Skip to main content

What is it about these air-heads?

It is bad enough that the media highlights the antics of the likes of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears - but 2 examples of vacuous and stupid people - but when the party of a 16 year old in an outer, outer suburb of Melbourne attracts world-wide attention [should that read notoriety?] one has to scratch one's head and wonder.

That is exactly what Richard Ackland has done in an op-ed piece "Hopefully, this celebrity is as quick as it is instant" in the SMH as he reflects on what has now become news-worthy:

"Don't put your son on the stage, Mrs Worthington. Unfortunately, it's too late - the little prat is already centre stage, soaking up our oxygen and even getting titters of applause for his gormless moment of show and tell.

Narcissistic, monosyllabic, barely literate 16-year olds have always been around. What's new is that now they are celebrities.

Apparently we cannot get enough of those who are famous for being infamous.

Corey Worthington is today's hero. He holds Marshall McLuhan's flickering flame of fame. Maybe his entire life has been compressed into two days of instant notoriety. And for what? "Hosting" an out-of-control party on the outskirts of Melbourne in which a mess was made, property was damaged and the good burghers of Narre Warren sent scurrying into their locked fortresses.

The drama of police dogs and helicopters is part of the overwrought theatrical backdrop. After all, a police force that douses people with capsicum spray at the Australian Open tennis tournament is a police force with a finely honed sense of the dramatic.

Corey Worthington and his pimples, his rotten cap and sunnies was spun around the world. CNN says that the story was the most read item on its website. Bigger even than news about a man called Mitt."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more