooted brainwashing of children by religion. No child is born religious, homophobic, racist or sexist. They are programmed. Children's brains are malleable to promote the survival of the species. Here's how it goes: "Hey, little cave kiddy, don't eat those poison berries or you'll die." Imprint equals better chance of survival. The more malleable the substance the better chance of imprint. Religion has successfully exploited this evolutionary leg-up to its advantage.'

She's a shithead. There, I said it. There's more:

'I'm with Richard Dawkins. Indoctrination of children into religion is child abuse. Children should have the right to be raised free from their parents' superstitions, prejudice and mumbo jumbo. Let them make up their own mind when they're adults.'

Careful, Cath, he says that rape is not as bad as religious exposure. Are you with him on that one?

She is completely unaware that by her logic, everything you say to your child is brain-washing. Every last drop of it. You can't help it, as a parent. God also didn't control her parents to do or say the things they did to her. She had a text to check it all against and she didn't. She's a halfwit the same way Dawkins is.

The story about the dyke coming out to her parents has nothing to do with religion at all. It's mindless blaming of her favourite target. We're on article number 3, again.

Fail. Utter fail

Deveney Watch, February 25

Ah, La Dee is back. She set some moronic atheist bus bomb off last week, as always spouting the words and thoughts of others and passing them off as her own. Waste of time, really.

This week, she tackles (you'll get the joke shortly) the worthy topic of premature ejaculation ads.

As usual, her piece is full of back-handed insults.

"Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not wrong. I'm not taking about censorship. Some people find sex confronting or offensive. I'm not one of them, because I'm an adult."

But you can see the clanger, can't you?

"Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not wrong."

Oh, no Cath. Quite right. And just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong either, like uncontrolled euthanasia. I like Cath's logic, she's telling us how to tell right from wrong here. As always, she's blading across thin ice without a care in the world because, as we know, she doesn't have the guts to read the feedback about her increasingly hysterical scrawlings. Wow...telling us right from wrong. Just like religion. What fun!

I'm sure Cath doesn't 'lack in the sack' as she's always keen to tell us how much rooting she did in her uni days (back when she was stupid and believed in God...uh-huh) but to judge those who read those ads and fall for them as a bit thick is, well, a bit thick. Her arrogance appears to be growing by the day, her articles less amusing and just plain nutty.

The telling bit is the headline: Billboard sex: on the money or a limp excuse for a buck.

Cath Deveney: on the money, or a weak excuse for a columnist. Honestly, this one is just phoned in.

Now They Can Stop Moaning

Religion in schools to go God-free

Well, this will give some other poor 'wretched'* sod a class full of kids to explain something to.

Religious instruction in schools is a no-brainer - why not? I don't see a problem with it and I don't see why others should either. There has never been a block to the Humanist agenda and I can confidently predict few parents and children will see the need for it. There will be an initial glut and then it will fade away when all the class does is have a quiet chat about the golden rule every week.

Again, I don't have a problem with it. First, it shuts up the enthusiast atheist mob who've read The God Delusion and bought into its viciousness and uncouth approach to atheism. Kids don't have to do RE anyway unless they sign up for it at a Christian school. (having said that, you can get out of it at Carey! Disgraceful.) Second, it will give the fundies who give any religion a bad name the chance to pipe up and create a few column inches.

Why is this good? All these sorts of triumphant stories do is provoke people to think about the issues. The twitter-sphere was full of triumphant tripe like this:

Spread the good news

as though this is the coming of reason. What these people don't realise is that it won't make a lick of difference.

Enthusiast atheists, like the goose above, like to think that once someone is told there is no God, they just automatically believe it. If they don't they're stupid. Kinda easy logic isn't it? There's no wriggle room there. Like, oh, there could be a God and he might be the one that Christians, Muslims or Jews worship. They also don't know the difference between the Gods of those religions (oh, no, that would be ignorant of them to learn) and prefer to either think that if there is a God, they'll 'slip in the side door' or if God is one of the above, they prefer Hell. It's all a metaphor anyway.

Which sort of brings me to something interesting Jeremy Clarkson wrote.

The BBC's letting loonies gag me with mink knickers.

Basically, what Clarkson is saying, is that you're not allowed to say anything anymore because there's always someone calling for your immediate execution:

'You could give me any subject matter: paving stones, cabbages, your next-door neighbour, dogs – anything that took your fancy – and I bet that after half an hour on the phone I could come up with someone who was prepared to be cross about it. If it got their name in the papers.'

'The problem is simple. If you say, in public, that you would not shoot a bear or you would not support an attack on Iraq or you would not buy a Range Rover because of climate change, you are offending nobody. Because you are saying, “I will not do something.” But if you say you would do something, like shoot a bear, then someone in an attic with a website and a silly acronym for their micro-organisation (membership: three) will jump on your case and not let go'

The world is full of these morons and unfortunately enthusiast atheism is on that bandwagon: "I do not believe therefore I cannot offend."

It's oafish, simplistic and mind-numbingly dull. Yes, I'm a Christian but believe everybody is entitled to their belief or disbelief. The New Atheists (who are just old atheists with bad tempers) seem to think they are saving the world when in fact they are reducing discourse to childish rabble-rousing and insults, using emotive terms like 'child abuse' to attract dullards and halfwits to their cause. And they cause themselves 'the smarts.'


* The goose who runs the Australian Council for the Defence of Goverment Schools' called RE teachers 'wretched.' Halfwit. Learn more about this cretinous little group here: ADOGS. Great website.

Deveney Watch, December 11

You either love her or loathe her

Oh, poor widdle Caffy Waffy. All these terrible readers who dare disagree with her. But guess what? No point - she doesn't read fan or flame mail because she's just little bit more self-important than I'd dare imagine.

I am genuine when I say that I think she has her heart in the right place. It's just that it's really obvious she is completely screwed up and has disappeared up her own, and by her admission, well-used fundament. She cheerfully admits to what many would consider failings and is so anti-marriage one wonders whether the father of her children has his stopwatch set for the end of it all. I have something to scare you with, Miss D - you're married whether you've signed the paper or not.

I actually don't love or loathe the woman, I do agree with her and disagree with her in equal measure, sometimes in the same column. I resent that there are better, more thoughtful writers out there with a wider variety of topics and infinitely more interesting takes on it. She is so black and white but does not accept the same attitudes from others. And is so stupidly arrogant as not to bother listening to those who opine about her. She sees no reason to defend herself, I suppose, but then again, some of the things she says are indefensible.

Take, for instance, her assertion that women who take their husbands names are either deepy insecure, deeply conservative or deeply stupid. Right. For the record, I encouraged my wife not to take my last name, not that she ever had any intention of doing so, but the fact remains, she criticises people's choices but won't listen to those who may criticise hers - because, in her little world, they're wrong.

Newsflash for you, Cath - you're in the same boat as Andrew Bolt. Ignorant and pig-headed in equal degrees, just from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Why The Age feels the need to promote you (complete with girly picture to replace the oddly unflattering one they usually use) and defend you from your detractors is anyone's guess. They wouldn't do the same thing for the equally crazy Miranda Devine in Fairfax's northern outpost.

Michael Pascoe Has A Point

Mergers are for suckers

The merger in particular question is the QANTAS - BA merger. Why the hell anyone, apart from Dixo-Joy and other 'advising' parties thinks this is a good idea is a mystery. BA is in desperate straits, negotiating with a far more suitable partner in Spain's Iberia Airways and a hulking great airline unable to turn a buck because it operates in a highly-competitive and mature aviation market. One that is deregulated to within an inch of its life and now dominated by RyanAir and easyJet-style low-cost carriers.

BA also has had its trans-Atlantic lunch comprehensively cut by Branson's Virgin Atlantic and its long-haul Asian routes are better served by lower-cost-base 'premium' carriers like Singapore, Cathay and now Emirates. Oh, they're in debt to their eyeballs, have billions in unfunded pensions and a fleet that resembles Noah's Ark. It is bereft of the cachet of flag carrier as Virgin, again, have managed to white-ant them out of that position. Anyone who has flown BA would also know how unutterably dull the experience is, but that's purely a personal thing.

Qantas, on the other hand, despite a disastrous year of morale-sapping bungles and mishaps, is in rude health. Dixon has cut costs to the bone because, well, frankly, he's a jerk, and bullied his staff into submission by threatening to take jobs overseas while taking home $12m and flying first class everywhere. His reign will be marked by a) his Henny Penny sky-is-falling routine before announcing a mammoth profit and b) his wild attempts to make millions of dollars through the failed leveraged buy-out last year. Oh and c) - the fact the airline is in decline with regards to standards, but that's always for the next bunny, Joyce, to deal with.

The airline still pretty much owns the trans-Pacific West Coast USA routes and also has a strangehold on the domestic, medium and long-haul routes via Jetstar and the main brand. The only fly in Qantas' trans-Pacific ointment is the Virgin Blue-backed V Australia (no longer owned in any part by Branson, sadly) which was to have launched by now but won't get in the air until around March when Boeing get around to delivering a few cheap-to-run 777s. The main victim of V Australia will be the risible United Airlines, who ironically are fed by Virgin Blue for the domestic routes. Oh and Airbus and Boeing haven't the faintest idea how to deliver a plane on time.

What's in it for Qantas shareholders? Nothing. Nothing at all. Actually, worse than nothing - BA will drag down Qantas shares as the new entity shoulders the debt and mismanagement of the bigger, fatter, slower-moving brother. No doubt there is some scary frequent flyer liabilities hidden in the BA business as well as significant cost problems in its home market. The only thing good that could come out of it is a platform from which to launch Jetstar Europe. But that's about it. The amount of money a Jetstar would have to make in that market would be astronomical to even cover the liability that is today's British Airways.

BA shareholders won't win either for all the same reasons. Yeah, they might make a penny or two in the short term but BA will drag the entity down and destroy two airlines instead of one. I can't see either government wanting to help too much if that happened. There will be significant resistance from Qantas shareholders, too. The most obvious suitors for Qantas are Air NZ (won't happen), Singapore Airlines (mmm...maybe....) and Cathay Pacific (uncertain...). Anything but BA, an airline mired in a market far away from the realities and opportunities of South East Asia and carrying an incompetent, inflexible structure that can't adapt to the new realities of aviation in the twenty-first century. Qantas aren't perfect either, but at least they're not doing as bad a job as BA.

All they have to do now is stop their planes from looking like they're going to fall out of the sky at any minute, restore customer service and staff morale and things look very bright for a BA-less Qantas.

The competitive concerns are null and void because there's a legal cartel in effect between Qantas and BA because they code-share on the bulk of seats and charge the same.

Melbourne's Fourth (Labor) Transport Blueprint

So here we are.

Is This Our Future?

Uncle John Brumby who is a self-styled action man has commissioned a bunch of reports. Woo-hoo!

The plan is, basically, a let-down. Two of Melbourne's most psycho roads, Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade/Princes Street, both fed by the overloaded Eastern Freeway, will be left untouched. Hoddle Street gets a study, which will cost $5m, to decide if under/overpasses are viable. Fat chance. They won't do it because they don't have the nuts. Why? The biggest piece of the Eddington plan was the tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway that would go under the city and end up in the West.

It gets worse. All they've got for the Eastern suburbs is - drum roll, please, because this is awesome - more buses. So anyone coming down the Eastern Freeway has no hope for trains or light rail for the next forty years, basically.

The government (and the bovine media) are hailing this as a transport revolution. It's nothing. It's not even treading water. The initial stage of the metro will stop at Domain Road. Domain Road! The bulk of passengers need to keep going down to the Dandenong Road interchange.

The Maribyrnong tunnel is actually a bloody good idea a long time coming, I will applaud that. But the rest? Vapour. Three more years of this (at least) and if Brumby is booted out on his arse, the axe will fall immediately.

There won't be the money available to do the metro anyway, so kiss it goodbye. Private public partnerships should be dead if they aren't already because nobody is going to extend the credit to make it all happen after the series of disasters in Australia, the only bright spot being Citylink.

Deveney Watch

This week it's article number one, as detailed below:

Robert Doyle is mayor...so what's the punchline?

'The Liberal Party leadership handover from Robert to Ted was the Born to Rule dream-team; White and Whiter; 100% charisma-free, idea-resistant and void of all traces of originality or your MCC membership back!'

'I was thrilled to hear a middle-aged, middle-class rich bloke in a suit won the mayoral bling. There just aren't enough of them in highly paid ceremonial roles that consist of hand-shaking, ribbon-cutting and posing for photographs with visiting local dignitaries.'

Again, don't get me wrong. I agree with her. But we've heard it all before.

Some racial stereotyping, referring to John So in the Melbourne ads:

'It was like a confused Asian businessman being led around Melbourne by his translator. As Livinia spoke on his behalf, John So looked like he just wanted to hit the casino, play golf and buy opals'

The punchline, Cath, is that you need some new ideas to talk about.

Oh, I forgot, your article about Sexpo was completely devoid of feminist bluster or indeed any commentary on its basic failure to treat humans as humans. Why? Sexpo is supporting the objectification of women and men through the medium of sex. Women are reduced to tits and orifices that will accept penises and other objects and faces on which to splash semen.

Oh, that's right, we're just animals in clothes and attacking Sexpo for that reason (you just complained it was unsexy) would give lie to your piece from last year. Unless the Mayor of Mt Isa says anything, of course, in which case, you change your story.

Melbourne Is Not Going Anywhere

City transport plan revealed

I should have put the word plan in inverted commas because, after reading this, there isn't a plan. Anything big (Uncle Rod's road tunnel) and the St Kilda Road metro are 'years away.'

Translation: anything big isn't happening on John Brumby's watch. We've had a ton of these 'transport blueprints' and none of them have achieved a single improvement in Melbourne's public transport. Vacillation is the order of the day, as are stupendously expensive consultant reports which the government, as though compelled by legislation to do so, routinely ignores, whatever the report says.

All Brumby is doing is shifting an already-promised 2016 start for the South Morang extension, bringing it to 2010 (huzzah, sort of), commissioning more 'detailed studies' (see above) and suggesting he might maybe one day do Uncle Rod's tunnel and the metro line. Contingent on...?

Yes, Federal funding. Another translation for you: 'We've pissed the good times up against the wall for the last 15 years, wasting money on the Commonwealth Games and other pointless, money-losing sporting events so now we need your money.'

Uncle Kev's response will be short and sharp: 'Get stuffed.' Good, too, this government deserves a thorough bollocking at the next state election (2010...shock!)

Of course there's more roads in there, as though that will fix things but there isn't any more than about $1.2bn in actual commitments, out of about $20bn worth of announcements. Chairman Mao would be proud of this sort of talking down to the people. He really would.