Australia Day Special – The Queen’s Exclusive Interview with Sigmund Freud

SF:      Thank you so much for receiving me Ma’am. How are you?

QE2:    (Sharply) What’s it to you?

SF:       (Taken aback) Well, um, I was just being courteous, enquiring after your well-being.

QE2:    Don’t you know the date?

SF:       (Warily) Of course I do, it’s the 26^th of January.

QE2:    Exactly. Awstralia Day. And you know what happens today. All those Awstralians check my  health.

SF:       That’s kind of them.

QE2:    Nothing of the sort. It’s about gambling.

SF:       Well, Australians do like a flutter, that’s true.

QE2:    But they’re betting on how long I’ll live! Those dreadful republicans want me to die so they can become independent. Such impertinence. Don’t they understand they simply can’t survive without our tutelage? I’d have them all transported if they weren’t already there. What do you suggest I do?

SF:       Open a By Appointment to Her Majesty betting shop?

QE2:    Ha ha, very funny Dr Freud. Prince Charles would just love that, especially short odds. He did a gambling course when he went to school in Awstralia all those years ago. But I have a better idea. I will ban everyone—particularly the Awstralians—from calling me Ma’am. From now on it’s Mum. No one wants their mother to die do they?

SF:       (Hesitantly) I wouldn’t bet on it.

  

North Korea: The Jong and the Restless

Part II of Sigmund Freud’s exclusive interview with Supreme Leader/Marshall/Great Benefactor/Divine Inspiration/Father of Most of the People/He Who is Wise Beyond Belief/Our Dear Pal in High Places, Kim Jong-un.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: You’re back. So soon?

SF: There was trouble at the airport, I never left. Thank you SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP for ensuring I had a cell all to myself. Quite restful. The cigarette burns were a thoughtful touch, helped to keep me warm. But enough about me, how have you been?

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP (sniffling and wiping his eyes on the sleeve of the nearest aide): Terrible, just terrible, I’ve hardly slept since our last interview.

SF: You missed me? Strange way of showing it but that’s cultural diversity for you. I must tell you though, SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP, you’re not really my type.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: You are an ignoramus doctor, besides all the other things. I did not give you one teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy thought as I have been kept awake (his voice chokes and he wipes his eyes again on the aide’s other sleeve) by the dastardly, inhumane, cruel and unusual punishment tactics of those sub-human devils running that part of Our Dear Homeland, correction, My Dear Homeland that is yet to be liberated by the stunningly brave and courageous sons and daughters who will follow me to the death except that I will be commanding them from well back as is my wont.

SF: That’s a very long sentence. Did you know that in spoken language it’s best to keep sentences to an average of about 15 words, as I have just done? Your very title is a hurdle.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: You must help me, you must!

SF: Then what’s the problem and keep it brief.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: Loudspeakers.

SF: You know, you can be too short.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: How dare you make malicious, hurtful, libellous and a generally unwise comments about my stature.

SF (shaking his head): I meant no disrespect. I just need a little more information about the loudspeakers.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: They are on the DMZ, the false border, playing music 24/7. Ever since the glorious 8^th of January when we let off a hydrogenic-cracker to celebrate my birthday they have not stopped playing the song. Round and round it goes, ceaseless, unending, relentless. Oh, if only the swine would bring back the propaganda broadcasts of yesteryear.  

SF: What song?

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP (now blubbering uncontrollably): It’s a small, small world.

SF: One of my favourites, but I always had a soft spot for Disneyland.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP (falling to his knees as his aides flatten themselves on the floor): Please help me, please!

SF (Soothingly and reaching into his briefcase): Of course, of course. Here, take two of these with your evening bottle of cognac. And please, do remember your dreams. They can’t possibly be any wackier than your waking moments.

SLMGBDIFoMotPHWiWBBODPiHP: Don’t bet on that. 

Sigmund Freud interviews Kim Jong-un

SF: Thank you for your time Mr Kim. Before we start could I just say—

(An aide to the North Korean leader clamps her hand over Dr Freud’s mouth and angrily whispers into his ear. Freud’s eyes open wide in fright as he desperately nods).

SF: With my deepest most profound and sincere apologies, Supreme Leader.

SL: That’s better.

SF: I would like to say, on behalf of all freedom loving people of the world, Happy Birthday.

SL: Better still. You will no doubt have observed the complete absence of traffic this morning. Do not for one moment believe the contemptible and vicious untruth that this quietude results from an absence of vehicles or fuel or indeed driving skills. On the contrary, my beloved people are conserving what little energy they have for the grand party I throw every 8 January. It’s the best meal most of them eat for the whole year. Come along and see for yourself.

SF: That’s very kind of you, Supreme Leader, I’ll do my best. Now if I may ask about your new year resolutions.

SL: You may.

(Awkward pause.)

SF: Is it true you resolved to be even more resolute and determined than ever before in fighting the imperialist ambitions of the US military-industrial complex and its lickspittle running dogs?

SL: I don’t know, did I? Sounds like a plan.

SF: Your comments were widely reported in the international media.

SL: I only read the Pyongyang Bugle.

SF: Do you feel fulfilled?

SL: That’s a silly question, who do you think you are? (An aide whispers to him.) Oh, is that right. Well of course I feel fulfilled. Every moment of every day of every year, someone, somewhere in the world is talking about me. Isn’t that a hoot!

SF: But if I might dare to suggest—                                    

SL: That’s not a phrase anyone uses with me after what happened to Uncle Jang!

SF: The Defence Minister?

SL: No, no. That idiot walked in front of an anti-aircraft gun just as it was fired. Uncle Jang fed himself to starving dogs. You know what he’d done?

SF: No.

SL: (Breathes deeply) He came to me one day and said, and I quote, might I dare to suggest we turn our swords into plough shares.

SF: That’s a very famous phrase, there’s something in it you know.

SL: In your dreams.

SF: Well that was going to be my next question. But you have a very busy schedule, we’ll leave it. I wonder if you’d be so kind, though, to make a note of what you dream about before we talk again.

SL: I hope you get to the airport alright.  

50 Shades of Being Disturbed

Saudi Arabia’s executioners got their new year off to a flying start by killing 47 people, including the prominent Shia cleric and critic of the royal family, Sheikh al-Nimr. Not a personal best for the official loppers and shooters, they’d despatched 63 in one day in 1980, but a brutal demonstration that Saudi rulers treat dissent and terrorism as the same capital offence.

Such an obscenity should be a gift to those campaigning to end state-sponsored murder, mass or otherwise. But will it work out that way? The strongest reaction came from the Shia homeland, Iran, engaged in a struggle with the Saudis for regional supremacy and whose record of dubious legal processes and appalling execution rates is even worse. Amnesty International calculates that in the first six months of 2015 Iran executed almost 700 people. This compared to 150+ in Saudi Arabia for the whole year.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was ‘deeply dismayed’ by the executions. But perhaps with an eye to oil, arms sales, and Saudi Arabia’s vital role in ‘containing’ Iran, governments who preach hard and long when their own citizens are involved gave the Saudis little pause for thought. The UK said it regularly raised human rights issues with other countries ‘including Saudi Arabia.’ The US state department stated the obvious in that Nimr’s execution risked ‘exacerbating sectarian tensions’. Meanwhile in Australia, Julie Bishop was ‘deeply disturbed’ and Opposition defence spokesman, Stephen Conroy said ‘it was a worry’.

What a pity they couldn’t take a lead from The New York Times editorial headed ‘Saudi Arabia’s Barbaric Executions’.  

   

Bovver debate

On his first day in Parliament as PM in late 2013, Tony Abbott told the ABC that the chamber "should always be a place of spirited debate". But, he intoned, it "should never be a place where motives are impugned or characters assassinated".

This was the same Tony Abbott who, in March 2011, stood alongside Bronwyn "Chopper" Bishop in front of placard declaring: "Juliar - Bob Browns [sic] bitch." The same Tony Abbott whose occasional friend, Alan Jones, had declared his intention of putting PM Gillard "in a chaff bag and hoisting her into the Tasman Sea".

Our political leaders and opinion shapers call for civilised  debate on the issues that matter then promptly trash those they disagree with. What's wrong with a contest of ideas? What's wrong with robust differences over policy? The answer is nothing. But I know only too well from writing about Israel how easy it is for those who can contribute little to the debate to fire off accusations of racism or anti-Semitism. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

Take Greg Sheridan, The Australian's Foreign Editor. He and Professor Hugh White from the Australian National University, have well publicised differences over dealing with China. That's hardly unreasonable. But for Greg, Hugh has become Australia's "strategic jester". Pathetic. 

   

Capital dilemma

A few months from now a US District Judge will confirm the death sentence for the younger of the two Boston marathon bombers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. His execution by lethal injection won’t be imminent but he’ll be on death row.

That should be a problem for Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop and Tanya Plibersek and Ben Quilty and all those who raged against Indonesia for executing Australian drug smugglers. Unless they make clear their unequivocal opposition to Tsarnaev’s possible execution they’ll simply confirm the double standard that infects much of the debate in Australia about capital punishment.

Tsarnaev is an evil person. He shattered many lives. He should never breathe free air again. But if he is executed why shouldn’t others be? And those others, inevitably, will include Australian nationals. Currently some 17 Australians world-wide are at risk of receiving the death penalty. The moment a sentence is confirmed we’ll waggle our collective fingers at the horror of it all.

But those being waggled at will have the perfect out: ‘Where was your outrage when others were killed?’ And there’ll be no meaningful answer unless and until we wean ourselves of the absurd notion that capital punishment matters only when Australians are its victims.   

What were they thinking? #2

It's official. The Australian economy will collapse if same-sex marriage is legalised. China will turn its back on our iron ore. There'll be no more coal ships to Japan. Indonesia will look anywhere but Australia for its live cattle imports. Across Asia there'll be such moral outrage at Australian 'decadence' that usually hard-headed traders will take their business elsewhere.
   
Or so says Barnaby Joyce. It's absolute hooey. He, for one, should know that trade makes strange bedfellows. What they do in the sack is utterly irrelevant.