On disobedience: If you haven’t heard of Stanley Milgram, nows the time.

Just by reading this blog, you are disobeying the norm, the consensus. Congratulations! How did you come to this junction in your life? What made you decide to buck the trend and go out and assess the facts yourself and make a decision accordingly?

 I have often wondered about the  make-up of people who have disobeyed the “consensus” when it comes to, among other things, Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria, being of a medical-scientific bent (with the emphasis on “bent”), I can’t help but ruminate accordingly.

One of the things about science and the process of scientific discovery, is that often the most interesting thing is not the discovery that is made or the question that is answered, but the inverse question that comes out of the process. For instance, experimental research into transplanting dopaminergic tissue into the basal ganglia of patient’s with Parkinson’s disease (aka “cracking open people’s heads and doing things”), seemed to be working quite well, until they realised that the placebo group who merely had their skulls opened but no tissue transplanted improved, too. The scientific conclusion from this was that ergo the intervention didn’t work. However, in my mind the inverse question, given the positive result experienced by the patients, of “should we be considering drilling holes in people’s heads (aka “cracking open people’s heads and NOT doing anything) as a treatment for Parkinsons?” is probably more fascinating.

In the 1960’s a psychologist named Stanley Milgram conducted seminal research into the process of obedience to authority. The “Milgram Experiment” is now famous, and is pretty much impossible to reproduce in this day and age due to the fun-police who sit on research ethics committees. (When you hear about his experiment you will probably see why they won’t let anyone do it again.) Participants were recruited and paid to help with research into what they were told was the effects of punishment on learning, in reality, Milgram was researching submission to authority, as his experiments took place during the Eichmann trials and he wanted to research what has come to be known as the “Nuremberg defence” or “I was just doing what I was ordered.”

This is what Milgram did:

Volunteers were recruited to take part in a study of memory and learning, upon arriving they were taken into the lab two at a time and randomised into “teachers” or “learners”. The learners were all hired to act the role, and the randomisation was fake. The learner was strapped into a chair with an electrode attached to his wrist and tied down, and told that he will be asked to reads lists of word pairs, and if he gets it wrong, the teacher will administer increasing intensities of electric shocks. The teacher was then seated in front of an impressive looking device that would supposedly administer the shocks, with rows of switches labelled Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. (Two switches after this last designation were simply marked XXX.) The teacher is then given a sample shock of 45 volts to reinforce belief that the machine is real. When the experiment starts, the learner has been instructed to act out a series of responses at difference voltages (although no real shocks were delivered to the actors), ranging from expressing pain, to screaming, to begging to be let go and then to silence. During the experiment, an instructor (Milgram) stayed with the teacher and guided them to deliver an increasing intensity of shocks and instructed them that they must continue should they question their role.

When Milgram designed the study, he canvassed experts and students alike as to what they thought the number of people who would proceed to a “painful” or “dangerous” level under orders would be. Almost universally, people predicted that only a small percentage of people would knowingly harm the subject, and only a lunatic fringe would continue to what they perceived to be a dangerous level. In reality, around 65% of people, male and female alike, did as they were told and dialled all the way under the direction of the authority figure overseeing the experiment. This is not to say that people liked doing it, everyone questioned the examiner and asked to stop at some stage, but after being directed to continue, they complied.

To my mind, it is the inverse question that has always fascinated: The focus was on the psychology of obedience, but what of the minority of people who disobeyed and refused to continue? What were they like?
The only subject who calmly refused to continue before the 300 volt threshold was reached was a woman who was a German immigrant and had been through World War 2. She just said it wasn’t right to hurt someone, took responsibility for the fact that if the subject was hurt it would be her fault and she wouldn’t do it, and that was it. Milgram himself mentioned that

“The woman’s straightforward, courteous behavior in the experiment, lack of tension, and total control of her own action seem to make disobedience a simple and rational deed.”

 Another man actually correctly guessed that it was a set-up and correctly guessed the true nature of the experiment, and even guessed it was to investigate how the Nazis coerced people into doing things they knew were wrong. He wrote about it later, and felt it was his previous life experience that had led him to notice that things weren’t adding up and to question authority.

Another guy who reportedly stopped was an electrical engineer, who knew what electric shocks felt like and so refused to keep going, even though the authority figure said it wasn’t dangerous.

So, analysing the minority of people who refused, they were people whose life experience either gave them insight or expertise that others didn’t have, or a few people who also refused because they believed they were answerable to a higher moral authority. In all of the people who refused, there was the common trait of feeling responsible for their own actions. The majority of people who kept going rationalised that either they weren’t responsible because they were following orders, and had become an agent of another person, or blamed themselves for hurting the subject, but in situations of stress conformed to the societal or behavioural model being presented to them by an authority because they did not themselves possess the ability or expertise to make a decision for themselves. This latter group, after learning of the true nature of the experiment were the type of people who would be less likely to be coerced into that type of situation again.

The conclusions of this experiment were very interesting, and have ramifications for what is going on in the world today. In one of Milgram’s own articles on the experiments for Harpers magazine (which I have quoted from elsewhere in this article), he discovered that:

 Conflicting authority severely paralyzes actions — When two experimenters of equal status, both seated at the command desk, gave incompatible orders, no shocks were delivered past the point of their disagreement.

The rebellious action of others severely undermines authority — In one variation, three teachers (two actors and a real subject) administered a test and shocks. When the two actors disobeyed the experimenter and refused to go beyond a certain shock level, thirty-six of forty subjects joined their disobedient peers and refused as well.

He then concluded with this:

The problem of obedience is not wholly psychological. The form and shape of society and the way it is developing have much to do with it. There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labour things changed. Beyond a certain point, the breaking up of society into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs takes away from the human quality of work and life. A person does not get to see the whole situation but only a small part of it, and is thus unable to act without some kind of overall direction. He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions.

Which seems to be rather prescient and pertinent to the world today. It is also reassuring, in the sense that merely being present with a dissenting view can have important and far reaching ramifications in giving permission for others who are following the “consensus” to choose a different path.

[ad#insert-large]

Would you like some Left-Wing Rage with that Compound Ignorance?

Recently I was on the receiving end of a fairly impressive left wing tirade coming from none other than my children’s father. I think what started this onslaught of liberal rage was a quite innocent comment from me about the habit of people to be horrified by seemingly paternalistic US foreign policy, when nations like Australia are the first to keep our military spending artificially low because the US is our big buddy in the playground sandbox. Only to start hollering the minute they start acting like the world’s policeman. Perhaps naively, I wasn’t prepared for the hour and a half long fit of insanity that followed, and which segued from a sermon on the virtues (virtues?!) of Fidel Castro and ended, somehow, with a spittle-soaked apoplectic tantrum about how US led embargoes are killing women and children in North Korea. Which led me to conclude with something along the lines of “Wait, what?! How did we end up here?”  This is all without even saying the word “Palestine”.

Apart from leading me to reflect on the entity that is liberal rage and the compound ignorance that tends to accompany it, I also realized that the most sure fire way to be on the receiving end of it is to mention the word “embargo”. Many people have issues over which they are sensitive, and which it is easy to wind them up about. I can trigger one of my colleagues into a half hour tantrum just by saying something stupid about sport, and I personally am a bit sensitive about Deep Space Nine versus Voyager. (Janeway is a dog and is only slightly ameliorated in her offensiveness by the hotness of Seven of Nine, and all Bajorans are annoying. I won’t discuss this further.)

However, most moderate conservatives feel unprepared for the unfettered screamies that are lurking not far below the surface of our more leftward leaning friends and associates. Nothing serves to whip up a liberal-minded frenzy more than an embargo. Strangely, though, these same people who bleat on about the women and children, fail to realize that there is really only three things you can do against an aggressor nation ruled by crazies: You can invade it, you can ignore it and let them do what they want, including invading you, or you can blockade or embargo their arses off. I don’t know about you, but when you couch your options in terms like this, option number three starts sounding pretty reasonable.

A recent Washington Post article summed up defence options in a similar way in reference to the Israeli blockade of Palestine. The author noted that you can either have forward defence (fight elsewhere), active defence (fight on your own soil) or passive defence (blockades and embargoes). After that, you’ve got, well…nothing.

Don’t try and tell someone in the middle of a good head of left-wing rage that trade embargoes don’t generally stop people from eating, either. “But they don’t have any money for food because the embargo has made them poor!” they will scream (yes, he really did scream this at me in reference to North Korea). Never for a moment considering that maybe people in North Korea are poor because they are a Communist nation ruled by someone with a gift for mismanagement, who was last seen putting his own diplomats in front of a firing squad. Or, in other words, collective farming seems to be bad for the weather.

I was also told that because the US (at least until they finally go broke and are replaced by India or Cameroon) is the world’s greatest super power, ergo they must be the world’s nastiest nation. Which doesn’t make all that much sense, really. Let me put it this way, it could be a lot worse. Often, the worst the USA is going to do to you is build a Star Bucks next to your house, air trashy television shows and invite you to partake of a lifestyle that will make you fat. Imagine if Germany ran the world, this is a culture, remember, that doesn’t allow for people to publically display drying laundry on a weekend. (Although if Japan ran the world we would see alot more of these….)

As if this wasn’t enough of a rude shock, I was soon to realize that I had somehow shacked up with an apologist for Castro. I’m personally  getting a bit tired of all this Fidel worship to be honest, and if I see another Che Guevara T Shirt I might re-accessorize someone with extreme prejudice.

According to the man who fathered my children, Fidel is brilliant and the only reason it could possibly suck to be Cuban is because of the US led trade embargo. Bear in mind that on one level  I have a grudging admiration for el Jefe just for being a wily old goat who put a good one over on the US during the whole “freedom flotilla” days in 1980, whereby Castro managed to empty most of the truly reprehensible criminals out of his prisons and into the US. (Cue Scarface success montage).  However, as an erstwhile south Floridian who knows a café con leche from pastelitos de guayaba and had a Grandad who was still cranky at Castro several decades later for stabbing the US in the back, I would like to set a few things straight on this issue.

A the risk of oversimplifying, I’ll break it down for y’all like this: The only reason we have an independent Cuba to start with is because the US told Spain as much after the Spanish-American war. I believe what they said was “B1tch, we want Guam and Peurto Rico. Oh, and make Cuba an independent nation state.” Or something to that effect, whilst retaining the right to meddle in Cuban affairs should the need arise. And before everyone turns their noses up at this paternalistic behavior, it was the late 1800’s and its not like we haven’t done it, too. Australia may not technically administrate Papua New Guinea anymore, but when we tell them to jump, they tend to say “Ha mas?” (How much).

Anyhoo, without boring everyone with the details of democratic elections versus military coups, by the time Batista was rightly or wrongly ruling the nation, Cuba had a pretty good standard of living, with a large middle class and some of the highest workers wages in the world. Then enter the Cuban revolution. A little known factoid is that Castro was actually funded by the US initially, contrary to popular belief that Batista was their guy. Additionally, he wasn’t the only freedom fighter knocking around in Cuba during the revolution. The eventual upshot though, as everyone knows, is that he won the day, in the process killing off the rival freedom fighters that helped him win, and the next thing anyone knew he was in bed with the Russians and Che was busy tooling around in Africa. The rest, as they say, is history, although not before Castro appropriated everyone’s property, successfully silenced any “dissidents” and at least 10 percent of the population had fled the country. From here, we can skip the Cuban missile crisis (watch the movie or something) and go straight to the bit about modern day Cubans having one of the world’s lowest rates of computer access and almost non-existent internet  priviledges. The horror.

The only other little known factoid that might be worth pointing out here, is that the US embargo of Cuba has really only been in place for so long due to continued pressure from the anti-Castro Cuban electorate in south Florida. Annoy this demographic and you can lose the whole state in an election, and they want to keep that embargo.

So what was the reaction to my well-reasoned and edu-ma-cated response? I got called a redneck, that’s what. Which is something that I’m going to make Mr. Paua regret he said if the world is ever taken over by zombies, that’s for sure.

Now, as a reward for hanging in there throughout my peripatetic wanderings through modern history and international relations, I have a photo of a scantily clad female for you. My editor here at the Daily Bayonet told me to keep a lid on musings about male musculature, but that feminine underwear is acceptable. That sounded like a dare, so here is a photo of, umm….me. And just remember, you wouldn’t be able to look at this in Cuba.

So, tell me about your mother...

[ad#insert-large]

Here, Kitty, Kitty…

After all the recent posts about birds drowning in soup a la British Petroleum versus birds running into giant psychosis inducing shredders (aka “windmills” to most people), and some comment about treehuggers suggesting cat culls, I thought I might riff on this in relation to what we do Down Under. Y’know, just share The Crazy.

Here in Australia, we already cull cats*, but y’see, we make the touchy feely distinction that we need to cull the feral cats, not your backyard pet moggie. We are all raised with the heavily enforced belief that introduced, or “feral” species are bad, and poor defensive natives are “good”. Part of our twitchiness on the subject relates back to some of our national epic fails when it came to wildlife. Many people have probably already heard about what happened when homesick Pommies** (aka “The English”.) thought that a couple of rabbits about the place would spruce up the countryside no end, and there was also that unfortunate period of time when the entire country got taken over by Prickly Pear, which is about as congenial as a giant mutant Seguaro cactus, but less pretty. There were also the foxes, and the pigs….ummmm…then buffaloes, camels…..and don’t forget the donkeys, horses, Indian Miner Birds (oh, wait, they got here on their own). Not to mention our favourite 20th century epic fail, the canetoad. It could be worse though, the Kiwis had to contend with homesick Scots, ask one about thistles sometime, and I hear that the southern USA is being over-run by plague carrying Armadillos. That would be bad.

Regardless, being of a “practical” mindset, and probably because a hairy-nosed wombat or a bilby appeared in somebody’s dream and pleaded with them to help, we decided that what we needed was shotguns, and lots of them. And some poison. Oh, and traps.

So at the moment we are busy culling feral foxes, because apparently urban foxes do traumatic things like sit on people’s doormats and look at them (I’m not kidding, read the article). This is happening in the same place that is being overrun by cockatoos that are, literally, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage to public structures and private homes. They almost took the roof off the local library, and several heritage structures look like they have been decorated with a chainsaw. Luckily for the non-endangered cockies, they are natives, and so sacrosanct. In fact, when some enraged residents went postal and shot a couple, they were looking at a maximum 2 years jail and a $24,000 fine, due to the heinous cruelty of their crime. Not to be confused with exterminating mama foxes during their breeding season, which is considered humane.

Then the ecotards (I just love this term, and wish I’d thought of it) turned the rifles on our feral brumbies (aka wild horses), that are an enormous part of our cultural heritage (read The Man from Snowy River sometime, a poem that most Australians practically know by heart if they went to school in this country). We also shot a whole lot of pigs (apparently it helped save some turtles), deer, and well, pick a feral animal, we probably shoot it.

We love our native animals in this country so much that we can’t even keep them as pets. In some cases you can obtain a permit to keep native wildlife, at major difficulty and expense. Often with the caveat that the animal can’t be viable in the wild, but you can nip down to the pet store any day of the week (with the exception of a couple of states) and buy yourself a rabbit, ferret or kitten (and wait for it to get shot). Don’t try and keep a native on the sly, either, the fine should you be caught will be so big it’ll keep subsequent generations down to your great-grand-kids in hock for the duration of their natural lives.

Then we got a bit confused about the dingo thing, after all, they’re sort of natives, but they’re essentially a wild dog. Sometimes we shoot them, sometimes we don’t. It depends on whether they’ve eaten anybody’s baby lately.

Just to keep it fair, we sometimes cull kangaroos, too, because apparently its our own fault there are too many of them, something to do with agriculture. Either that, or childhood episodes of Skippy The Bush Kangaroo left us with an urge to Kill! Kill! Kill!

So don’t laugh when people start talking about a cat cull, trust me, its not that far away. I know someone who really likes native wildlife, to the extent that he shoots any of the neighbours cats or dogs that come near his house. If the neighbours object, I believe the term is “tough ti um…mammaries” for them, he’s well within his rights to shoot an introduced species that strays onto his land.  It has to be said there are plenty of Australian native species that really struggle to survive against cats, dogs and even non-native rats. Just trust me, as your Antipodean correspondant, when I say that as a society, you can take this stuff too far.

Then one day you find yourself in the supermarket at Easter, looking at a row of chocolate “Easter Bilbys”, because the Easter Bunny is an introduced species.

The Easter Bilby: Also available in sugar-free carob.

* Disclaimer: Paua likes cats very much and has never knowingly unloaded a .22 on one. In fact, she has only ever unloaded a .22 at a tin can, and then the government made everyone give their farm rifles back due to a national propensity for mass killings in public places. However, she has also been known to refer to herself in the third person on occasion, which may negate that sentiment.

** Its affectionate. Really.

[ad#insert-large]

The Farmer wants a break (and a wife)

Welcome to Australia, a sunburnt country of sweeping plains, with one of the world’s most urbanized populations. In our heads, we buy into our own collective mythos that we are all rangy, tough, outback lads (and ladettes) who are good in a fight, tersely spoken and true believers in the concept of “mateship”. Once upon a time, say prior to the second world war, this was probably true. Now, however, we have a problem with the deep divide between our urban population and our struggling primary industries.

I just came across a recent news item bemoaning the fact (it was the Sydney Morning Alarmist Herald, so they weren’t happy about it) that a majority of Australian farmers are sceptical of climate change and don’t think it is going to affect them in their lifetimes. Which is not to say that they don’t think they are affected by climate itself, almost all of them mention that their biggest challenge is the drought, they are just canny enough to realise that a prolonged drought on the world’s driest continent (after Antarctica) probably isn’t much of a headline.

Then I found another recent headline from the UK, and funnily enough, the majority of British farmers don’t think they are being affected by climate change, either. Up 12% from last year, following the whole Raj “Bodice-Ripper” Pachauri-IPCC / Climategate debacle. Interestingly, this poll showing 62% of British farmers feel unaffected by climate change, has been reported in two different ways: One was “Growing number of British Farmers not feeling climate change: Survey”, and the other trumpeted “Third of farmers hit by climate change!”. I would like to think ‘ole Joe Public can’t be that dense to ignore the fact that 40% of farmers saying they are affected by climate change is a minority, but I’m not going to hold my breath on it.

I’m thinking that the people who are living and working on the land are probably the people in the know about what the weather and / or climate is doing, given that their entire livelihood depends on it. So I thought I would wander further afield into the internet farmosphere and see if there is a (forgive me) consensus forming amongst farmers.

At the end of a slightly productive one and a half minutes (before I got bored), I discovered that dairy farmers in the US boycotted the Monterey Aquarium for their display of a cow in a gas-mask with a speech bubble (speech bubble?!) requesting the world have less cows. Meanwhile in Brazil, a climate change summit in Bolivia has descended into bickering following President Evo Morales making pointed comments in regards to the Brazilian broiler chicken industry, to wit:

“the chickens we eat are loaded with feminine hormones” and that is why “when men consume these broilers they have deviations of their manly being”.

Which has caused him to become embroiled (har har) in controversy with the gay community AND the poultry industry. Now thats something you don’t get to say everyday. To my mind this illustrates the relative importance of climate change as a topic at the aforementioned climate change summit.

Anyhoo, I found this of passing interest and I hope you do, too. Otherwise, at least it gave me an excuse to do this:

Meet Natalie Gruzlewski, host of the quality Australian reality TV show “The Farmer Wants a Wife.” This picture doesn’t do that much for me, but I’m told the menfolk like this sort of thing. Otherwise, if Nat isn’t your cup of tea, I have included a picture of a cow in a gas mask, but seriously, I worry about you.

Mmmm, primary industry...

If you click, we need to talk...

[ad#insert-large]

Ahoy there, maties!

So its been busy ‘round here at Casa Paua lately, and I apologise for my absence from ye olde blogosphere. Ive been busy with the almost-but-not-quite doctor thing, and got sidetracked by writing a research paper in a field that I don’t even like. A father-figure scientist asked me in passing if I could work something out for him, and being a very well adjusted individual I said something frankly oedipal, like “Sure thing, Big Daddy! Just tell me I’m a good girl.” However, I think I have finished that one now, and I am currently waiting to hear back from a Norwegian woman with a voice like a bloke on whether my hack attempts at sciency stuff passes muster. Wish me luck.

In general I would like to say I am a fairly well adjusted individual, but 24 hour hospital shifts have definitely brought out the juvenile in me. So I apologise to anyone who has caught me doing three-sixties on the roller chair at the nurse’s station, and similarly would like to say sorry to that rather freaked-out looking patient who busted me doing a Mr. Bean-like dance of frustration in front of that broken vending machine the other night at 2am. If you keep your mouth shut, I won’t tell Nurse-zilla you were out smoking on the deck with your IV-pole.

But enough about me. Now you know why I feel the need to offload a little (and it was easier than finding something new to write about.) Those of you who follow my previous blog may be interested to hear some follow-up on the Reefgate scandal. Well, when I say scandal, its not really a huge scandal yet, but I am trying my damndest (can I say that on this blog?) darn-dest to make it so.

So some quick backstory to bring all y’all up to speed: Australia has this big reefy thing called the Great Barrier Reef that we are very chuffed about being able to see from space, because we didn’t get it together to build a big wall. The Big Reef is administered by a special arm of beaurocracy (and by special, I mean special in the context of “Little Johnny isn’t dumb, he’s just special”) called the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA – pronounced “Geh-broom-pa”). They generally specialise in justifying their own existence, which requires vast sums of money, then think up dire threats to the reef, which they then have to “manage”. Invariably, because the reef is huge and almost no-one except “lost” Timorese fishermen ever utilise it, they can then say that their management attempts were immensely successful.

Awhile ago, it occurred to GBRMPA that not only could they cripple the tiny commercial fishing industry, they could also stop the tiny handful of people who actually go near the reef from going there. So they got the idea of locking everything up in Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs. This then allowed them to sit out on the reef in a boat and arrest anyone deemed to have been fishing or who accidentally passed over a No-go zone. The really cool thing, was that this offence was deemed to be a major crime, and so anyone arrested for this would face pretty much losing their entire livelihoods depending on what their profession was. As you can imagine, all of this is going down a treat with the sports-fishing Orthopaedic surgeon crowd, who are continuing to oppose most of the insanity.

Then the PEW Trust (aka “the face of evil”) got wind of this and came Down Under to start throwing filthy lucre around (PM Kevin says “Thanks”, BTW), and decided that what we needed to do was lock the entire reef up in MPA’s. GBRMPA, meanwhile, needed to justify their MPA’s, and so published a paper outlining their success in the prestigious journal PNAS that read like a whos-who of the GBRMPA marine research crowd. Unfortunately for them, PNAS has some fairly stringent guidelines on submissions, most of which the paper shamelessly flouted. For instance, they failed to declare some obvious conflicts of interest, given that almost all the authors were funded by GBRMPA, and several of the lead authors by PEW, and almost all of them were reviewing the results of their own previous work. If that weren’t enough, they even managed to contradict their own, earlier findings. Ooopsy. A marine scientist by the name of Walter Starck noticed all of this and wrote to PNAS and GBRMPA for a please explain, and so far the silence on the subject has been thunderous.

Then I take a look at my blog and notice that some turkey has taken a swipe at me in a so-far unpublished comment because I outlined the backroom PEW-GBRMPA circle jerk, to the effect that describing this as a “conspiracy” shows up my own ignorance. Or sumfing. To which I would like to say, firstly, that I don’t think I actually used the word conspiracy, but just say I had: “what exactly do you think a conspiracy looks like when it’s at home?” It doesn’t have to be a bunch of dudes in funny hats with a secret handshake putting eyeballs on dollar bills, its simply two or more groups with vested interests arranging together to further those common interests. Similarly, a cartel doesn’t have to be a bunch of Columbian narcotraficantes with AK-47s and way-cool moustaches, it can also be a group of doctors who get together to price fix and arrange who is going to practice at which hospital.

If you’re still with me at this stage, thanks for hanging in there. Hopefully the whole Reefgate thing is gathering steam and eventually GBRMPA and PNAS are going to be forced to address all this. Australia is downright embarrassing in its utilisation of marine resources, with one of the largest EEZ per capita ratios in the world, we import almost 80% of our seafood from Asia and New Zealand. Somehow, rather than sustainably managing our own fisheries, we have been so crippled by the urban-eco crowd that we thought it more ethical to stop Australian fishing altogether in favour of rorting an already overburdened one in a developing nation. Just don’t tell the hippies that the sushi they are munching on came from a fish-farm in Thailand, and has more antibiotics in it than a battery hen.

And because you’ve been such good sports at reading through my introductory rant, heres a great barrier reef hotty called Lara Bingle, who wants to know “where the bl**dy hell are ya?”. Go on, you earnt it.

I was told this was allowed...

[ad#insert-large]

Another New Face

It’s Good Friday, but it’s an especially good Friday when we can welcome a new writer to The Daily Bayonet.

Paua hails from Sydney, Australia and is currently studying graduate-entry medicine in a bid to make her other two Applied Science degrees (in embarrassing hippy stuff) actually pay off.   She claims to look like an unreconstructed hippy on the outside, but on the inside is secretly a red-neck in a backwoods cabin with lots of guns.  She likes tacky science fiction, old time calypso and trampolines but dislikes Matt Damon and that skinny dude in Twilight.

Paua also blogs at her own corner of the intertubes at The Daily Suppository, a site you will already know if you read the Weekly Round-Ups.  I recommend it to your reading list.

Say hello to Paua, we’re looking forward to having her unique flavor of snark around here.

There’s still room for more here at The Daily Bayonet, so don’t be shy

[ad#insert-large]

Another New Face

It’s Good Friday, but it’s an especially good Friday when we can welcome a new writer to The Daily Bayonet.

Paua hails from Sydney, Australia and is currently studying graduate-entry medicine in a bid to make her other two Applied Science degrees (in embarrassing hippy stuff) actually pay off.   She claims to look like an unreconstructed hippy on the outside, but on the inside is secretly a red-neck in a backwoods cabin with lots of guns.  She likes tacky science fiction, old time calypso and trampolines but dislikes Matt Damon and that skinny dude in Twilight.

Paua also blogs at her own corner of the intertubes at The Daily Suppository, a site you will already know if you read the Weekly Round-Ups.  I recommend it to your reading list.

Say hello to Paua, we’re looking forward to having her unique flavor of snark around here.

There’s still room for more here at The Daily Bayonet, so don’t be shy

[ad#insert-large]