Is It A Bad Look?

I'm going to ask a question here: does it matter that Prime Minister Albanese has planned to attend the nuptials of Kyle Sandilands today? He's been invited to the wedding and accepted the invitation, but there are many who believe this is, to say the least, a Bad Look. Is it a Bad Look in the way Eighties shoulder pads teamed with geometric haircuts and Kabuki-style cosmetic application is a Bad Look? Is it a Bad Look in the way a pink plastic flamingo surrounded by a phalanx of cavorting garden gnomes in the front yard is a Bad Look? Nah, I guess it's a Bad Look in that it's controversial company.

For the record, I think Kyle Sandilands is a loathsome scraping of toenail jam with a level of talent bordering on negligible to non-existent. He makes simply offensive comments. I understand his groomsmen include John Ibrahim. 

But - is Albo responsible for the guest list? I'm guessing no. If the guest list includes convicted criminals, then one can reasonably assume their attendance today is their right as currently free or bailed citizens, as per our laws. I too have attended a wedding where the guest included people with criminal convictions and was seated at the same table. The world kept turning. Yeah, I know; I'm not the prime minister.  

Does Sandilands himself have a criminal record? I don't know and don't care to google it right now. I'm guessing if he does, then it would be a relatively minor or summary offence, or the details would have come to my mind straight away. 

But does Albanese's attendance, as per his right, at the wedding of a loudmouthed and controversial shock jock constitute a Bad Look? Right now, I am thinking of the infamous photograph taken of Murray Farquhar as he enjoyed a day at the races in the company of George Freeman. I think the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, as Farquhar then was, consorting with a known criminal does equate to a Bad Look. However, does a prime minister sipping bubbles and nibbling canapes at a function to celebrate the wedding of some overrated slob, who has nefarious acquaintances, also deserve to be lumped under the umbrella that has 'Bad Look' in bold lettering? I cannot answer that one.

The thing that has really got me scratching my head is that this event suggests there is someone who would actually want to marry Kyle Sandilands. 

NDIS Narkiness & Trivia Testiness

 Did everyone have a nice Good Friday? Mine was good and bad. I wasn't working today and planned to finish an assessment for university. But Madam Universe had other plans and I had to drive my son to a train station some ninety kilometres away because our burg has very limited services at the best of times, let alone public holidays. He missed the sparrow's-fart service, so it was good old Mum-Uber to the rescue. However, after dropping him at the station I met a friend for coffee, so I ended up enjoying my day out. The assessment remains unfinished, but I am fed up with it for now.

Similarly, I am fed up with Pauline Hanson. Oh, we know she is just ripe fodder for the piss to be taken, but One Nation's latest antics have really boiled my piss. They like to share animated satirical videos and the latest one leaves me speechless. It addresses what her dopey-arsed party think of the NDIS scheme and manages to punch down on vulnerable people and sneer about some of the services accessed via this scheme. Those services include sex workers, and to this end, they depict Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John (a wheelchair user), in the company of two sex workers. Who gives a flying one if he DOES avail himself of these services, provided they don't contradict whatever he is preaching? 

Naturally, the people agreeing with the video are using examples like this to galvanise their argument: 'I know of someone who uses funding to go to Dungeons and Dragons Club.' Um, how do I put this? I will run with so fucking what? 

People are always griping about what services NDIS recipients are accessing. 'I don't want my taxes going on this or that' seems to be the argument du jour. Look, that argument is a facile one. There will always be something with which someone has issue. A person on NDIS could, in theory, use an escort. Someone might seek a crystal wand healing session. Someone might have a driver provide transport to a horse racing event, which is an activity to which some people take moral objection. You cannot please everyone all the time. If a business has an ABN, provides a lawful service, and is registered with NDIS through the appropriate channels, then what's the problem? Let people have things. It won't affect your life. 

This reprehensible video just reinforces my theory that Hanson is a toxic bag of dirt, low enough to parachute from a snake's arse and still have time to free fall. 

Something else has boiled my urine, but not to the astronomical boiling point caused by One Nation, It's the team whose score sheet I marked at trivia the other night. At my weekly trivia game, the teams mark each other's sheets each round. It's a good system because we get the game over more quickly. Anyway, the other night, the hostess asked the name of Prince Harry's Netflix docuseries. It's Harry and Meghan. I have watched a couple of episodes, but it bored the shit out of me, and I haven't returned to it. Anyway, the next table wrote 'Meghan and Harry'. That's incorrect, and I marked it accordingly. When the hostess had collected the sheets and tallied the scores, that table believed they had been dudded a point. They demanded their answer be noted as correct, and the hostess capitulated. Well, that left me one snarky trivia player. I turned around and started to sing: 'Babe...I got you, babe...', and asked them whom I was trying to be. Someone replied, 'Cher'. I agreed, but asked for the full name of the attributed artists. They duly replied the singers were Sonny and Cher, to which I triumphantly responded, 'Yes! Sonny and Cher, not Cher and Sonny! Get my point?'

I think my tactics embarrassed my teammates, comprising my son and his mate, but there is a principle at stake here.