The next thought I had was, “Vandalism can be useful”.

I have often had this thought. Sometimes aloud. Especially when I see  tee shirts with ‘ironic slogans’ on them. I’ve mostly had this thought while standing on a train filled to capacity with people who think it sporting to sweat on me at eight in the morning and realising that my only option for relief would be to use my head to break a hole in the wall to generate some ventilation.

Importantly, I do not think this thought in the modern hipster sense that ‘everything is a canvas’ or that ‘city walls can host conversations’. This just perpetuates the illogical idea that everyone is an artist. I mean, how many truly meaningful things are written on walls? The last thing I read on a wall with any semblance of wit was “Lifes to short to sit here to long” (sic).

I approach the subject of vandalism more in terms of urban renovation. While the city walls are not necessarily canvases, I am of the mind that a city is never finished. This is probably a throwback to my ultra suburban upbringing; nearly every house in the area was in the process of renovation or had recently been renovated. Once a piece is completed (a new building, bridge or breakfast nook) it needs to be reviewed and improved upon. A city is the epitome of the perpetual beta.

Now, I’ve never been one to follow Wilson and Kelling’s broken window theory; the idea that if a window is broken and not repaired it will escalate to more broken windows, squatting, drug use, teen pregnancy and other things that Alan Jones rants about. I feel as though the results of their study are too eagerly used to encourage greater scrutiny of individual citizens and therefore normalises technologies of control, such as surveillance. Imagine Gordon Matta-Clark, busy making art by cutting holes in abandoned buildings, only to be followed by a city council worker taking notes about the level of damage done so that it can be repaired.

Imagine, if you would, that the same level of scrutiny and surveillance was applied to the current curses of urban living. City planners could, in essence, observe the areas of dysfunction with regard to transport and reduce the impact on those around them by working at the edges, implementing slight alterations that cumulate to greater social change. Say, helping to reduce congestion in dense urban areas by including bike paths would be a great idea. But, alas, people in elected positions of authority rarely listen to those who elected them.

But the thing about the team from Mexico City that is most interesting is that they used the systems that governments typically use to deliver large scale infrastructure projects. That is, the team took on the planning and physical work promised by their local government, shifting the cost of burden to those who intend to use the lanes (the ultimate user-pay model). They also got through five kilometres in an eight hour day, which means that with the correct funding it would take the team sixty days to complete the desire three hundred kilometres of bike paths (private enterprise is more efficient than government enterprise). Finally, ongoing costs of maintenance would be assumed by the citizens that make the path, meaning that the cost on the government would be virtually nil.

And yet, it is likely that this group will be charged with damage to public property and be called ‘vandals’.

Perhaps it is best if cyclists just make their own bike lanes as required.

‘Really?! We couldn’t tell!’ I hear you cry.

I’m not interested because I want to push a political agenda. I mean, everything would be better if people just lived in the benevolent dictatorship of Adornopia- the  magical world without hunger, poverty, disease and those smarmy pandas… I am interested because I HATE (yes, all caps) advertising.

What’s that now? ‘You cannot hate advertising!’?

Au contraire… I no longer watch live television so that I can ignore the advertising, I remove labels from my clothing with surgical precision and I spend my work days actively hunting and ‘neutralising’ advertising. Well, two out of three above statements are true.

I suppose it’s not that I hate advertising. I just take umbrage at being told what to do, how to think and which products to buy based on thirty second snippets or glossy images on non-recycled paper (Adornopia- it’s a wonderful place). I suppose my deep seated cynicism and ‘media’ background has given me a healthy level of disdain for ah, ‘unimaginative’, advertising.

So, when the election was combined with ‘unimaginative’ advertising, I lost my shit.

One of the best features of the 2007 Federal election was that slogan, plastered everywhere. Yes, ‘Kevin07′ was more than a catchphrase.. It was poppy, pervasive and plied into the porous mind of first time voters and those who had long forgotten its Whitlam inspired predecessor. It was a movement.

This campaign, however, is different. It seems to matter less. Nobody seems to care and I blame the advertising.

Crap like this:

And this:

Honestly, who do they think they are fooling? These are poorly constructed attempts to establish ethos in a field that has been eviscerated by the evangelical chorus of ‘Yes we can!’

Doesn’t the electorate deserve advertising (often equated with ‘awareness campaigns’ and ‘educational programs’) of a better quality than has been delivered?

I mean, advertising can do wonderful things. It can coerce people to buy and consume something to which they have a moral objection. Recently, the grocery chain Coles has decided it will no longer source pork from providers that use sow stalls. Would people be disinclined to buy pork if they knew how pigs were treated? Obviously. Do images of sow stalls appear in pork advertisements? No. Coles have formed their decision on an appeal to pathos.

The advertisements from both the ALP and the (incorrectly named) Liberal Party are based on flawed processes, appeals to reason and the establishment of ethos.

This advertisement is more efficient in getting me to reconsider my preconceived notions:

It makes some valid points. I mean, people tend to prefer lamb to mutton… Just saying.

But really, why can’t advertising for this election be more exciting? It’s not all about being serious, ‘economic conservatives’ and tilting your head jovially as you speak. Where is the fun? The bare-knuckle fighting? The explosions? Seriously.

Final example. If the Brontë sisters were this cool when I was in high school, I would have actually read their books rather than pretend to read so I could sit next to the cute girls in English class.

Postscript: In the land of Adornopia, all writers would be given the opportunity to turn into dinosaurs and bring down the ‘system’. Well, everyone except Stephenie Meyer.

dirty word

Those in the audience, however…

chumps and chimps in the audience

Now, it would be remiss of Australian audiences to not engage in our national past time during the debate. 

To go along with national pride and past times…







After a while, it appeared as though people following on twitter got bored. I can’t understand why.

Then things turned personal…

I saved these for last, although I tried to have the posts listed in a semblance of chronology. I apologise if these posts seem crass, but Australian politicians have to show they have a sense of humour.







Finally, politicians have to deny, deny, deny that they are whores. Even if, deep down, they really are whores. Or, you know, they like whores.







Voila. That is the compiled reaction of the Australian ‘public’ to the first debate. Oh, did I forget to mention that? The debate was the first of THREE! Honestly, I’m not sure I can physically endure another two hours of quality Australian television.



Unless, you know, it’s ‘master chief’.