How else can two billion people be encouraged to sit idle simultaneously?

That is the estimated TV audience for this weekend's Live 8 concert, which is tipped to be the biggest thing to hit Africa since AIDS.

The very idea that one can "Make poverty history" just by watching a televised concert is seductive. Finally your sedentary lifestyle can save the world. Isn't that fantastic?, don't you feel proud?.

You shouldn't. A lot of people are sacrificing income to perform for free, but you are not one of them.

If watching TV isn't enough, would wearing a white band help? Maybe a little. The ones bought from Oxfam at least support some free enterprise in the developing world. You don't have to buy one, though. Mr Geldof says you can make your own to show that you care.

How about having your mug shot posted up among many others on railings in Edinburgh? Sorry.

This project aims to raise awareness, not money.

Awareness of what exactly? We know that abject poverty exists. I don't know anybody who thinks it's swell.

Perhaps it's to prod the G8 into action, like dropping the debt?. Too late, it was dropped a few weeks ago.

So what exactly is all this supposed to achieve other than to provide an outlet for human emotion? I think global poverty is horrible too, put my name down.

You don't help by showing that you care. Nobody cares how much you care, except people who care about caring more than you do.

A charitable spirit is commendable, so use it and give some money to Oxfam, or to the Grameen Bank, or some other place that reduces dependance instead of fuelling it.

But don't think that you're saving the world by continuing the sloth that fucks up your corner of it.

"Big Brother", the TV show is bad. Big Brother for real is worse.

Big Brother is a truly awful programme combining some of the worst bleach blonde slatterns with some equally horrible surfie/stoner types, or worse- brickie's labourers who think they're cool because they've got frosted tips. I despise everything it stands for.

So I don't watch it.

I decide that I don't like, it, so I avoid it. The same can't be said for a group of Liberal politicians who want it off the air. Among them is my Local member, Trish Draper- who was recently caught grafting taxpayer funds to take her "Partner" for a dirty weekend in Paris. She is in no position to step to anybody as far as morals are concerned. The people in the Big Brother house may be common, but at least they're not common thieves.

What these MPs have managed to do is quite amazing. They have managed to view the show and isolate specific parts of it that they don't like- rather than exhibiting a healthy disgust for the entire concept. The parts that they don't like are: Coarse language, full frontal nudity and sexual references.

They say this is inappropriate for children-as it might well be, but where does the responsibility of the parents come into this? Take, "I don't like it, I therefore don't watch it" and substitute "I don't want my children watching it, therefore I don't let them" I like to think that children of mine would be raised better than to find such drivel appealing in the first place.

My mother's a teacher, and she concurs that parents are less and less able to make decisions that are unpopular with their children, less likely to lay down the law. They want the things that aren't taught at school to be legislated into (Or out of) existence. They want the government to raise their children for them.

The social contract used to involve giving up a small amount of freedom in return for peace, safety and order. The government collected taxes for things people couldn't do themselves, like run traffic lights.

It has mutated in character to an arrangement where the citizen allows the government to interfere with absolutely every corner of his life, and in return the citizen gets to blame every little problem of his on the government.

Liberalism shouldn't be like this. It should be about the individual's right to do whatever he pleases and have nobody step to him unless he does real and provable harm.

Liberals in Australia are socially conservative prudes. Liberals in the US would like to tell you what you can and can't drive and where you can and can't drive it. They wear sandals and have halitosis.

People who really believe in individual liberty in either country have had to reinvent themselves as Libertarians.

Libertarians, if they are true to their name shouldn't oppose stuff like gay marriage. After all, it's nobody's business except Bob's and Fred's. (And maybe Bob's wife, who doesn't know yet.)

Libertarians match individual liberty with individual responsibility. An unemployed, single woman may have as many different babies with as many different men as she pleases, as long as she doesn't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. You fathers had better step up and present your monthly cheques though- you concieved it, you bought it.

Liberals want a society where all the sharp edges have been ground down, and anything that could possibly hurt anybody is banned. They want us all in straight jackets, and in padded cells. They want a world as boring as they are, so they don't get anxiety attacks about standing out.

Libertarians like a world that's interesting, with noise and colour, and the occasional sharp edge.

Tobacco, hard liquor and red meat. There are still a few of us left.

Gilganixon and myself may be forming a political party.

I didn't see any hippies in Karoonda.

I've just returned home from the scene of a fatal motorcycle accident.

The SES were called there to set up some sort of marquee, for which purposes I am unaware.

Proceeding to the scene was an event -as this was a "Category A" call-out, we had lights and sirens going and were running red lights at intersections. When we arrived, there was a large object covered in a tarpaulin - with a trail of blood on the road suggesting what it might be.

On Friday night I had already attended a couple of minor jobs before news broke of a town near Murray Bridge that had been torn a new arsehole by gale force winds.

That SES units were called from all over metropolitan Adelaide was an indication of the scope of the task at hand.

When we arrived just after midnight it was difficult to see just how much damage had been done. The CFS headquarters in Karoonda had one of its sides blown out, but still served as the emergency response headquarters for all agencies.

My team was immediately dispatched to a house , which had four pine trees fallen on its roof. By the time they had been cut away at was 6:30 am.

We returned to the CFS headquarters in Karoonda, which was by now crawling with uniformed personnel.

Not a single one of them had dread-locks.

This weekend, hippies were cycling naked in Belgium, and blocking access to a military base in Queensland. As far as I'm aware, hippies in South Australia were totally unencumbered. The news report of the destruction in Karoonda didn't seem to prod any of them into action.

Something close to you.

Something you can do something about.

Something you don't have the luxury of planning six months in advance.

As it turns out there were only minor injuries, which was a matter of luck, with iron roofing sheets flying around and a matter of "Thank fuck" because both the hospital and the ambulance station were damaged. So most of the damage was property only, but should that matter?

I'm sure some beatniks could go on a rant about personal property not being that important or whatever, but that doesn't wash when we live in a day and age where even communists are house-broken.

As Karoonda is not a wealthy place, 60 percent of house holds were uninsured. People who can't even afford insurance are being lumbered with the lion's chare of a $2million (And rising) damage bill. Where's your chant now? Where's your banner? WHERE'S YOUR FUCKING LAPEL PIN?

I'm simultaneously furious at this scum and proud that I do something that actually helps people. I know that I'm in the right place and I know that I want to stay there.

Straight eye for the "Open minded" guy.

Shop Assistant: Can I help you?

Me: Yes, I'm looking for an article of men's clothing that doesn't cast aspersions over my sexuality. Do you carry such a garment in this fine establishment?

Metrosexuality has not withered away, its powers have multiplied and it has transformed from a trendy alternative, to the prevailing norm.

It is becoming more and more difficult for the openly straight, tall white man to dress himself.

After finding a pair of jeans that did not contain any kind of queer pattern or silly "Dirty" effect* I rushed to try them on, watching my back as I entered the changeroom.

I had taken all reasonable steps and had managed to avoid an actual physical violation. Unfortunately I could not avoid the mental one that arose from having my retinas pierced by rack upon rack of pink shirts, pawed over by men who have haircuts like Luke Reid.

That sight caused initial screaming pain, as my eyeballs felt like they were burning up into nothingness. As vision slowly returned and the pain numbed I knew it was the right thing to complete the transaction and leave discreetly.

*The "Dirty" effect refers to a dye put through the jeans at time of manufacture that makes them look like they have been worn during manual labour. It is meant for people who would squeal in horror if their jeans ever got some actual dirt on them, and also for people who would have a similar reaction to the prospect of doing manual labour itself.