Itemisation

I’ve been too distracted to comment on the Victorian election to date and that’s saying something, ‘cos I loves me a democratic process. So I figure it's time to get all political on yo asses.

There were no enormous surprises. No unexpected seats were lost, the swings were insubstantial. All-in-all a pretty mediocre end to what was a remarkably low-key campaign.

But the one thing that caught my attention was the behaviour of the "Left" parties towards each other.

The clash between Labor and the Greens has really been quite fascinating.

I was brought up in a staunchly Labor family. We have photos of my parents in their 30s bedecked in "It's Time" t-shirts and emblazoned with face-sized Gough badges. My childhood front garden often bore the ALP placards in the lead up to elections, both State and Federal, despite our location placing us firmly in Liberal strongholds.

But despite the obvious political leanings, what lay at its heart was not loyalty to the Party as such, but a belief in the doctrine. Labor stood for social policy, support of the underpriveleged, environmental responsibility, health and education. Labor parties did not believe in running massive surpluses. Public funding would be used to support public infrastructure. Government was not a business, but a mechanism for supporting the population - public servants in the most literal sense of the word.

Few people can deny that the Labor Party has drifted a fair way from this foundation, a fact borne out by the seemingly identical policies released by the two major parties during the state election. Labor is now about big surpluses, business advantage and half-hearted environmental policy. Deepening the Port Phillip Bay channel, building roads with public funds and then adding "user-pays" tolls, slowly abandoning their planning guidelines to allow bigger and more profitable private development, no support for progressive policies like same-sex unions, an end to old-growth logging or genuine strategies to tackle drug abuse.

And yet the venom with which those loyal to Labor have attacked others who have drifted to a party that now actually represents the old Labor ideals is extraordinary.

Labor does not represent what I believe in any more - and it's not me that's changed.

There is an argument that is frequently batted around that goes thusly: There are only two parties that can take power in an election - Labor and Liberal. Labor is more progressive than the Liberals, therefore, if you consider yourself progressive, a vote for anything other than Labor is not only a loss for the left, but a victory for the right. The extension of this is that if you disagree with Labor policy, but see it as the lesser of two evils, then you must still vote Labor.

As a consequence, the Greens came under sustained and intense attacks from both the left and the right, particularly in the last couple of weeks before the poll. It's actually astounding that they managed to maintain their vote from the previous election.

The Labor Party spent most of the final week of campaining bitterly accusing the Greens of making preference deals with the Liberals in a desperate attempt to scare away any left-of-centre voters who may have been considering a change. But then they turned around and said it was all the Greens fault. It's the Greens who are fracturing the left, the Greens who are responsible for Bronwyn Pike almost losing her seat, the Greens who are to blame for the reduced majority.

No.

Labor has drifted so far from it's socially-progressive roots that many people simply cannot justify voting for them. It's not the Greens fault that I agree with their policies. It's not the Greens fault that I am increasingly dismayed by what Labor stands for.

If the Labor Party is as concerned about the Green vote as they seemed to suggest during this election campaign, then they need to start looking very seriously at their own policies and their own culture. It's not the Greens who are fracturing the progressive side of politics, Labor has left it's supporters with no other options.

Here endeth the rant.

I wasn't excited about the Ashes until the first ball was bowled. Literally.

Anyway, watching the cricket on the intermawebs at work has just reminded me why I like it so much. The guys who write the running commentary are highly amusing.

126.2 Hoggard to Ponting, no run, Ponting takes a big stride forward but leaves it alone, like the big-striding-leaver that he is

125.4 Giles to Ponting, no run, "ooooh yes Gilo" says Jones, for no apparent reason as it was perfectly defended

GAH!!

As I'm typing this, Punter's just been dismissed for 196. Bugger! I jinxed it.

I have often pondered this very question myself, with those exact quotation marks and selective use of capitals.

The "Jo" I am referring to is, of course, none other than Jo Silvagni nee Bailey. Do I really have to tell you?

Currently host of the earth-shatteringly brilliant and not-at-all infomercial Melbourne Weekender on Channel 7 in Melbourne, "Jo" is pretty much the closest thing the world has to a living goddess.

Apparently.

A quick check of the interblag returns numerous entries on "Jo", but none so informative, emphatic and downright authoritative than the Yahoo "Jo Bailey" Group website.

Jo is without a doubt the most beautiful woman to have ever lived.

See.

Her dazzling looks rival past beauties "Grace Kelly", "Audrey Hepburn" or current beauties "Catherine Zeta Jones" or "Brooke Burke".

Who is Brooke Burke!?

Jo has the spunk, sensuality and fire of a "Katherine Hepburn", "Marilyn Monroe" and "Nicole Kidman".

Is a "Katherine Hepburn", "Marilyn Monroe" and "Nicole Kidman" a single entity? Like a giant three-lady-sized mega-babe (literally)? Human megafauna? Awesome. She truly is a force to be reckoned with.

Jo's Goddess/Amazon like body would make the likes of "Elle MacPherson" or "Sophia Loren" pale into insignificance in her presence. A body perfectly designed genetically to be paraded at any red carpet event, Bikini / lingerie parade or bearing perfect children in her image.

Good for the secksing and the bearing of the kiddie-winks. If only she had the intellect to support her mighty physique...but wait.

Jo could also match it with an "Oprah Winfrey", "Barbara Walters" or "Jana Wendt".

Another gigantic multi-lady! Won’t somebody save us from these terrifying yet startlingly attractive and devastatingly intelligent earth-roaming she-beasts!

Jo is the complete package.

Bow down ye mere mortals. Thou art in the presence of "THE complete package".

There's something magic about taking photos, and digital cameras make the job so much easier.

Though there is nothing quite like the thrill of taking a shot with slide film and discovering two months later that it's come out perfectly, digital photography can provide instant gratification and when it goes right the results are no less spectacular or satisfying.

Being a photography hack I helped out last night with some promotional shots we've prepared for the show and in a sea of average snaps, this one came through just beautifully.

Historic Presidential speech "tag clouds".

[Via]

I'm sorry, what was that? I missed it.

Oh I see, sure.

...

Um, look I know we just went over this, but what did you just say again?

Oh, yep yep, sweet.

...

So it was...

Ah, yes, that's right - the items. Of course. I'll get onto it straight away.




There was a line used by a reviewer not so long ago in relation to a new play by a notable young Melbourne playwright that went something along the lines of: "if you've ever wondered what it's like to watch Lally Katz eat her own brain then see this show".

I think I'm half way through my own brain at this point and I've just reached the productivity centre. I'm pretty much a productivity free zone right at the moment. Fortunately, there's not too much on at work, so it's not as disastrous as it could easily be, but still...

Somewhat predictably, it's the show that's weighing on my mind (and it seems I'm not the only one").

Last time we visited this topic I was being a whingey bitch. You may be bored witless pleased to hear that things are now looking up considerably. I'm much happier with what I'm doing, but more importantly, the show is coming together very nicely indeed.

We have three weeks to opening night. Just typing that gives me the flutters, but we're in a very good position for the final push ("tally ho, boys!" etc). This is when things really start to happen. Scripts are down, lines are learnt, the production team is hitting their stride, costumes and props are appearing, details being worked out, sound and light, entrances and exits, timing, shaping, polishing. This is when it starts to get serious.


Each rehearsal that comes and goes marks another one down before the actual performance. Nerves start to flit around the cast and crew. Publicity ramps up, ticket sales open, flyers and programs, headshots and bios. You can't go back now, the course is set inexorably.

At this point the cast is at about 40%. As we start to do runs of Acts, that will pick up to 50% or so. Add costumes and another 10-15% will appear again. Then the live band arrives - up to 70%. Full runs another 10%. By the time we hit the theatre itself, we should be getting there. Add the final ingredients of space, lights, sound, band, costumes and audience combined and we'll be bouncing off the walls.

This is what it's all about.










For those of you interested, a number of the cast (yes, including me) will be performing live on Derek Guille's Evening Show on 774 ABC Melbourne this coming Tuesday night (21 November). We should be on around 7:45pm-ish.

Dear English Speaking World,

Please kindly refrain from using the word "whilst". It shits me.

"While" is perfectly adequate in every situation. It is never necessary to use whilst under any circumstances. Ever.

Whilst is for people who like to sound officious. Whilst is for people who want to sound cleverer than they are.

Won't somebody think of the children etc??!!

I won't have it. NO MORE!!

And while you're at it, get rid of "bumpkin" too.

Sincerely, Tom.

*Yawn*

Anyone else over this week?

[via]

Roll on 5 o'clock.

But just to tide you over...

It soothes my filthy Leftist soul to see what has happened in the US over the last two days.

It's been a rough few years for those of us who refuse to bay for the blood of random Arabs, for those of us who feel that creating a war under false pretences is a wrong thing to do, for those of us who think that the First World should lead by example on issues of judicial process and transparency, on the environment and social policy.

Not that I'm convinced for a moment that all this will now come to fruition. The US has dug itself an enormous hole that it now has to start climbing out of and this country is still led by the rat-cunning of JHo and the Australian pater-cons.

But for the first time in many years there is a flicker from the Light on the Hill. A reminder that politics is about swings and roundabouts and that however much democracy can seem to kick you in the guts, it all evens out in the wash.

The question now will be how this is really going to change things in the States? Will their foreign policy be significantly altered? With George W a lame duck President, will the Democrats actually move to make the changes the voting public has so clearly demanded, or will they slip quietly into power and allow the situation to bubble along as it has for the last few years?

Some have even questioned if the Dems winning Virginia is actually a desirable outcome. The next few years will require a significant amount of 'correction' and having the Democrats in power of both Houses may simply damage the Democratic Presidential nominee (whoever that may be). Perhaps it's better to let George have his way for the last two years of his term so that the blame for the state of the country can be attributed solely to the Republicans when it next comes time to vote for the leader of the Western World.

If nothing else, it just makes me smile to look at an electoral map of the US and see no hard red Republican 'gains'.


[via]

It's going to be an interesting couple of months…

For those of you not sufficiently up with the coolsie political "lingo", the GOP is the US Republican Party (apparently stands for the Grand Old Party...WTFBBQ!?? etc).

Anyhoo, with voting in the mid-terms (almost?) complete, it seems that there's been some trouble with some of the polling booths.

Surprise sur-freakin-prise.

Fortunately, the folks at Wonkette seem to have discovered the cause.



COME ON USofA!! YOU CAN DO IT!!

*crosses fingers*

UPDATE: Early reports from CNN Exit Polls have the Democrats taking the Senate! Eek! COME ON!! [Via]

UPDATED UPDATE: Dems have the House. Three seats to come in for the Senate. If the Dems pick each of them up, they'll get both houses.

According to the NY Times:

Montana: 55% counted, Dems (51.5%), Reps (46.2%)
Missouri: 81% counted, Dems (48.8%), Reps (48.0%)
Virginia: 99.7% counted, Dems (49.5%), Reps (49.4%)

Go!

Why am I blogging this? Seriously. It's not like you can't look it up yourself and that it will be old news by the time I've finished typing it.

Let me have my Josh Lyman moment.

Mrs Guts, Moi, Dr Mike and CC leading the charge at this thing.

Look at that strut!

Hott as.

Twelve years ago today at 12pm, my Mum passed away in the Peter Mac Cancer Hospital in East Melbourne.

I don’t really have much to say on the matter, but every year I make an effort to mark the occasion in some way or another.

Of course losing a parent is an horrendous thing to have to deal with, but time does wonders. The tearing grief has given way to a gentle, lingering space. I just wish she could have met the people I share my life with these days, to sit back and have some beers, to talk about nothing, to see who I’ve become and where I am.

That’s all.

This is advanced warning that the next few weeks on this here blog are going to be hijacked more or less by the fact that I am in this show. As I’ve mentioned previously, involvement in this sort of production slowly becomes all-consuming until there is nothing else, it fills the horizon like a tidal wave threatening to sweep everything else away.

If you’ve never been involved in theatre, or performance in general (or even if you have), you might find this incredibly self-indulgent and boring as bat-shit an interesting series of posts.

There’s a line from Stephen Sondheim’s Company that describes one of the characters as “wildly conceited with no self-esteem”. Anyone who spends any time around actors knows that this comment sums them up beautifully and I place myself firmly among them.

Performance ego is forever balanced on a knife’s edge. A single compliment and the world is your oyster – the greatest actor the world has ever seen; a hint of disapproval and everything falls apart – who are you to be demanding money from people to see your pathetic performance? It really can be that dramatic (and yes, the pun is more than deliberate).

Of course it’s not always that full-on, but ask anyone who ever gets on stage and they’ll happily admit that a carefully placed word by the right (or wrong) person can significantly affect the way they feel.

But it’s more complicated than that. If it was simply a matter of feeding off compliments, every actor would be bouncing off the clouds. Rarely will anyone criticise you to your face. It’s obligatory to say how much you enjoyed the show and how good a performance was to any actor involved. It’s polite, it’s not being an arsehole. You know they’ve slaved their guts out over the thing, so you’re not going to turn around and tell them what you really feel – that they sucked sweaty goat’s balls and that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with John Howard’s eyebrows than have to sit through that tripe again.

So here’s the rub: an actor lives off compliments, but doesn’t believe a word of them, because they too know how it works.

But again, a complicating factor: while actors don’t want to be patronised and told that it was great when it really wasn’t, they also don’t want to be told it was crap because it will shatter their fragile little hearts.

And so, to borrow a line from City of Angels, you get to trust your instincts after a while. Because you can't believe a word anyone ever says to you, you develop your own barometer.

Predictably, I’m currently in a low ego ebb.

I know that I am a good actor and I have a significant body of empirical evidence to back that up (see the conceit!?) and yet the role I’m rehearsing at the moment is going nowhere (and then the lack of self-esteem). Self-doubt is creeping in. I feel like I haven’t played a decent role in five frickin years! I’ve forgotten how to do it. I feel wooden and awkward.

To make matters worse, the cast for this show is brilliant, every one of them, and I feel like I’m letting the team down.

And so is the lot of the actor.

I have no doubt there are others in this cast thinking exactly the same thing about themselves. And I know there will be people who will howl with protest at my self-flagellation, but there’s nothing anyone can do about it – it’s just the way it works. Always has, always will.

I know I’ll bounce back – all it takes is one good rehearsal and I’ll be back in the game, but it’s not so fun when you’re on the wrong side of that knife’s egde.



UPDATE: Best. Response. Ever.

"Oh, listen to Tom banging on again like a tool, why don't you just fuck off to the VCA and roll around on the floor pretending to be a fish for 3 years."


UPDATED UPDATE: It seems there has been some confusion about the unattributed response posted above. I can assure you that I deliberately posted it out of context 'cos I found it high-larious and that the unattributed (and now mortified) party meant it entirely in jest - fo shizzle.