With SALLY FOYThis has been a topic of particularly fierce debate in my household of late. You see, in my case, one dog does not “the lot” make. Which is why it became necessary for me to hand over a respectable sum of cash to the dog shop in payment for the newest man in my life, a small ball of fluff named Guiseppe.
Now, when I rang my affianced to share the good news I have to say he didn’t seem too impressed. For him, having “the lot” is having one well-behaved dog, which we already do, versus my ideal of six or seven.
The conversation went something like this: (me) “I bought a new puppy today”, (him) “no you didn’t”, (me) “yes I did”, (him) “no you didn’t”, (me) “seriously I did, and I named him Guiseppe in view of your Italian heritage”, (him) “you’re an idiot.”
It’s now two weeks on and I am pleased to report that father and son are bonding well. Apparently for us having “the lot” is having one dog and then getting another.
So in respect of this week’s topic, I am wondering whether or not our conversations about bringing a new puppy into the home mirror the conversations celebrities like Madonna or Angelina Jolie have before they bring a new African/Malawian/Alien baby into theirs.
(Angelina) “I found a new baby today”, (Brad) “Is this the same as the time you ‘found’ a baby attached to his mother’s hip and had our bodyguard whisk him away?” (Angelina) “No, this time she was breastfeeding, it’s totally cool, I’m like heaps rich and hot”.
Okay, maybe I am getting a tiny bit carried away in the translation but my point is this, when did adopting a child become the excess-point from which all celebrities now measure their value?
When you have the lot but something is missing, apparently the answer is to adopt a child.
And while Madonna and Angelina were the first famous names to come to mind, the first celebrity to head down the baby-stealing path was in fact the King of Pop himself, Michael Jackson - sadly we know how that one turned out don’t we?
But on a more serious note, RIP MJ and my condolences on your loss Electric Blanket, Prince Pillowcase and Egyptian Cotton Sheets.
With SAM GROVES
By the time you read this I am likely to be on a Caribbean island surrounded by palm trees, water and the endless summer heat.
Yes, I would say I have the lot, thanks to Mr OzLotto who’s made me a millionaire over-night. But maybe that’s being a little too presumptuous, seeing that it’s only Tuesday afternoon.
But there is wisdom in the statement, “When having the lot is not enough”.
Why stop at having one car? Why not three? Hell, why not 24 - one to drive each hour of the day. Would I be satisfied? Well, yeah, who wouldn’t be?
Satisfaction is only a figment of the imagination. Nobody can ever be satisfied. Take Mr Turnbull, for example. The man had it all - money, power, the sliver-fox hairstyle. Now he’s facing an approval rating that can almost be counted on two hands.
And what about poor MJ? The man had it all, lost it all, was about to reclaim it all on a London tour, and then, well, lost the strength to keep living.
There’s been recent talk of comebacks (I draw your attention to John Farnham) and I honestly thought that his death was a well concocted plan by his publicist. But after the autopsies that have been carried out to date, the only comeback he’ll be making will be in pieces. RIP MJ.
But wait, there’s more.
Just like a free set of steak knives from the Shaw factor, there are some really good deals out there that leave you feeling guilty for not upsizing to the big carb deluxe with cheese.
I remember visiting a fast food outlet while studying in Indiana, USA, in 2006. It was aptly named “Steak and Shake”. Apart from being the only person who could walk between the table isles, I was frowned upon for not taking up the meaty challenge of five patties and a large chocolate thickshake to wash down the cholesterol.
Maybe not having everything is enough after all.
Next week: Do we all want to live a Lotto life?
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter