Prev
Next

Politics and religion: now OK to discuss at dinner (mostly)

Damien Leith

by Damien Leith

30 Apr 05:50am

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Politics, Religion, Society

50 comments

I had a chuckle recently when I read about the scandal ahead of Pope Benedict’s September visit to the UK.

Dinner parties can be nerve wracking enough without politics

A young civil servant, after a brainstorming session with a group of junior officers in the UK Foreign Office, sent an email outlining suggestions for the “Ideal Pope visit”, such as opening an abortion clinic and launching a range of “Benedict” condoms.

This sparked outrage and of course, an immediate apology.

But the list of suggestions read like Tom Cruise’s Mission Statement in Jerry Maguire and resembled the kind of truth some people speak when they’ve had too much to drink – totally unprofessional and disrespectful.

As I continued to read, I nervously sniggered as I remembered the old saying that politics and religion should never be discussed in polite company. I wonder how much that applies today. Is it still true or are there limits to what we can or will honestly discuss?

Western politics are not what they used to be. I’m sure that deals are still conducted under the table and that all sorts of corruption still exists but hiding these things is not as simple as it once was.

Take this week’s “bigoted woman” gaffe by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown– something as simple leaving your microphone on has potentially changed the course of his current re-election campaign.

A traditional gentleman’s agreement or a hefty pay off is no longer a guarantee that things will disappear or alternatively, work in your favour.

The internet has helped to expose a more diverse range of political views and activities and it’s clear that people have no fears about speaking up. 

The anonymity of the web allows people to discuss all of their opinions and conspiracies from the comfort of their laptop, separate from those who either agree or disagree with them. Unlike times gone by when a heated political debate might lead to fists flying or worse still death, now it can end at the pressing of an off switch. This is healthy – the internet allows those opinions to be shared. It’s like conducting a peaceful protest from your armchair.

Politicians love this new medium too: it’s a new and cheap vehicle for canvassing and spreading both policies and rumours. Competition is always fierce in a popularity contest and conquering the internet is now a vital ingredient for any campaign.

Everyone wants a more honest brand of politics and after years of protests, wars, strikes and the arrival of the internet, not to mention brave journalism, you could argue that that in some ways politics is finally heading that way.

But what about religion, is it as transparent as politics, can we discuss it with greater ease these days?

Most people are aware that religion is a highly sensitive topic. Most religions are based on belief in something greater than ourselves, something divine that we’ve learnt through teachings, prophecies and sacred documents. Belief is extremely powerful; it is something that many people have been willing to die to defend.

Faith can bind a faction or nation, create common rules to live by, give hope and at the same time, instil fear. Fear is especially powerful, particularly the fear of the unknown. Not a wonder that over the years, at a common level, people rarely questioned the actions or rulings of their faith.

There is enough historical evidence to confirm that across all major religions and movements in the past, going against ones faith often had serious repercussions – it still does today.  But certainly in some major movements this trend has started to change.

A lot has changed in the last 100 years and there are now more defined lines between people’s beliefs and those who teach and govern them. Unlike many years ago, people are starting to feel more confident that they can still have a firm faith in a deity or an ultimate truth but at the same time question some of its teachings.

Topics like sexuality, women, contraception and abortion are now finally being openly discussed from a religious perspective. That said, despite this increasing vocalisation within religions – where matters don’t directly concern us, many people remain tight lipped about their faith.

Politics is something we own, we created it and have a right to discuss and change it. Religion on the other hand is still something surrounded by mystery, so much of it relies on our acceptance of facts that often we cannot prove. Our options are to either believe the sceptics or accept the teachings of our faith.

Is that old maxim about not discussing politics or religion in polite society changing? It seems so. But total transparency and openness on issues – be it in politics or religion – has proved impossible.

This total transparency is the ideal of many and something that could potentially resolve the world’s problems. But would it? Where is the line now on what can and can’t be discussed in polite society?

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook and Twitter.

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

50 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Daddio D says:

      07:56am | 30/04/10

      Good questions raised by Damien. Where I come from, the local pub is the main place for socialising and discussions, not the dinner table. Many pubs ban debates on politics, religion and sex. We’re left with Women, Men and Sport or staring at the pub TV screen and we all know how boring those topics are. Women bitch about what clothes some other woman is wearing and men snitch on what women do or don’t do.  We might put up with noisy music or crap DJ stuff for a while but end up singing to drown out both. We rarely discuss the media topics and what their journalists publish because they’re all a bunch of self-ingratiating wimps anyway.

      Dinner table chats are much more entertaining – we talk of family, family events and family funny moments and egg each other on to another funny comment to be remembered at the next dinner. That way we have more laughs and enjoyment. If it’s a business dinner or lunch, we might talk business for a while but that’s boring too and we soon move onto more important things – like how bad our bosses are at making decisions. Who needs politics, religion or the media topics over dinner? Such things destroy a good meal and invite gacks, especially over the writings of journo hacks.

      Who’d want to spoil a polite dinner with puke?

      Reply

    • H of SA says:

      02:23pm | 30/04/10

      There are pubs that try to tell you what you can talk about? Do they get any custormers what so ever?

    • Ildiko says:

      06:57pm | 30/04/10

      This is an interesting comment. In my culture all people are “political analysts” even some women have excellent thoughts. There these topics are discussed in every pub without taboo. Even the issue of religion is hot theme because all abrahamic religions have lost their authenticity.

    • Daddio D says:

      04:24am | 01/05/10

      H of SA - *chuckling* Nah, the purpose of ‘banning’ such topics is really to stop people getting into overheated discussions, thus making a noisy pub more noisy! Of course we discuss politics, religion etc but only in passing.

    • JJJ says:

      08:09am | 30/04/10

      It is nice to be able to discuss controversial issues with anonymity - mostly so we don’t get stabbed or beaten to death. We can get a true gauge of how others feel on issues without worrying about our personal safety.

      The internet is changing the way we can put forward our views. However, while I could ‘poke’ you on Facebook (although who knows why), I am unlikely to do it in “real life”. Just as I could put forward my view on politics and/or religion with a total stranger on ‘Punch’, I am fairly unlikely to walk up to a stranger in the street and discuss these issues.

      Reply

    • Delphic Oracle says:

      08:14am | 30/04/10

      Faith denies reality, therefore, religion is unreal. But a great dinner party discussion!

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      08:57am | 30/04/10

      How do you know reality? Through your faith in science, perhaps?

    • Daddio D says:

      10:24am | 30/04/10

      Huh huh! Some great dinner party companion you would make with that sort of comment! Bleurrrrgh! You’d make me gack. grin

    • Chris L says:

      09:06am | 30/04/10

      I once lost a long term friendship over a political discussion. I found out later that she had other “issues” on her mind at the time and we’re friends again, but that’s how emotional politics can get.

      Religion is even worse. So much as make a joke about Muhamed and there will be people wanting to kill you. As an atheist I try to avoid discussing my views on religion with people since it is so sensitive a topic, but I have to wonder how strong people’s faith is when they get so upset when faced with criticism.

      Reply

    • Daddio D says:

      10:53am | 30/04/10

      Chis L - As an atheist you don’t have any knowing comment to offer on religion. How’s that for criticism? Or else you know religion exists and therefore can’t call yourself an atheist. You might also note that yr post name is Christian-based. Explain that? pls?  *Yawn - Bored already* When is the next dinner party?

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:52am | 30/04/10

      @Daddio D

      “As an atheist you don’t have any knowing comment to offer on religion.”
      As a human, you cannot say that ducks exist. Sound reasonable?

      “You might also note that yr post name is Christian-based. Explain that? pls?”
      It’s a name. Do you assume everyone who uses the term ‘Friday’ worships the pagan love goddess Frigg.

    • Ellie says:

      02:04pm | 30/04/10

      Daddio D - perhaps you’d like to explain why christians use the word Hell, when it comes from the nordic goddess of death?

    • Chris L says:

      06:38pm | 30/04/10

      And therein lies the difficulty in arguing religion. The pro religion arguments seem so easy to counter it almost feels unfair.

    • Gail says:

      09:30pm | 30/04/10

      Ellie, because we anglicised the hebrew words “Sheol, Gehenna, Hades ” when it was translated into English.

    • Daddio D says:

      05:40am | 01/05/10

      @ Steely Dan – I don’t know if ducks exist. People just use that expression to describe some bird that paddles, waddles, swims and flies (impossible to do all at same time). Reminds me of a story a friend of mine told about a friend of his who worked in a zoo. One morning the keepers found an ape in a distraught state. On checking they were aghast and said “OMG! Someone’s raped the ape!” A few days later, they found a duck distraught by the lakeshore. What did they say?? (Oh go on, go on – say it - “OMG! Someone’s f*d the duck!) Nope – you’d be wrong: it was a mistake, ‘was a drake. Next joke please, your turn now – (OMG! This dinner food is deeelicyumptious).

    • Daddio D says:

      05:44am | 01/05/10

      @ Ellie – I didn’t invent the word Hell, I can’t explain it and I don’t know what it’s called in any language outside of Norse or English. It just happens to be known as the place where unrepentant evil people (including those who reject God) end up forever and ever after their lives on earth. A description of hell was given by Lucia, one of the three Marian visionaries of Fatima (a village in Portugal) to whom The Lady of Fatima showed a sight of:
      “(It was)...  a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened and burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant and (if it were not for Our Lady being with us)... we would have died of fear and terror. Our Lady said to us then: You’ve seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go”.
      Jacinta, one of the other two visionaries later said “Oh Hell! How sorry I am for the souls who go to hell. And the people there, burning alive like wood in the fire!”
      I guess the above should make for a good dinner conversation! Enjoy the meal amid the chat on that.

    • Steely Dan says:

      05:46pm | 01/05/10

      Then again, inviting discourse on anything might put you into contact with Daddio D.

    • Kenny says:

      09:29am | 30/04/10

      Topic aside… congratulations to Damien…  he is certainly not your average Idol contestant/winner in contributing articles like the above…

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:27pm | 30/04/10

      That’s harsh, Kenny.  I thought Ricki-Lee’s article on 16th-century Baroque art’s influence on neo-Marxist feminism was superb.

    • Metey says:

      01:26am | 01/05/10

      Oh, steely Dan, that’s flippin hysterical!!!!.....

    • Zeta says:

      10:37am | 30/04/10

      Politics and religion are the only things worth talking about. JJJ, you should try talking about them to random strangers. It’s enlightening. Last night, I was at my local, when I struck up a conversation with an old bloke at the bar - we went from an argument over whose desalination plant was bigger - Israel’s or Sydney’s - to a one hour yack on our differing views concerning Zionist ultra-nationalism and the future of a Jewish state.

      I wonder what kind of lives people lead who don’t talk about politics and religion. It just seems boring. There is a trend emerging amongst twenty somethings in my neighbourhood to throw lavish dinner parties on weeknights, and they’re all very nice, except by the time some recently hitched shrew whips up the desert, all they’re talking about is Justin Bieber, their boring jobs, and reality television shows they watch to define their lives.

      This is where the previous generation has it over us. In paticular, first and second generation immigrants. Whilst talking about politics and faith are taboo in our culture, for European and many Middle Eastern immigrants, it’s an important part of their lives. For the best coffee and conversation in Australia, you can’t go past Sydney’s Five Dock, where you can sit out on the street, smoke, drink the best Turkish coffee you’ll ever taste, and talk about Marx until you need a nicotine / caffine detox.

      That’s why I wish I could speak French. In Paris, you sit on a boulevard, chain smoking Gauloises, talking about anarchism, immigration, the myriad failings of the EU and the barbarism of Americans all while openly gawking at beautiful women, who are genuinely appreciative of the attention.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      11:37am | 30/04/10

      You can still get that ‘goodol’days’ Marxism at the Chippendale Hotel.(well, five years ago).
      And everyone there has a nickname. No identification please.Painters and Dockers.
      Some time ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, conversation, here, anywhere, was not limited to jeff’s new ute or carl williams.
      Politics and religion is the only thing to talk about. Always has been.

    • Daddio D says:

      12:18pm | 30/04/10

      I walked into a baker’s shop the other day. I asked for a Gateaux cake, pronouncing it in my lingo “Gatix”.  “Ah, you mean Gato”, says he in his best Australian French, with a whiff of his finger towards his quiff’d moustachioed nose.  I was miffed!  A few minutes later, within which I seethed over his correction of my bad French, he came back to the counter with the cake. That will be x amount of money, he says, nodding his head smilingly and saying with a *nod and nod* “Merci, thank you”. I paid the money and said “Thank you, you Bollo”. Talk about Lost in Translation again please?

    • Harquebus says:

      11:32am | 30/04/10

      They still say the Lord’s prayer at the beginning of each parliament. Considering that religious people are not capable of making sane or rational decisions, says it all for me.

      Reply

    • Nickk says:

      10:22pm | 02/05/10

      “Considering that religious people are not capable of making sane or rational decisions.”

      That was one of the most irrational statements I’ve ever heard.

    • Craig Lambie says:

      11:51am | 30/04/10

      Damien,

      Well done, I think I have to agree with you.  @Zeta Paris, Europe in general, people get off on talking about life…. and politics is a major part of life..
      Here is Australia, we baulk at politics, sex and religion (still).  I love talking about it, and in fact have started to mingle with some political types so I can.

      Hanging about with people that can only talk about themselves and have no idea about the greater world around them, well it is outright boring.  If the only life outside your own you can talk about is… well yours to be honest.. the reality shows and the like that people watch to have something to talk about that is essentially trivial… it really gets me going.

      I love to talk about, comment and write about real life, that is politics and religion, debate it, enjoy it and live in it.
      If you want to talk about some tv reality show, then don’t come to my dinner party.
      @Daddio D I am saddened that your local disallows talk about anything interesting.  I am sure you can show them the way, by not going there!

      Reply

    • Daddio D says:

      04:17am | 01/05/10

      Craig - I don’t go to my local anymore than necessary. I stay at home and chat w/ myself; much more interesting grin

    • Daddio D says:

      06:00am | 01/05/10

      @ Craig - You’re right, I don’t go there often. Mostly I stay at home and argue with myself. Much more interesting.

    • Daddio D says:

      05:13am | 03/05/10

      See? - there I go chatting to meself… No disputes between me and meself.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:54am | 30/04/10

      I get frustrated when people suggest that politics and religion are somehow taboo.  If we can’t openly discuss these topics, we are not civilised.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:58am | 30/04/10

      What, the ACL doesn’t run Australia yet?

      Reply

    • David says:

      06:41pm | 30/04/10

      Hah! Yeah they just found out their rapport with Conroy was not politically expedient for Rudd.

    • Idiodorob says:

      12:13pm | 30/04/10

      Hey

      Really glad to get into this forum
      It’s what I am looking for.
      Hope to know more member here.

      Reply

    • A Bob says:

      01:06pm | 30/04/10

      The Internet affords us the opportunity to speak safely about a great many things. But, fear not, Senator Conroy is laying the foundation stone that will eventually stop this aberration.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      11:42am | 01/05/10

      Yes, children can soon be put in front of a computer and parents won’t need to even remember they exist for all will be safe and well thanks to the big Con-roy. I bet those paedophiles are shaking in their boots at the thought of not being able to google child porn like they could before…

    • David says:

      06:52pm | 30/04/10

      I for one am glad religion and politics are almost fair game at dinner parties now however it still needs to be a gauged conversation topic. Often people change the topic to something more mundane and ultimately less important (what could be more important than the fates of our immortal souls or the political movements of our leaders?).

      As someone who holds a passion for religion, politics, science and philosophy but ultimately only professionally employed as a scientist I find it frustrating to no end when someone simply states their belief as a belief in order to end the conversation. As if their beliefs in unprovable and unsupported positions are just as valid as anyone else’s perspectives on the nature of the universe, regardless of the demonstrable evidence for scientific knowledge.

      In the free market of ideas religion gets no free ride where logical fallacies are bouncing cheques.

      Reply

    • Ally says:

      08:57pm | 01/05/10

      David, I share your frustration. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who has blind faith and no evidence to support their arguments other than “it is written in the Bible”. And the funny thing is that they think we (non believers) are all going to Hell when we die… but someone like Carl Williams (a Catholic) will float up to Heaven… go figure!

    • Nin says:

      07:12pm | 11/07/10

      @Ally On the same token, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who is so convinced that if you choose to belong to a religion you have blind faith.  Give and take in every conversation, most importantly, agree to disagree.

    • Daddio D says:

      07:25am | 01/05/10

      “Make conversation such that you can discuss honestly over a pint in a bar or have a row about over the dinner table”. So said Gerry Ryan, one of Irish radio and TV’s controversial stars who didn’t turn up for work for his 9am ‘Gerry Ryan Show’ on Irish radio today (30 Apr 2010). His radio colleagues, who did the previous two hours radio show, hung on air for another hour ‘til things were checked out. Gerry was found dead, alone in his apartment later in the day, 53yrs of age. Gerry always talked religion, politics and sex on his breakfast radio show. He’ll be greatly missed. RIP.

      Reply

    • Ryder says:

      11:10am | 01/05/10

      The only thing to discuss in polite company is property prices and how they can only go up.

      Australia doesn’t have any politics of any worth to discuss. A mad Jesuit and a wizened up mandarin speaking chinese sycophant.

      Wake up australia!

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      01:57pm | 01/05/10

      May be it is time we did away with ALL organized religion as it is a form of control and division, and just be respectful of others point of view while giving yours.Don’t know what we could do about politics !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

      Reply

    • notSue says:

      04:21pm | 01/05/10

      Yet another fascinating article Damien.

      I agree with the notion that politics, religion and philosophy are the cornerstones of intelligent, thought- provoking conversation and dinner table conversations, life in general. is boring if we don’t discuss them. I guess the trick is to be aware of and be prepared for the repercussions if heated arguments ensue! haha! These subjects are apt to produce them because people hold views that are often intractable and are unable to be swayed by argument, no matter how logical.
      It always makes me laugh when atheists try to ‘convert’ people of faith with logic. Faith is not dependent on it. Quite the opposite, in fact. These clashes are doomed from the beginning, but it can be fun to sit on the sidelines and watch the battle! haha! And I definitely agree we should be discussing the philosophical and ethical issues that religion bases it’s edicts to followers upon, whether in person or on the net.

      Politics can produce similar reactions, but our national debate is around two main parties that have very little to separate them and is therefore often indecipherable to foreigners. They do not understand the ideological differences which underpin them. I often wonder how many of us do as well!

      Timing is everything, I guess, as you are all too aware.

      Cheers.

      Reply

    • Bev says:

      06:35pm | 01/05/10

      Hi Damien ... thanks for starting the debate - Madeleine Albright discussed this topic in her last book ... she grew up in a world that said Religion is a private matter and thanks to sixties scholar Michael Novak - it should not be talked about .... she chose reason over religion.  After 9/11 she and all the other foreign policy makers had to take another look at the new world ... it wasn’t new because of 9/11 it was new because they were suddenly seeing things the way they really were - through a new lens.  She realised that religion is a big topic that will never go away and that it is important for leaders to study it ... she also realised that Novak was wrong and that religion is talked about ALL the time and all over the world ... to say it is a form of control and division is just the same old form of old ignorance ... time to wake up to the new world people and try to see it properly

      Reply

    • Jasper says:

      07:13pm | 01/05/10

      Another great thought provoking article Damien.

      I enjoy your writing style.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen says:

      02:00am | 02/05/10

      I think that the idea is golden, give the cheeky bugger a raise! !

      Reply

    • seo lace says:

      10:59pm | 02/05/10

      I can’t read your pagye in SeaMonkey .7, I just htought I might lst you know?

      Reply

    • Daddio D says:

      06:21am | 03/05/10

      @ notSue and @ Bev (01/05) – I agree that politics, religion and philosophy are worthy topics over dinner. Ms Albright and her kind woke up to the importance of religion too late and over 9/11 found that politics and religion can be intricately entwined. Unfortunately, mostly the topics are not ‘debated’ but the scandals surrounding them are. Personally I throw in topics like geographical world disasters and science too. The most mentioned topic anywhere is always the weather… you can’t be impolite with that. Sometimes I talk endlessly of my far-flung travels, especially amongst company that hasn’t travelled; great for one-upmanship.

      Reply

    • Daddio D says:

      06:27am | 03/05/10

      Steely Dan is right - no getting away from this Daddio on imortant topics that most ppl shy from. Anyway, when you look at the responses to topics on many discussion websites, you find that the Entertainment sections contain most comments. That surely tells where most people’s interests lie. So why isn’t it debated over polite dinners? Maybe we’re afraid to speak of Miley Cyrus or Jedward, thus letting the polite fellow-diners know that that’s the height of our interests – or exposing their complete ignorance, and your uppity knowledge, of who these people are.

      BTW – the punch asked in a recent article “How much abuse can you take from the Church?” I suggest a new dinner topic: “How much financial abuse can you take from Entertainers?” – Or – “How much money do you give to Entertainers each year (via purchases of CDs, DVDs, concert tickets etc)?” - (Are we really so stupid as to make them extremely wealthy for so little effort on their part?) And then follow that up with the next question “How much, do you give to restaurants, pubs…?” And then throw in the conversation killer “How much do you give to charitable causes, by comparison?”

      Watch out for shamed eyes darting away from the question, or possibly darts in your eye from the host. Not polite questions… but eminently debateable.

      I suspect that Damien’s readers will discuss his topic over polite dinners above with relish (pardon the pun).

      Reply

    • Daddio D says:

      06:33am | 03/05/10

      Or you could talk over lunch or dinner in Australia with delight over Australia having its first ever finalist (Neil Roberston) in the World Championship Snooker Final in England (staring about now) and the controversy breaking about current World Snooker Champion, John Higgins, being banned from all future snooker competitions after he was secretly filmed agreeing to bribes to ‘lose’ frames in upcoming matches. He’s denied it, of course. The denial is superbly written and I’m sure it will make headlines in Russia too.

      Reply

    • David says:

      10:04am | 03/05/10

      Perhaps if you knew of just one of the ten year old boys sodomised by priests,  it would be more appropriate never to promote,  by discussion,  religion, the pope or gods.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed