Dial 1800 OFFENDED: Your handy one-stop outrage shop

Reg says:

10:40am | 07/10/10

Sorry Eric I have to take you to task on that.

Football is a spectator sport, there are relative few real participants compared for example, to the number of people who actively participate in choral singing. A few guys run around a paddock chasing a ball for a little while and the major crowd participation is at the pub or BBQ later.  Hardly a worthy news grabber.  Choral singing involves hundreds of organisations for tens of hours a week diligently participating in what is both a physical and an artistic activity. Please try and forgive me for saying so, but football is not a very clever activity and as such, hardly warrants clogging up the airwaves with its irrelevance. .

Susan says:

12:25pm | 07/10/10

But isn’t the said footy player already having a whinge on Twitter??

Eric says:

01:17pm | 07/10/10

I am outraged by these replies to my comment!

Markus says:

08:11am | 07/10/10

Any newspaper, no matter how poor the content, can be salvaged by a good Classifieds/Trading Post section too.
“Jousting sticks? What’s he asking for ‘em?”

salo says:

09:48am | 07/10/10

‘Small disaster, not many injured’. Actually, it’s usually ‘Huge disaster (in a foreign country). No reports of Aussies involved’.

Adam Diver says:

10:31am | 07/10/10

I think this article says more about journalism then lobby groups. Great insight though.

Greg says:

11:09am | 07/10/10

I completely agree with Adam. Those were my thoughts immediately.

“...ring the former RSL chief on a Sunday just to see what was on his mind, and would more often than not come away with a story headed “Fresh anger over new flag outrage”, or some other nonsense which would fill a hole on page seven.

Is it any wonder so many people have no respect for journalists. More industry exposing gems please Penbo.

Matthew says:

12:08pm | 07/10/10

Edward, People have died waiting for the results because so many people complain to their parliamentary representatives about everything.  They don’t have time to get around to it since they’re still reading the complaints! (most of which just wasted their time)

darren says:

12:16pm | 07/10/10

my MP is more often away then @ home - he is useless :(

mikeymike says:

04:28pm | 07/10/10

I’ve tried complaining.  And had my ear bashed for the next 20 minutes by a staffer telling me how I was wrong.

Want something done?  Become a lobby group!  Become a union or a chamber of commerce or anything that has a barrow to push, then attach yourself to the politicians like a barnacle.  Stuff democracy, it is party first, lobby groups second and the constituents only at election time with a “Dear Householder” letter drop.

</rant>

Michael says:

04:47pm | 07/10/10

Darren, I’m sure he must be on holidays when he is away. It’s inconcievable that he would be working while on these “vacations”. What about other people who have to travel as apart of their jobs?

salo says:

09:50am | 07/10/10

There’s also The Family Association that is always sought out for a comment about something mildly offensive on TV or some other moral issue. But they must be ‘commo leftie types’ too, Dave. Pssst - the 1950s are over - you’re allowed to stop hating commo lefties now.

Bobster says:

11:18am | 07/10/10

I knew it was the communists. It’s always the bloody communists.

P.S, Penbo for PM.

Bobster says:

02:13pm | 07/10/10

I think people would do well to take a leaf from the Book of (George) Carlin ... actually, I can’t be bothered plagiarising the lot so here’s a link to someone elses effort.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/society/children/fuck_the_children

Clem says:

09:17am | 07/10/10

C1, no way, your kids will thank you when they grow up for showing them the Goodies. My kids love that show too, as I do, actually we think the way they dress is pretty cool. Not saying any of us would be seen sporting a pair of purple bell-bottoms, but the fashion in the Goodies is as essential as the script and visual gags are.

Roja says:

09:41am | 07/10/10

I grew watching the goodies and now have a ten pack a day wizz fizz addiction.  Damn you Bill Oddie and shame on you both for exposing your children to concepts that may confuse and educate them

T says:

10:42am | 07/10/10

Yeah I keep smacking people over the head with black puddings….

C1 says:

12:52pm | 07/10/10

Thanks to all the posters. It just shows humour crosses generations and fashion ideas.
My wife and I will be instructing my children in the gentle art of Eckythump.

Rowdy says:

02:02pm | 07/10/10

...and your kids could always…”...take a walk in the Black Forest”........

KH says:

12:39pm | 07/10/10

You couldn’t work it out?  So….....what, you like 7 year olds pouting and posing like 25 year old women?

AdamC says:

02:02pm | 07/10/10

I couldn’t work out the reason for the outrage, no. I still can’t, even when I read the articles quoting the outraged talking heads. Can you?

What do you mean do I ‘like 7 year olds pouting and posing like 25 year-old women’? I do think it’s a fun campaign, yes. Clearly, the intention is not to present the kids as adults, but to present the kids as kids acting like adults.

You do understand the difference, don’t you?

Karnt says:

02:02pm | 07/10/10

KH noone likes 7 year old pouting. That’s why you give them a good backhander and tell them to knock it off or no tv for the rest of the day.

A says:

09:40am | 07/10/10

In what way, Alex ?

Reg says:

10:23am | 07/10/10

No it’s not Alex. It’s a whinge, a constructive comment would suggest an alternative.

I can see why the Greenies have this problem, everything in our environment is inter-related, it’s not possible to say what depleting the ocean of whales would do to the rest of the aquatic environment. Much like the GM argument. Actually I even wonder whether some of the GM objections are motivated by religious fundamentalists resenting interference with “gods design”. Who knows, some of the Greenies might be motivated by the same thing. There is no doubt that many farmers are religious fundamentalists.

Markus says:

09:33am | 07/10/10

Good to hear I’m not the only one.
I often find myself vehemently defending viewpoints on topics I do not actually give a stuff about, purely because of the arrogance of the person getting up in my face pronouncing X as morally wrong.

I was a shocker for it at uni especially, as it was a lot more difficult to avoid these wankers and their moral high horse on trendy issues (war in Iraq, vegetarianism, nuclear energy).

hellena says:

10:16am | 07/10/10

My latest fave pastime, when accosted by the highly annoying charity touts, normally lurking outside the Post Office, brandishing a clipboard and a handful of glossy brochures, and intoning, “Do you CARE about saving the environment/Tasmanian wilderness/Surf Lifesavers/whale slaughter/insert own irritating cause for which they are trying to solicit monthly direct debit donations” is to look them straight in the eye, and say, “No.” Pity they all recognise me now, I don’t even have to cross the road to avoid them. And yes, I agree with you Markus, university is so easy, it almost isn’t fun any more.

Lemo says:

11:26am | 07/10/10

I worried for a while about saying hello to kids or tapping them on the head as i walked past when all this rubbish came about. But found I get more out of acknowledging and seeing the look in their eyes that they have been acknowledged than any fear of being mistaken for a pedophile.
Im not going to alter my natural inclination to be open and friendly just because of a few fear mongers and you shouldnt have to either

Reg says:

09:29am | 07/10/10

Sorry Dom, I must disagree.

As one who used this ploy I can assure you it is the path to dismal failure. Having arrived at this decision from bitter experience, I was amazed and delighted to hear that in certain after-school centres, the use of the word NO, is completely and utterly banned.

The word NO cuts off communication and leaves no room for negotiation. There has to be a better way.

Actually the reminder of Bruce Ruxton brought a smile. His was an absolute portrayal of what’s wrong with using the word NO. Our own little Hitler. Immovable and dogmatic. Though I think even he may have seen the error of his ways later in his life.

Dom says:

10:33am | 07/10/10

@Reg,
Is it not the ability to use “self control” that protects us from ourselves and others?

Surely it is easier to not buy a Bratz doll, if that is your belief, than to attempt to stop or ban the sale and production of these and similar products?  Surely it is better to say no to the lifestyle beyond your means than drown in debt and misery overextending because you cannot say no to yourself?

Why waste time and effort attempting to control others, when self control acheives the same end? 

I agree the word No can halt communication to a degree, but isn’t that a small price to pay on certain topics,  in certain circumstances?

Humans are resilient, but this comes not from what is provided but from what is denied.  I agree you can reason with an older child, but there is nothing sadder than an adult attempting to bargain with a child who is yet to develop rationality.  It does the child no favours.  Life is not a bed of roses.  As the child becomes an adult they will be denied jobs, denied attention from certain objects of lust, denied a loan, or whatever.  That is reality.  Shouldn’t we be equiping our kids to deal and move on with resilience and strength?  That has to be easier than attempting to control all those they encounter in life from telling them No.

fairsfair says:

10:45am | 07/10/10

What about the use of no in a lighter sense when the situation presents itself? No thankyou, thankyou but know, I see what you are saying but no I don’t think, no you can’t play with fire Johnny because….

People are so used to the underuse of the word, when we hear it, we are actually shocked. Like when Tony was asked at Rooty Hill about increasing the GST. No. That is what we all wanted him to say - but then some people had issues with that and the majority were surprised by the frankness of comment. Which is something we apparently want from particularly, politicians.

No is a word that can be extrapolated and can not. It use in the singular NO - is a clear direction. What you are doing/saying is not allowed. But it can also be explained.

I am saddened to learn that the word is physically “banned” in some places. I can see it now at daycare. “Philip, please refrain from jamming that paintbrush into Tommy’s eye”. What is the world coming to? That is simply another application of bubblewrap.

Noooooooooooooooooo!

Reg says:

11:13am | 07/10/10

Dom I agree with a great deal of what you write. The problem is psychological. If we are going to show the child that the solution to a problem is to stand our ground vigorously demanding obedience, they too will adopt that which has been so clearly illustrated. They have to be shown that there are times when their expectations are reasonable and that at other times they are not. The only alternatives are NO or YES.  Hardly a productive approach.

Yes children are resilient and it’s fortunate they are because most parents, including myself, learn the hard way.  It’s difficult for an adult to be correctly patient with a child at all times, but in retrospect, I think a child should be brought up with joyful memories, not memories of resentment.

It’s difficult to be sure I’ve responded to all your ideas but the one about “wasting time” struck me. Such time is rarely wasted if we’re really concerned for our children and not merely placing a greater importance on something else. 

The gradual transition from parental supervision to teen freedom is also a minefield that has to be considered when laying the groundwork in the early lives of our children. Self-control comes from the example of their parents and how they show it in themselves. I have failed miserably at times and I believe that over-emphasis on the NO was one of the major areas of failure.

Reg says:

09:47am | 07/10/10

Bloody oath! I used to walk this 12 year old to the bus in Washington and someone had vomited in the disposal bin attached to the bus shelter.  It took me ages to work out it was HIM the day before when I’d put some Vegemite on his poached eggs. The poor little bastard. I sent him some Cheesybite recently to see if it helps him get over the trauma.  Howwwlllllll.

Tim says:

10:24am | 07/10/10

I’m a fair dinkum true blue cobber and am willing to admit:

I HATE VEGEMITE.

It is a disgusting and vile product.

The americans should use it as a torture technique at Guantanamo bay, the suspects would be singing like canaries after having to suffer eating vegemite.

Reg says:

12:15pm | 07/10/10

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C Tim, you’re not using enough butter. No excuses, you’ll keep trying this until the cows come home.

Actually I bet this is why KRAFT are messing with it. The yank owners can’t believe anyone would want to eat such vile muck. Philistines, it’s an outrage. I know it’s banned in some US states, or was, probably the same states that love their spray-on cheese.

marley says:

07:10pm | 07/10/10

Well, never mind, with the immigration rate to Australia, the non-vegemite brigade will eventually become the majority.  Since no one, no one, has ever in all of history developed a taste for vegemite after the age of five - the new Australians, who will eventually become the majority and who certainly regard vegemite as an offense to all that is fine and good in life, will ban it. 

I foresee a future of sleezy guys in dark coats flogging vegemite to kids in school grounds, or to overwrought commuters on trains.  And outraged little vegemites protesting at the loss of yet another Australian icon.

Well, I hope so, anyway.

Cooko says:

10:50am | 07/10/10

I don’t remember that one, but I just read it in a John Cleese voice and it made me smile.

Hats off to yer.

iansand says:

10:34am | 07/10/10

THey have a website with a photo of Prince Charles, so they must be real
http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/page.asp?PageID=105

Darren says:

12:23pm | 07/10/10

Membership of the Pedestrian Council of Australia Limited is by invitation of the Board of Directors to individuals and institutions having interests or concerns of like nature to those of the PCA.

fairsfair says:

12:09pm | 07/10/10

I haven’t seen much of Hetty Johnson since she went off at Kochie in a live cross one morning… She called him out on cutting of her time to comment on a serious matter because they were too busy playing their recorded version of the Black Eyed Peas “Where Is The Love”. She said he was all about “self promotion”. Him? That show? Never?

He snapped his fingers and she was gone. Clearly he was 1800 OFFENDED.

Zeta says:

01:11pm | 07/10/10

@ fairsfair - I am now busily googling a youtube link for that so I can laugh and point at Hetty Johnson.

She should be so lucky to book a gig at all. Many of the suburban households that tune into the populist pap Hetty gets a guernsy on have pets - and Hetty’s voice drives them mad. Your poor domestic cat doesn’t know if there’s going to a thunder storm or if Hetty Johnson is on the television.

fairsfair says:

03:23pm | 07/10/10

It was back at the “mild dislike though still tollerable” stage on my “Hatred of Sunrise-o-Meter”. So I would say maybe the latter half of 2006? She absolutely let fly and it was good fun. By early 2007 I had shifted to “extreme punch appeal” and it has got exponentially worse since then. The mind numbing ramblings of morning TV have not been present in my home for a very long time.

She certainly gives us bogans a bad name, but thinking back - I wish she had’ve layed into Kochie even more than she did.

I have also noticed that Michael Carr-Gregg wears far too much make up. Slightly off putting to say the least. You can’t listen to what he is saying for noticing that he has chosen the incorrect shade of foundation for his complexion.

Hamish says:

03:55pm | 07/10/10

Spot on Zeta, what happened to Hetty? She used to be Australia’s pre-eminent exponent of confected outrage, but I haven’t seen her for ages. I remember back in the day when they’d take her muzzle off and let her out of the kennel and she’d go ballistic. I think ‘child psychologist’ Michael Carr-Gregg has stolen her thunder.

fairsfair says:

08:37am | 08/10/10

I’m telling you Hamish - she yelled at Kochie. He snapped his fingers - she began her slow decent into oblivion.

I think we all underestimate the power of the Koch.

I can’t tollerate the site of the man - but he has the masses fooled.

Kate says:

01:43pm | 08/10/10

I feel so sorry for the patients of Michael Carr-Gregg, Alleged Psychologist. I’m amazed he finds any time to consult with patients given he must spend all day reading the papers and listening to the radio, desperately searching for something to be offended about.

Matt says:

11:33am | 07/10/10

Offended no… Amused, yes..

Schmavo says:

12:40pm | 07/10/10

Is there a bi-line in our constitution that says “legislate to eradicate stupidity”? It seems to me that’s the way we’re going.

And I agree with school zones….....90 minutes of school slow down time, when a crossing in lollipopped manned (or womanned) for 60 minutes for 90% of kids that get to school in a 10 minute window. OH&S to cater to the lowest common denominator…....ugghh

KH says:

12:54pm | 07/10/10

@Matt - I’m with you on that….....

Greg says:

01:12pm | 07/10/10

Completely agree Schmavo. If the RTA was managed by some people with sense they would observe that they are mostly unnecessary.

Wish we could vote about them or something.

Ask a stupid question says:

08:49am | 08/10/10

There are 15-20 school zones in just 30 kms, Mike T ? Where do you live ?

Fair enough, though. What’s a few kids’ lives compared to our anxiety and/or precious cash/points ?

Mike T says:

10:29am | 08/10/10

@ Ask a stupid question.

I live in the south and travel to North Ryde along king Georges road champ…have a look on the map champ i was actually being conservitive when noting the number of school zones for the 32km trip.

Am in no way devaluing the life of a child (of which i noted MANY times in my post) howevere i ask you at what point does it become silly or over the top??? if the value of the childs like takes precedent over all then would your solution be to ban cars between school times??? of course it woudlnt, but you can use this notion to understand that there is a point of going TO FAR in terms of what you legislate…. and i believe that the current rules have gone to far.

Thank you for your comment, you have certainly chosen an appropriate name

Ask a stupid question says:

01:24pm | 08/10/10

p.s. Who is “champ” ? You’re not trying to patronise me, are you, Mike T ?

Reg says:

08:17am | 11/10/10

I am outraged that I don’t understand what any of that means. Who should I blame?

Olga down there seems to see things that I don’t as well. Thank goodness we have details like 10/10/10 to bring us back to normality.

marley says:

07:16pm | 07/10/10

I am absolutely outraged that you see sexuality in these poses.

Trent says:

12:49pm | 07/10/10

What about television? Why is it okay to be a lazy parent and plonk your kid in front of a TV for hours a day instead of reading to them, or playing with them?

There are many things that are damaging to children - a catalogue which has a predominate readership of adults is something we should be least concerned about.

How about the complete and utter reliance on technology. The fact that most kids can’t even spell at a level that kids of an equivalent age 10 years could. The fact that kids spend more time on the computer, and watching TV than they do socialising and spending time with their parents (who are supposed to be positive role models).

Parents need to wake up. The more time they spend complaining, the less time they are spending with their children. How about spending that time teaching your child that it’s not important that they have the latest games, or clothes, or gadgets, instead of this half-arsed approach that people call parenting these days.

You raise the issue of anxiety, and childhood depression/confusion - perhaps parents could spend 10 minutes for every 30 minutes of TV they allow their children to watch educating them about the reality of what their watching, so they don’t believe it’s real!

It’s easier to pass judgement, and externalise blame - you should know about externalisation Ms/Mr Psychotherapist - than it is to accept personal responsibility as a parent and educator.

Reg says:

12:42pm | 07/10/10

Stop whinging, what’s that got to do with a high fibre diet anyway? Oh sorry that’s Brad.

Brad Coward says:

02:25pm | 07/10/10

Reg, people who enjoy a high fibre diet are generally happier and more tolerant because there is less C**P in their system !

Reg says:

04:41pm | 07/10/10

True, nothing worse than consti-bloody-pation, that’s something to whinge about. Then there’s Go-lightly which I hear is terror in a glass, like s***ing sawdust to the accompaniment of a circular saw. That’s gotta be good. The second movement would be a high-colonic in molto-agitato I suppose, instead of the usual slow calming movement..

Reg says:

11:27pm | 07/10/10

An interesting thought, except for the telly. They probably didn’t have old people either seeing life expectancy in those days was about 29 or something. So that makes whinging old codgers a modern phenomenon as well. I don’t remember being a child but I can remember things from when I was three or four.

Missy says:

07:42am | 08/10/10

I think there is something wrong with you if the only places you are looking for outfits for little girls make them look sexualised.  I would suggest you get out of Supre and look in stores that sell actual childrens cloths.  Seriously get your hand off it Melanie.

Kate says:

01:46pm | 08/10/10

Try Target, plenty of tracky dacks/jumpers/shorts/dresses there that are perfectly normal.
Myer’s kids department is pretty classy too.

I agree with you, there are some kids’ clothes that are absolutely disgraceful (high heel boots in childrens’ sizes, mini-skirts etc) but there are definitely some more normal clothes out there.

Melanie says:

01:55pm | 08/10/10

Missy it was target and Big W, and Kmart that had the little slut outfits lol, can you name me one store that does sell nice little clothing for little girls instead of trying to dress them way older than they are. They had baby outfits with text telling us little girls are sexy. So dont tell me I should get my hand off it, you should get your glasses out missy.