Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

the other Marx « Previous | |Next »
November 7, 2007

Jack Marx' style could be described, politely, as an acquired taste. Not everyone's cup of tea. Or tasteless, grotesque, totally unnecessary garbage. He's not for the easily offended.

Then again, some of us feel that way about Glenn Milne.

This is a bit late, given that we've moved on, but if you're broad minded and in the mood for a giggle you might care to take in Marx' version of the "Garrett's Gaffe" story. It's the blue version. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who considers Steve Price anywhere between vaguely credible and a close personal friend. Or anyone with and underdeveloped humour gland like some of the commenters on the site.

A sample paragraph from early in the piece, before he lets rip:

The Big Dick Lounge is the most exclusive den at the terminal, reserved for flyers whose penises are no less than one metre in length and several in diameter, so I was a little surprised to see Garrett and Wilkins loitering among the guild to which I have been a valued member since 2002.

If you're game the whole thing is here.

The Bullring is an interesting source of background and insider commentary. The last memorably colourful Labour environment minister Graham Richardson has a contribution, in which he writes he initially thought Rudd was a bad choice.

"If Kevin Rudd was the answer, it must have been a silly question".

Albrechtson and Overington would probably say the same thing of Garrett, if their feverish imaginations ran that way. For mine, if we're going to indulge the extraordinary fantasies of political commentators they could at least reward us with some gesture towards reader intelligence.

| Posted by Lyn at 11:59 AM | | Comments (5)


Thanks for the link to Jack Marx's satire of the Price Expose’ (of Peter Garrett). The Big Dick Lounge image is the best bit; then the caricature of Steve Price. It ended lamely, though----a dream!


At least Marx had the decency to admit it was a lame ending. It's a pity more of our commentators don't do the same - admit they're dreaming.

he could have turned the satire into Price telling all on his show plus an account of the feedback from listeners. Have the courage to do a critique of the media.

I've read Richardson's op-ed in the Bulletin's Bullring. A good summing up I thought-----as things stood two weeks ago. It's better than most commentary in the Fairfax Press.

Howard self-destructs and Rudd looks pretty good. Hence the 'its time' swing. Richardson does miss the climate change stuff though--that is as much about our future as Workchoices. Climate Change really does show that Howard is out of touch. And he used to be Environment Minister.

Richardson's prediction of the ALP by 20 or so seats doesn't tell us where this will happen. NSW? Queensland? That's the question I'm most interested in. Will Queensland break with its political history of being anti-Labor at a federal level?

I'm saying that election is still up for grabs at the moment. ALP gets 3 in SA, nothing in WA, 1 in Tasmania ---that leaves 12. Anything from Victoria? Deakin? Or Corangamite? If one of them that leaves 11. How many from NSW? 2-3? That leaves 8-9 from Queensland.

Hence my question: will Queensland break with its political history of bedrock suport for the conservative movement?


Now that would be worth reading.


Well spotted. You'd think he would have mentioned climate change. Then again, it is Richardson we're talking about. It's unrealistic to think he was ever as awestruck by old growth forest as he was by power.

The number crunchers seem to think the ALP can win comfortably off SA and Qld alone, but as the election date gets closer we're getting too many mixed messages. Both parties have realised the numbers have gained celebrity status of their own, and have been strategically leaking internal data for their own devious purposes. Rumour has it that there has also been some politically expedient betting going on which has thrown the reliability of the odds into doubt.

You might also have noticed that as sites like the Poll Bludger have become favourites they've attracted comments from staffers from both sides.

Probably the most reliable indication would be internal party polling which doesn't get published. At that rate, watch where the candidates go (at this stage they'll only have time to get to the ones they think they can win) and what they say and do while they're there.

It's still what, 12 sleeps away? But I reckon you could safely invest in a bottle of champers.