You've found Father McKenzie. But are you really looking for Eleanor Rigby?

Saturday, June 26, 2004


wellthese seemed to be the strongest search terms last time I checked the hit counter stats - and the commonest visitors were from North America ".com domains", so I thought i would post something of interest here.

It's a power point i did once on wjether the Iraq war was a "just war" as per Thomas Aquinas - no talk of WMD per se, or blod for oil, or any of that.

Hopefully you can find it here.

If not, let me know in the "Comments" and I'll put it somewhere else.

Friday, June 25, 2004

Democracy isn't working

It is the west's calling card, but its global applicability is now in doubt


Not "which President lied" but "which one lied the most" proving the rule that there are liars, damn liars, and polticians.

As scored by a panel of noted journalists and pundits:

One guess who wins out of Ronnie Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (Hint: He doesn't like jelly beans, or liberate Kuwait, or enjoy the company of Whitehouse interns).

Thursday, June 24, 2004


Gotta love this guy and the controversy he generates. He is a one-man media beacon, that's for sure, in other words, a "heat seeker" (and I don't mean missile)

From The Sydney Morning Herald:

"Conspiracy theorists are, of course, fringe dwellers, but they serve a purpose, pushing the boundaries of cynicism, feeding into the anti-West infotainment industry personified by the obese American filmmaker Michael Moore."

From Slate

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."

And from The Onion

"Michael Moore Kicking Self For Not Filming Last 600 Trips To McDonald's"

Wednesday, June 23, 2004



fisking: n.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment. See also MiSTing, anti-idiotarianism

And I thought it was called "rebuttal".

Tuesday, June 22, 2004


In decrying the "R" rating of his new film Fahrenheit 9/11 (which will mean that 17 year olds and under won't be able to see it unless accompanied by an adult, Moore says:

"It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years," Moore said in a weekend statement. "If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."

This is a classic non-sequiter, neatly linking 15 and 16 year olds with combat in Iraq, thus justifying their viewing of Moore's film. But hang on a minute! 15 and 16 year old aren't recruited for combat, at least in the Western liberal democracies of which Moore is so fond. You have to be at least 18, which is by neat coincidence the age you need to be to see an "R" film.

And is Moore less than sanguine about the Iraq issue? You bet! To be fighting in Iraq, a 15-year old Moore-savvy intellectual provocateur in 2004 will need to be an 18-year old mean, lean fighting machine in 2007. Moore obviously does not think his mission to save Iraq from the US will be successful. Three more years! Gives him the opportunity to milk the controversy with three more Moore films.

Now for an issue close to my heart - drugs (and schools!).

Kenmore State High School is having a bad press run this week thanks to some lovely footage screening on Channel 7.

This footage is an obvious example of what is called in the business a "vexatious complaint"

According to statements from Education Queensland (conveniently ignored in the main "scoop"last night, but given voice at the death of the story by Rod Young), the student who submitted the video to seven MADE IT ALL UP.

It's his revenge you see, as his mates were the ones suspended from the school last month for being naughty children with drugs in the playground. THEY WERE CAUGHT. Who's turning a blind eye now?

No prizes for guessing he's a FILM AND TV STUDENT, as the "mystery student" interviewed by 7 commented on the first class facilities offered by his school in, you guessed it, Film and Television.

Those pesky newshounds at Seven are still rustling up business for their fraudulent story.

How about they fall on their sword like the good editor of the Mirror did in UK, after being caught out publishing fake Iraq photos?

On March 22, 200 Year 12's from Kenmore State High School went off on their annual "convention" to the Sunshine Coast and talked about, among other things, "a whole range of issues including leadership, health issues, drugs and alcohol, and lifestyle choices."

Apparently this isn't good enough for some students. They either didn't attend, or didn't listen to what they were told. Drugs will mess you up. And lying about it will too.

Meanwhile the Queensland Drug and Alcohol Foundation suggests students caught using drugs should not be expelled.

Good idea. First, give schools some more money to run these anti-drug crusades as well as educating the masses on everything from to art to zoology. Then, give all teachers the power to search any student bag at any time so they can more easily find those who need help. Finally, for those who make up lies using the very skills their school has taught them in a pathetic attempt at taking revenge, I have only one word - expulsion.

Friday, June 18, 2004


What would our impression of D-Day have been like if reported by the BBC of 2004 instead of 1944?

Visit Silent Running's wickedly satirical BeebVision to find out.

Eisenhower and Churchill have called this the turning point of the war. Yet the very name of this mass landing, "Overlord", suggests some deeper hidden agenda than merely forcing the Germans to retreat.... Indeed they have made their interest in German military and scientific advances well known.

It is obvious that the German war economy is in tatters, and that Germany is short of both manpower and resources and cannot keep fighting for much longer. So why invade, when a telegraph to Berlin may have been equally effective? Sources close to Hitler have let it be known that an option exists for an honourable end to the conflict, so long as a few guarantees have been met.

Wednesday, June 16, 2004


See the for a mis-guided view of the role of children in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Harry Potter and Northern Lights.

Thatnk to Atilla the Pun for this link.


Wondering what Merlin Luck(-less) really meant on Big Brother last Sunday night?

Well, check out this picture here!

Check this out! Type in two words and googlefight will search the web with Google to see which has the most hits, and declare a winner. I tried "Mark Latham" vs "John Howard".

See what I got here

Saturday, June 12, 2004


"We live in a different world. Censoring it is pointless and, in the long term, damaging." Bryn Grieg, WA Senator, Australian Democrats.

Yes, thank you Senator for your comments. I have been musing on your words for a while now, when I came across this article from the New Zealand Herald. Apparently, the recently appointed leader of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe, believes homosexuality is "unnatural and immoral and looks forward to a day when a better society, in his view, will find it unacceptable."

The surprise comes in the response. The newspaper, for givingthese comments prominence, has been received the following typical comments:

- As a gay man, I am deeply offended by your headline

- How dare you publish that rubbish on your front page, unless of course you ... are as bigoted, homophobic and out for cheap controversy as your Maori interviewee.

etc etc etc

Well, what about censorship, get your laws off our bodies, blah blah blah. Maybe you're only allowed to say one thing about gays - that you think they are incredibly marvellous and wonderful, witty and urbane, and be all accepting and tolerating and stuff, otherwise SHUT UP!!!

What happened to free speech? freedom of expression? freedom of the press? Remember, "Censoring it is pointless and, in the long term, damaging"

This is not a far-right neo-nazi e-zine we're speaking of, it's NZ's major newspaper.

Read the editor's own defense at

Friday, June 11, 2004


Why, Imperial Dogs, of course!

A must listen - "Stuck in a room with R2"

Thursday, June 10, 2004

The 213 Things You are No Longer Allowed to Do in the U.S. Army

An oldie but a goodie - my personal favourites:

22. Must never call an SAS a 'Wanker'.

77. The MP checkpoint is not an Imperial Stormtrooper roadblock, so I should not tell them "You don't need to see my identification, these are not the droids you are looking for."

170. Not allowed to 'defect' to OPFOR during training missions.

Enjoy the rest here

Tuesday, June 08, 2004


Here is the ABC's "official" response to my concern. Mostly form letter stuff really.

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email about the episode of Play School broadcast on 31 May
2004. The ABC regrets that you were concerned by reports about this program.

In this episode, Play School's regular 'Through the Windows' segment, featured a
trip to an amusement park by two young girls. The girl who narrated the film
made the comment, "My mums are taking me and my friend Meryn to an amusement
park". The segment showed one of the many types of family groups that exist in
Australia today. It included a single verbal reference to the family group,
with the use of the word "mums", and images of the group attending the amusement
park. There was no emphasis or focus placed on any social issue. Any such
constructions are adult constructions.

Play School aims to reflect the diversity of Australian children, embracing all
races, religions and family situations. The 'Through the Window' segments
provide an opportunity to show children the wider world. Previous segments have
included families from a range of social, ethnic, religious and racial
backgrounds. In most cases, the focus is on aspects of family life with any
social, religious, cultural or racial aspects forming the background only. For
example, previous segments have shown a child's christening, celebrating the
Jewish holiday Chanukah (Hanukkah), a Muslim family on a train journey, a child
as bridesmaid at her grandmother's wedding and other experiences.

Each year, the ABC Children's Television department draws on extensive early
childhood advice to present enjoyable and enriching programs for children. We
regret that this episode of Play School has caused you some concern. Please be
assured that your comments have been forwarded to the ABC's Children's
production department so that they may be made aware of your reaction to the

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the ABC's attention.

Yours sincerely,

Anna Uszko
ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs


Just in today:

Dear Mr

Thank you very much for your email of 3 June 2004.

Mr Abbott has read your email and has asked me to thank you for your comments - they are greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely
Paris Kostakos

Monday, June 07, 2004


Well, I received an e-mail from Siobhan and unfortunately she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, as I have been resisting formulating any response to my detractors. Howeverm, I cobbled one together and present it as posted to her. Siobhan, if you are burnt as the rocket passes through, then SORRY!

In the interest of balance I have updated my blog and got comments from the mum's involved, the head of children's programming at ABC, and an unfavourable response to me published in the C-M.

What most people are missing is I'm not directly taking a swipe at lesbianism or motherhood, but at the ABC!

As a loving and accepting parent, I reserve the right to monitor what my kids do and don't watch on TV, and what influences they are exposed to. Hence no CSI, Simpsons or Big Brother. These TV shows simply do not promote the kind of values I am interested in seeing my children develop.

In my opinion the ABC crossed the line with its portrayal of lesbian motherhood as what I define as "acceptable lifestyle" for my children to be viewing in the context of Playschool.

As the Senator readily admits, TV has a powerful influence as normalising force. He "came out" as gay, partly supported by what he described as positive images on the tube. However, I do not want my children to grow up to become lesbians, or Hare Krishnas, or One Nation Party voters. So, while recognising that these are valid life-choices for people of sincere faith, my duty as a parent is to see my own children grow up in an environment which promotes the values that I believe in. No reasonable, responsible parent, straight or gay, would behave otherwise. This means Play School is now suspect.

I readily admit that bias is that which you don't agree with, and acknowledge Play School has shown Christening, Weddings, Bar Mitzvahs etc with no complaints from me. But in the name of "diversity", will we see Mr Habib with his four wives dressed in Burkhas, as simply "another expression of what it means to be Australian" appear on children's television next? Where do we draw the line, or not at all, as the Senator suggests that all forms of censorship is wrong?

The ABC is answerable to the public for its programming choices, and its test of integrity is whether or not it uses children's TV as a lever for its own value system, especially when this does not square with the majority of Australians (witness the volumes of mail going into the ABC on this issue).

Children's TV is NOT the place for thrashing out these issues. Debate on the nature and values of our society is much better carried out in other ways.

Let's not get emotive about this. People can be lesbians if they want to - it's not up to me to decide for them, and as far as they're concerned about me I could probably go and get a life. However, if you are going to interpret your whole identity through your sexuality like our friend the Senator then maybe my ideas may seem inflammatory.

I apologise for that. Nevertheless, I return to my main idea that lesbianism / homosexuality it is something that is just not for me, nor do I prefer it for my family, and neither do I want to see it on my children's ABC.

And if you want some really right wing views go and visit


Read about it here

Contains Explicit Right Wing Views
Reader Discretion Advised


Well, the story just keeps on coming. Let's hope it dies out soon!

I have been sledged again, this time by a fellow letter writer to The Courier-Mail.

STEPHEN (Letters, June 5) is worried about what sort of message his kids might get from seeing the occassional lesbian or two on TV, but he should be more worried about what sort of message they get from his reaction. Their chances of keeping sexuality in any sort of healthy perspective would surely be diminished by the sight of Daddy freaking out about two women who aren't even shown touching each other. The best message we can send to our kids is that sex is one important aspect among many of a rich and healthy life. Let's not get quite so worked up about it.
- Neil McCrossin, Deagon
June 6

Well, I've been told off by a Senator Bryna Greig (Democrats, WA) and now by Neil McCrossin of Deagon, so I better keep my big mouth shut and my opinions to myself. If only I'd said how great everything was with the world then everyone who love me - although I'd probably be accused of being "unrealistic". You can't win!


See here for their reasoning, especially the following paragraphs:

Play School aims to reflect the diversity of Australian children, embracing all manner of race, religions and family situations.

Segments have included families from a range of social, ethnic, religious and racial backgrounds. In most cases the focus is on aspects of family life with social, religious, cultural or racial aspects forming the background only.

However, there have also been segments on a child's christening, celebrating the Jewish holiday Chunakah (Hannukah), a Muslim family, a child as bridesmaid at her grandmother's wedding and similar circumstances.


A brief bio here:

Head of Children's - Claire Henderson (NSW)

Claire Henderson has nearly 30 years experience in the broadcasting industry, a large proportion of that time has been spent in children's programming.

Claire was originating Executive Producer of Bananas in Pyjamas and many other children's programs on ABC Television. Claire brings to her position the expertise that has made ABC Children's programming a world class service.


...on the Playschool issue I present you with the defence of one of the participants inthe drama (culled from The Courier-Mail feedback forum)

From: Vicki Harding, Sydney

Comment: Press Release: Playschool who are the bullies? 4 June 2004

Brenna is famous but she doesnt understand what the fuss is all about.

On Monday, Playschool screened a rerun of Through the Window featuring my family my partner Jackie, our daughter Brenna and me. It was first screened in March, without a peep from the mainstream press. Larry Anthony didnt see it, Tony Abbott missed it and John Howard was probably holidaying overseas, because he didnt notice it either.

But many lesbian and gay parents and their children, and friends, saw it and loved it.

Our children thrive when they see images on TV or in books that reflect their lives. I have no doubt that all politicians, no matter which side of the fence, desire this sense of validation and acknowledgement for their kids.

So why do they want to deprive my daughter of this essential confirmation of identity and position within the world something most of her friends receive all the time?

My daughter and I wrote two books for children learning to read because we wanted families like ours to be reflected in the classroom and in school libraries. My House and Going to Fair Day feature a family with two mums, a child, a cat and two dogs. Its an everyday family, the illustrations are colourful and funny, and we dont use words like lesbian or sex or even girlfriend!

Like the Playschool segment which has attracted all the fuss, we refer only to two mums so that children of lesbian parents might feel included, once in a while. We tell stories about dogs and cats chasing each other and Brenna wishing that they could just be friends so they could all play together. We describe how Jack, a dog without a home, finds a loving and caring family to live with when he wins the dog show at a Mardi Gras Fair Day.

The Playschool segment filmed Brenna and her friend enjoying Wonderland with her mums. Most of the feedback suggests that other mums and dads identify with us, even if they happen to be heterosexual. Because, bottom line, the segment is about kids having fun and being loved.

What exactly is offensive to our Federal Government? Which bit exactly caused alarm, shock, horror? There are no images of torture, or war, or violence, or poverty. Theres no sex.

I challenge the politicians, especially those awaiting an election later this year, to point out the offensive bits, because Im totally in the dark!

Vicki Harding

Friday, June 04, 2004


Here is my response below:

Dear Senator

Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter. You are indeed to be applauded for taking the time to personally respond to my comments.

Although I do not agree that I am motivated by fear or prejudice, or that my own attitudes are less than enlightened, I will carefully consider the other matters that you have raised when formulating my opinions.

Once again, thank you for taking an interest in my concerns.

Your sincerely


Here is a reply I got from my letter to Senator Bryan Greig. Very exciting stuff!

I hardly think the accurate reflection of Australian society on TV can be called "dogma." If you have a religious objection to the segment on lesbian mums, then you really should say so.

Far from being "indoctrinated" and endangering "impressionable young minds", the honest and accurate reflection of diverse families on *our* ABC is to be welcomed.

The book that was read on the show was produced, in part, by funding from the NSW State Government Attorney General's Department, as part of it's anti-violence programming. The book is distributed in schools as a way to help educate students and minimise homophobic violence. I can only applaud that.

There are thousands of kids around Australia being raised by same-sex parents, and it's common for kindergartens, particularly in inner city areas, to have lesbian and gay parents among their clients.

The ABC has a mandate and duty to reflect Australian culture and the diversity of everyday life. In spite of you own "shock", children are not fazed by these things. Indeed, prejudice is a leaned behaviour.

I think it's great that children in same-sex households are now finding themselves reflected in their own media. It will help break down the isolation and prejudice they no doubt feel and experience from dominant culture.

It was not that long ago when blacks, Asians and disabled people were discreetly censored from Australian TV, as white bread, picket fences and English speaking culture ruled over everything.

We live in a different world. Censoring it is pointless and, in the long term, damaging.

Perhaps if you met some kids being raised in same-sex households, and talked to then, your fears would be alleviated?

As with most parents, you also assume that your own children are, or will be, heterosexual. Many parents learn in their kid's teenage years that this is not the case. I hope for them, that if they should discover as they awaken to adulthood that they are not heterosexual, then your own attitudes might be more enlightened and accepting than they seem to be now.

It was my own experience, that seeing positive images on TV about gay and lesbian people, helped greatly with my own coming out as a teenager. If this type of community education is going to start at younger ages - all the better.

Kind regards,
Brian Greig

Thursday, June 03, 2004


In addition to the ABC, I have sent copies of my letter to:

The Australian
The Courier-Mail
Senator Greig (who came out in support of the episode)
Tony Abbott (who also made a comment)
Daryl Williams (Communications Minister)


Yes, you read it right. Read the full story here.

This is my letter to the ABC below:

I am appalled that the ABC should use this program as a platform for launching politically correct indoctrination on the most vulnerable members of our community.

The so-called "children's story" depicting a lesbian relationship demonstrates how out of ouch the ABC is with their audiences. The imposition of such dogma on the minds of impressionable young children is tantamount to propaganda of the most insidious kind.

By naturalising lesbian parenthood during children’s formative years, our little ones are exposed to issues inappropriate for their age and experience. The ABC ably demonstrates its contempt for its audience in the name of "diversity" while leaving shocked and dismayed parents to pick up the pieces.

Play School used to be regarded as a reliable trusted friend, a symbol of the innocence of childhood. However, the values of such shows are now open to question. Will we next see B1 and B2 forming a homosexual civil union or marriage? I sincerely hope not.



Rabbi blasts Madonna

Madonna has been accused by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach of being:

a) a slut
b) a vulgarian
c) a porn rocker
d) all of the above

and suggested she:

a) may sing and may dance
b) brought the Kabbalah Centre great notoriety
c) is simulating lesbian sex with scantily clad pregnant dancers
d) all of the above

In her defence, Madonna's rep has reacted by defending Madonna as:

a) having character
b) an artist
c) a truly beautiful human being
d) all of the above

And the pedophile? Oh yes, Rabbi Shmuley is a a former friend and advisor to Michael Jackson

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

ANOTHER STEPHEN LOOKALIKE. Is this blogwar (or blogcivilwar) getting self-indulgent or what.


Allow me to begin with a quote from the most recent document published by the Uniting Church in Queensland, which came out of Synod 2004. The context could be any contemporary writing or philosophising about the nature of the church; in this case it refers to theological education. Nevertheless, the spirit of the argument rings true in many ears as many Australian Christians have developed a “cultural cringe” about their faith. While such sentiments may seem right and reasonable on first inspection, closer examination exposes the inherent weaknesses in such propositions.

“Let me take this one small step further. The church is by no means the only way in which God accomplishes God’s mission. Once we understand the nature of God and the signs of the Reign of God, it takes little more than keeping our eyes and ears open to realise that God often works outside the church. Jesus is reported as having said, “He who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40; but cf. Matt 12.30). The church has no monopoly on God’s mission. The church certainly does not possess God’s mission as a right. The church may well fail to serve the reign of God and become self-focussed, lose its nerve, distort the message entrusted to it and bring shame to the One we claim to serve. A healthy humility is therefore far more realistic and honest than an unseemly triumphalism.”

This quote begs the question: What is God mission? It is the work of reconciliation. Although this word has become hackneyed through overuse in social justice circles to imply the relationship between two aggrieved parties, in its original Biblical context it is much more one–sided than this: it is God who is aggrieved and we who are at fault. The Church, as God’s agent in the world, is intimately involved in both the message and the act of reconciliation. To quote the Apostle Paul:

18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. to reconcile the world to him through Christ”

God’s mission is thus the message and act of reconciliation. The means through which God accomplishes this is his Christ. And the messenger of Christ is the church. Paul here speaks personally, but he also speaks for all Christians everywhere. As agents of the Gospel, the people of God who make up God’s true church are appointed to spread the message of reconciliation with God through Christ.

The reconciling mission of God is accomplished outside the Church through the work of the Spirit, who leads us to Christ. It is comforting to know that God does work outside the Church, in order to bring people in to a relationship with Christ and engagement with his people, as an expression of his mercy. To assert that God works outside the Church is to require another mission. The reconciling mission of God through Christ has been entrusted to the Church, not to any third party. We must take seriously the fact that the buck stops here.

Additionally, the question of right is not ours to take, because a right implies that which is ours by merit. Rather, it is God’s purposes we as the church are to accomplish, not our own, so that neither the mission nor the mandate are our own, and that there may be no boasting. If we assert it as a right, we are in the wrong

Of course the church, as populated by flawed human beings with a willingness to submit themselves to the will of God, will fail to achieve this mission in many instances. However, a focus on failure does not generate humility or honesty; quite the reverse – it generates misery and a culture of blame. True humility lies in the acknowledgement that God in his awesome majesty has entrusted the message of the reconciling mission of Christ to his unworthy believers on Earth. Anything less is not only selling ourselves short as possessors of God’s truth, but denying God’s choice of agency in the church.

Indeed, it goes as far as denying Christ, as such arguments imply that the Christians have somehow lost touch with who God really is, and he needs to be sought elsewhere. While seeming humble, such attitudes negligently disregard the scriptural witness regarding Christ as God’s appointed exclusive Saviour. They consequently deny the appointment of the church as Christ’s ambassadors in proclaiming God’s mission of reconciling the world to himself.

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

SALA[A]M PAX OUTED... The legendary Iraqi blogger is currently visiting Australia, a guest at the Sydney Writer’s Festival.

Between near-death experiences and promotional engagements, Salam Pax spends what little time spare time he has asleep. It’s the waking hours that Pax, a 30-year-old Iraqi whose internet diary from Baghdad has earned him a global following and a movie deal, finds “surreal”. [...] Today, his dilemmas can be less confronting – such as choosing the right actor to play the lead in Salam Pax, the movie. “George Clooney… of course”.

-- Freya Petersen, "Blogger of Baghdad signs a movie deal", Sydney Morning Herald (Thursday 20 May 2004)

(Freya Petersen? Isn't she the actress in White Collar Blue -- you know, the pouty one the studio execs cloned from Kristen Scott Thomas' DNA?)

(UPDATE: No, she isn't. That's Freya Stafford. Bad call.)

Anyway, have a look at the photo posted of S. Pax. Dammit, I think I look more like him than Clooney does.


Tom, if you would check the archives, the resemblance to Herr Murray is clearly posted. But I forgot the most personal resemblance, both in terms of ideology and physiognomy, Senator Andrew Bartlett

(although I do note a touch of Grecian 2000 on this image which may go a little astray on Tom!!!)


...ANDREW DEMACK for his recent election as Premier of Tasmania. Adopting the pseudonym "Paul Lennon" won't fool anyone who realises that it's simply a composite from the names of two of the most ideologically influential figures within the Uniting Church of Australia. Why not go all the way and have the Deputy Premier adopt the nom de plume "Vladimir Illyich Wesley" or "Augustine McCartney"? That'd really warm hearts among the average pew-warmer in the Arian [sic] Nation.

But he'll have to lose the moustache before long, in accordance with Labor Party Constitution Clause 527(1)(a)[iii] ("Facial Hair Of Red-Dog ALP Premiers, Removal Of".)

WAR OF THE LOOKALIKES... My esteemed co-blogger has left out the three celebs I most often get told I look like: Robin Williams, Bill Murray and Al Bundy from Married With Children.

As for Steve, think of a cross between Nicholas Cage and "Millhouse" from The Simpsons and you're over halfway there.