Things are hopping at the Billabong with a takedown of the asshats who vandalized the Sydney Opera House and the Professor catching Phatty Adams cribbing his column again - this time from the New York Review of Books. (Tim Blair has converted it into a Phatty Quiz). But the item that really struck my fancy was this:
In a remarkable missive entitled "Materialism is Damaging Western Sydney", a fellow called Darren Magennis provides the latest left-brained example of correct thinking. If the Professor wasn't so determined to impress Mrs. Bunyip with his desire to be more Tim [Mooncalf Dunlop - ed.]-like, he'd laugh out loud.Much more by following the link.The damaging impact of materialist influences is readily obvious to those with knowledge of the economics of development. In South America and Africa it is apparently not uncommon to find starving families consuming expensive luxury products marketed by American multinational firms.Not French companies or German ones, just the unspeakable American variety.I have personally witnessed a similar effect in several Western Sydney households. It is not at all uncommon to find a family surviving on a Salvation Army food hamper with a $20,000 home entertainment system, Nike shoes and designer clothes. Even more ubiquitous are the unemployed single people with massive wardrobes of expensive designer clothes and shoes. It is very common for such people to go without food for several days, or to be unable to afford essential university textbooks, due to their insatiable desire for designer-wear.If the Professor wasn't trying to get into Mrs. Bunyip's good books, he'd note that the Salvation Army should be ashamed of itself for soliciting donations to feed those who could quite easily sustain themselves by pawning their entertainment systems which, in all liklihood, the taxpayers underwrote in the first place. But no, apparently that would be too harsh, because idle and irresponsible spendthrifts can't to be held accountable for being idle and irresponsible spendthrifts:Poor people cannot be criticised for this behaviour. It may even be the best possible course of action for a person faced with a strongly materialistic culture.Then there's this unintentionally illuminating bit on haute couture, ALP-style:At least one female acquaintance of mine claims she was "snubbed", at a Labor-left function, by another female friend of mine, because her clothing was not suitably elaborate! A reasonable standard of dress is obviously required to achieve social acceptance even in otherwise open-minded forums.Good heavens, but doesn't that make the mind boggle! What could "suitably elaborate" mean in this context? As far as the Professor has ever noticed, today's Labor women appear to believe that the first obligation is to honour their party's proletarian heritage by masquerading as the battered old bags in which Australia's workingmen carried lunch and overalls until the Salvation Army encouraged them to sleep late and play with their graphic equalisers. Do the suitably elaborate ones sport red ribbons in their underarm thickets?
