PS: This is the same Advent Calendar as last year. Merry Christmas anyway.
Here is an extract from my book, MELAND published in 2013. It not only explains changes to our western culture, but also the trends in politics. Look at the cover (below). It says it all. Who do you think is waving the ME flag now?
The Me-Me mindset swamped mainstream culture when political parties abandoned trying to build a better society in favour of ‘building a better you’. In his article, ‘Blahspeak’ in the London Review of Books , Stefan Collini commented, ‘Politicians of all parties are committed to giving the aspirational society more of what it is thought to aspire to’. Today, just over 50 years after JFK’s Ask-Not-What-Your-Country-Can-Do-For-You 1961 inaugural address, politicians seduce voters with the What-We-(if-elected)-Will-Do-for-You! Promises. Moreover, voters expect fiscal lerv to be spread their way with every election, every budget, every bailout, and every cutback.
Why should I care if some in our culture choose to believe they are ‘the most significant Pole Star in their own universe’? I care because their egocentric ways are having a significant impact on me and mine, you and yours and on our culture. The first 12-year-old to turn up at a Grade 6 Graduation wearing make up, a designer frock and professionally-styled hair in a chauffeur-driven stretch limo with snakeskin seat covers puts pressure on all parents of Grade 6 students. At first we are shocked by the crass ostentation of it all and then we get used to it. This is Ostentation Creep and I strongly object to our culture turning into a mindless Look-at-Me Fest. I more-than strongly object to the Hollywoodification of our culture and the Red Carpet Strutting Celebration of Mediocrity (Grade 6 students don’t even have to know their times tables to graduate):
Now I shout it from the highest hill,
I am truly over this ego overkill!!
(These lines could be sung to the tune of Secret Love performed by Doris Day in Calamity Jane, 1954.)
The problem with MeLanders is there is no WE in their vocabulary. No country. No community. No neighbourhood. Parents, who provide stretch limos for their 12-year-olds aren’t thinking about other–perhaps, less fortunate–parents of students at the school whose income can’t stretch to limos. MeLanders don’t think about anyone else. They don’t acknowledge anyone sitting beside them in a theatre or near them in a restaurant. They park on pedestrian crossings; they talk on their mobile phones doing one-handed U-turns from kerbside parking spaces; they don’t even believe anyone has the right to drive a car at the speed limit in front of them in traffic; they tailgate the car ahead. ‘Get outa my way! I’m in a hurry.’
The concept of co-operative living (or driving) has hardly been embraced in the West. I could tut-tut and point the finger-of-scorn at our contempt for the extended family, the high divorce rates and the increasing number of us choosing to live alone, but co-operative living barely exists within the family itself these days. Spread around the house in their own rooms with their own TVs and computers and eating meals at different times, family members lead separate parallel lives, each isolated in their own Me-World.
Read more here. Yeah! Yeah! It’s Amazon. Authors are funny like that.
I wrote this for Independent Australia. The Sex-Life Stasi actually exist. And, unfortunately, they are after Same Sex couples too. See the end of the article for an update.
Did we get lost on the way home from the Sexual Revolution? The answer has to be ‘Yes’. Here we are merrily working our way into a new millennium and the government is still acting like some prim regulatory great aunt tut-tutting on and on about personal relationships. Isn’t it time we dumped the Marriage Act?
Let’s start with the same-sex marriage kerfuffle. I totally understand why couples of any gender combination would want regulatory acknowledgement and kinship rights. But do not imagine for one minute that all Gays, Lesbians and others not included in the previous categories will vote for same sex marriage if the plebiscite ever manages to limp into voting booths in Australia. And here are the reasons why?
The young same-sex couples will, I suspect, want legal acknowledgement and all the romance and glamour of a wedding. But once the certificate has been signed, the cake cut, the confetti swept up and the wedding dress or outfit stowed and turning stale with age, the idea of being legally married loses its gloss. Imagine we’ve leapt over our coy electoral reluctance and you belong to a same sex couple now legally married and about to apply for a pension. Currently, two Gay males living together will receive two single pensions. This amounts to, currently, $797.90 each a fortnight. If that couple marries when they apply for a pension they will receive $601.50 each a fortnight. Even the most dedicated Gay Rights activist has to consider self-interest when the end-of-earning-life stage is just over the horizon. Each of those extra dollars counts. Ditto for unemployment benefits. The current payment to a single citizen without children is $578.20 per fortnight. But a partnered citizen with no children – note the Department of Human Services wording – is entitled to only $477.70 a fortnight. That’s 100 bucks each less a fortnight. When you are counting pennies 100 dollars counts.
Some pension-aged married heterosexual couples have tried to separate by dubious means – say, using a false address – to get those extra dollars. And they could, if found out, end up in front of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and be asked to give the overpayment back. But this is not the end of such indignities.
We have Common Law marriages in Australia. A Common Law marriage – once called a defacto relationship – applies to couples who are living together and present to family and friends as a married couple. Currently, the Gay couple above may* never be questioned on their married status even if they lived together and therefore they are entitled to the full pension or unemployment benefits. But once the Same Sex Marriage Act is introduced they will be living in a Common Law marriage and therefore only eligible for a married couples pension or dole. It gets worse.
If that couple owns two houses the situation edges into the murky mud of a legal quagmire. If they share the same main address they are deemed to be a Common Law couple then that second house should be subject to Land Tax. Why should only married couples pay Land Tax on a second property? So our government is really interested in how many sleeps you have at your partner’s house as this might turn you into a Common Law married couple. And how many sleeps a week is that? Is this what we want? A government that insists on knowing how many sleeps we have with our partners? Do we really want the Sex-Life Stasi snooping around our lives?
Currently, many heterosexual couples are in this legally dicy limbo. These are the post-divorce couples with two houses and sleep overs. The Australian Institute of Family Studies calls them LATs. (Living Apart Togethers) There are, at the last count, 1.1 million LATs in Australian. And the Tax Office is interested in their relationship. Are they a Common Law couple? Do they claim the single pension rate? Should they pay Land Tax on the second house? There is another alarming legal time-bomb for this post-divorce-with-sleepovers heterosexual couple. If one partner dies the other partner’s offspring can make a claim on the deceased’s will regarding assets, super, whatever.
Meanwhile, the current Marriage Act is making fools of all heterosexual couples and it has been doing so for years. We go to the chapel or park or beach or wherever to sign a legal document we have never read. What are your legal obligations when you sign that marriage certificate? I think most of us haven’t got a clue.
We should scrap the Marriage Act. All individuals should receive the same legal rights regarding financial benefits. The government can produce a standard marriage contract and couples of any gender can opt in. Or couples can draw up their own private contract. Many already use a binding Pre-Nuptial Agreement, but it mostly applies to financial arrangements. This contract should spell out all obligations. Finances will be shared in this way. This marriage will be one which, hopefully, produces and raises children. Or not. Young women today can end up in Common Law relationships or even legal marriages assuming that they will have children, but as soon as she hears the loud ticking of the biological clock and puts pressure on him, he’s outa there. I’ve known women in this situation. She’s made assumptions that weren’t in his contract. Even a clause stipulating that children will be reared in Australia might help clarify intent.
When going to the chapel, or wherever, is not the time to read the contract, but it should be in writing and carefully read before the big day. We might be fools in love, but if we scrap the Marriage Act and use private marriage contracts and make entitlements equal for every Australian citizen, living together or not, at least, when we marry we know our legal obligations and the government won’t become the Sex-Life Stasi making fools of us all.
*I have corrected the article to read ‘may never’ instead of ‘would never’ because I have found out that the Sex-Life Stasi do, indeed, investigate the relationship status of same-sex couples even though there is, currently, no proof of that relationship in the form of a marriage certificate. A Facebook status, maybe. From 1 July 2009 changes to social security and family assistance legislation mean that all couples are recognised, regardless of the gender of a partner. And be warned, your family and friends can be called as witnesses in front of the Administrative appeals Tribunal. So, currently, Australia has the hypocritical stance that self-declaring Same Sex couples will be recognised as a Common Law couple and, where applicable, paid less benefits, but they cannot legally marry.
My daughter found a video marked ‘Kerry. Don’t tape over’ in my mother’s handwriting at the back of a cupboard last week. Sadly, my mother has been dead for over 20 years. We don’t have a VCR player anymore. My daughter bought one for $20 on Gumtree.
The tape contained TV interviews. Kerry with Ray Martin. Kerry with Steve Vizard. etc. I was astounded to see my younger SELF of 30 years ago. I was in my thirties. (The pic above is 10 years old). All I can remember was hating going on TV. I was SELF CRITICAL of everything. My looks. What I said. What I didn’t say.
Keep in mind this was live TV. You are often told what to wear, what to say, what not to say. And there was the audience too. I wanted to please them all, the anonymous THEY. But don’t we all do that all too often. Shouldn’t we ask ourselves sometimes ‘who exactly am I trying to please here?’
And why? Why did I care about THEM? Why didn’t I just please myself? See for yourself:
When you arrived at the old Channel 9 studios in Bendigo St, Richmond, and walked into reception on your way to a morning show interview or live cross, the receptionist would ring through to some studio lackey announcing ‘the talent’s here’. That’s how much the TV studio staff cared about performers. No name. Just THE TALENT. The carpark had a sign that read ‘PARKING FOR STAFF AND TALENT’.
I always imagined the Channel 9 carpark teaming of jugglers, violinists and ballerinas on their way to and from some show.
Working for newspapers, publishers and radio shows I did not come under pressure of having to worry about the ANONYMOUS THEY. This pressure to perform or conform only applied to TV, a visual media. But we are all in the visual (social) media today in some form or other.
I ask again ‘who are you trying to please, impress or entertain?’ I was so critical of myself 30 years ago. Here are some more clips from the vault. And 30 years ago I was so critical of myself because I worried too much about the ANONYMOUS THEY.
Judge for yourself.
While doing reasearch for a novel on American Gun Culture I discovered that following the Dunblane School mass-shooting in Scotalnd in 1996 (16 children and 1 teacher killed) the UK banned handguns totally. Following the Port Arthur mass-shooting in 1996 (35 killed) Australia banned all automatic and equivalent rifles and pump action shot guns. Other countries are not so fortunate.
A friend once commented to me that being a soldier is just a job. Moreoever, they know the risks involved when they enlist, so why do we make such a fuss on ANZAC DAY?
Being an accountant is a job, a perfectly resonable job, but accountants do not risk their lives, they do not get shot at for simply turning up for work. Being a member of the Armed Services is NOT JUST A JOB. And here is the reason why:
A TRIBUTE FOR ANZAC DAY
Kerry Cue
Herald Sun, 23rd April, 2002.
I am an Australian soldier. I fought in the First World War. We called this war the Great War. We couldn’t believe there’d be another. Britain was at war. So we were too. That’s how it was, then, in Australia.
Thousands of us lads put down farm and other tools and joined up for the adventure, for a lark. But it was no lark. Gallipoli was our baptism into the bloodletting insanity of this war. We lost mates. Those lads of just 19 and 20 were buried where they fell on the sands of Damascus and in the fields of Villers-Bretonneux. But the insanity persisted. We lived misery in the trenches. When the insane call came to go over the top into No-man’s land, we went.
But don’t call me a hero. I am just an ordinary lad. I put on a uniform. I went to war. And I stuck by my mates. That’s all I did. I stuck by my mates.
Later, on the first ANZAC Day 4,000 of us marched through the Domain in Sydney. But the crowd did not treat us like conquering heroes. There were no cheers, just a few handclaps. They stood in silent awe of the spirit of the ANZACS.
I am an Australian soldier. I fought in the Second World War. I went to the Middle East. At Damascus and El Alamein we fought in the merciless glare of the desert sun. We were cut off at Tobruk, undermanned and under supplied, we dug in and held on. The Germans called us the ‘Rats of Tobruk’.
Then Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. And suddenly the war front was heading for Australia. Singapore fell. We became prisoners of war and saw some of our mates, young boys, tortured, beaten, starved and beheaded. We survived. Just.
But the fight for Australia had begun. Weary and diseased, we fought the Japs step by slippery step back along the treacherous paths of the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea. And we stopped them getting to Port Morseby. We stopped them getting a foothold in New Guinea and clear access to Australia. Then as the tides of war turned we fought them inch by bloody inch back through the Pacific island jungles to Japan.
But don’t call us heroes, we’re just ordinary blokes who put on a uniform. We fought and some of us died for Australia.
I am an Australia soldier. I fought in Vietnam. A conscript, I was plucked off the street at 18, put in a uniform and sent to the jungle to fight a cause that I didn’t understand in a war that had no front. This war was not like others. We couldn’t see the enemy. Mates died at Long Tan for what? Back home I was spat on in the street. I was angry and frustrated. But I understand now.
I may not always respect what the government does, but I respect their right to do it. That’s democracy. In 1966, Australians voted overwhelmingly in favour of the war. It was all the way with LBJ.
Then Australians changed. We saw the war on TV each night. We saw the butchery in black and white. People began to protest in great numbers against the war. Eventually, the government bowed to the will of the people and brought us home. But it was the people who sent us in the first place. Even in Vietnam we represented the people of Australia. At home we represented their guilt.
I am an Australian soldier. I have represented Australia in peacekeeping forces in Zimbabwe, Cambodia, Somalia, Iraq, Rwanda, Bougainville and East Timor. I have fought in Afghanistan. I’ve seen countries where governments are changed by machete or Kalashnikov. And it makes me thankful to be Australian. We can change government without the loss of blood. For all its flaws, our democracy works.
I am an Australian soldier. It is the people of Australia I represent. Always. It is the people I serve.
Photo Source: Road to the Great War Blog
Our fab team – Mikalea, Tracey and myself – destroyed the male competion in the COMIC DEBATE:
‘If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman’
Maggie Thatcher
We took the negative to force the ‘boys’ – if you can call aging barristers, boys – to try and prove ‘if you want something done ask a woman’.
Ladies and Gentleman ………… and Members of the Melbourne Club,
We will argue empathically that:
if you want something SAID DO NOT ASK A MAN.
If you want something DONE DO NOT ASK A WOMAN.
I will use 3 irrefutable points to prove to you without a doubt that if you want something SAID DO NOT ASK A MAN:
If you want something SAID DO NOT ASK A MAN.
Why? Firstly, because:
1. THEY DON’T LISTEN.This is not simply our view. Research by Dr Joseph Lurito of Indiana University School of Medicine SHOWED
Using the latest fMRI technology that men only use ½ their brain to LISTEN.
And, as we all know, that 1/2 isn’t even in their HEAD.
One reason men don’t listen is because of their tiny little, nano-second ATTENTION SPAN.
I only have to state 4 words to prove my point: PEE IN THE BOWL. 
Women have been saying this ever since Thomas Crapper first fiddled with the plumbing of the WC. This is over 100 YEARS of selective male deafness. When it comes to LEARNING to LISTEN, they should be wearing L-Plates … until they earn their P—PLATES.
BUT the MAIN reason why men don’t LISTEN is, simply, that they can only think of ONE thing at a time.
HIS HALF BRAIN except for one flickering neuron behind his left ear –
THE SIZE OF HIS …. PHONE.
Once there was a race to downsize phones. Men’s phones became littler and littler … unbelievable words could be head in the corridors of power namely:
MINE’S SMALLER … more compact … with more functions
It was a metaphorically confusing time when a man’s extended ego was shorter than his penis. But now the natural order has returned. All is good and right in the universe. Phones are MASSIVE.
A man – using the half of his brain not located in his head – can say with confidence ‘MINE’S BIGGER” His ego is secure. He loves his extended ego/Phone, but he can’t stop fiddling with it. If any man here has his hands under the table, you know what he’s doing!
But he won’t LISTEN …. Even if you are lying in bed with him. Unless you TEXT him to ‘stop snoring’ because he won’t listen but he can still read!!!
Secondly, if you want something said don’t ask a man because:
2. They are SOCIALLY INEPT.
You see this in social setting all the time where a man gets THAT LOOK from his partner and HE says, totally, perplexed:
‘What’d I do?’
‘If my MOTHER walks into the kitchen and asks ‘ Where do you keep the broom?
Don’t ask: DO YOU WANT TO SWEEP WITH IT OR RIDE IT HOME?’
Insensitive? Clueless? YES! Men in social settings are often VERY CONFUSED.
LOOK AT the ESTEEMED OPPOSITION. They are looking very confused THIS very minute. You cannot trust him to say something socially sensible or sensitive or, even , SANE:
There are 3 words that support my argument. PICK UP LINES:
– (To a girl with a big bossom) Are those real?
OR
-(To a girl named Wilma)They call me Fred Flintstone because I can make THE Bed Rock!
OR
– (To a girl in a mini skirt) Can I buy you a drink or would you prefer the 10 bucks?
Finally, if you want something said DO NOT ASK A MAN because:
3. They are all on the SPECTRUM.
I’m not making this up. Professor Steven Lawrie, Head of Psychiatry at Edinburgh University said that research shows that men’s brains have to work harder when making social decisions. BECAUSE they suffer from a range of autism-linked conditions. OH YES! They … all of them … are on the SPECTRUM. Down this end. All together. Along with: HITLER, GENHGIS KHAN, DONALD TRUMP
Pick a man to say something. How about
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER?
I quote: “I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
It’s possible. Gay men would just have to marry Lesbians!
Men should only be allowed to open their mouths to EAT, Drink And GARGLE
And drinking is a problem!!!!! Yes! They are 12 steps away from saying something really stupid like:
‘I know you’re my best friend ,but I have to tell you,
I SLEPT WITH YOUR MOTHER.
Shut up Dad, you ‘re drunk!
Ladies and Gentlemen …. and Members of the Melbourne Club.
Not only are MEN ON THE SPECTRUM’
THEY struggle with language and are prone to problems such as dyslexia.
* Did you hear the joke about three men who walked into a BRA.
*OM DOG. Did I say that?
Meanwhile, Dr Sally Shaywitz, of Yale University’s School of Medicine:
Yes! The prestigious university YALE ….Y ..A ..L .. E
Or as some men due to their DYSLEXIA are now thinking: the prestigious L .. A.. Y..
Dr Sally found that:
* Women excel at verbal speed. We not only listen, we say more!!!
*men do better at imaging what an object would look like rotated … in bed.
In conclusion I put to you that if you want something SAID DO NOT ASK A MAN because:
-he only listens with ½ his brain …. Not located in his head.
– his brain is occupied by the size of his … phone
– and he doesn’t know if his university of choice is prestigious YALE or a good LAY.
If you want something said
I implore you
I beg of you
DON’T ASK A MAN!!!!!!!
The world is my ant farm. Human behaviour fascinates me in all shades of crazy. So the advent of the SELFIE continues to intrigue. Are we more self-obsessed now? Or do we simply have access to the technology to indulge our self-obsessions? 
Or are we becoming more stupid? The Guardian, UK, recently ran an article about DEATH BY SELFIE. People do unbelievably stupid things to capture a look-at-me snap such as:
Since the SELFIE is a word invented to describe a new behaviour, I think we need to invent another new word to describe DEATH BY SELFIE. I suggest THE SNUFFIE. Will it catch on? I hope not. 
kerrycue 