I felt a little guilty following my last post - "The Joy of Socks." Maybe I should have given it an "R" rating as it made mention of ladies unmentionables. However, you would have noticed that I only used words that can be found in the Oxford English dictionary. Being a cavy of refinement I know no others. As yet nobody has lodged a complaint but I hereby wish to sincerely apologise if the subject matter caused anyone to be offended. That last sentence is politician speak for "I don't regret a word I said. What I do regret is that there are people out there who are stupid enough or narrow minded enough to take offence - tough titties." I think I'd make rather a good politician actually. I make a lot of meaningless noise and spend half the day with my snout in the trough. Trouble is Australians aren't stupid enough to elect a guinea pig to parliament, though they did elect Steve Fielding which is far worse.
I have decided that I am showing Pea and Chook far too much respect. How do they repay that respect? By holding a poll on Facebook and Twitter as to whether or not I should have my testostricles removed. Regular readers will know that this has been an on-going issue for some time, but now I think they've gone too far. Hence from now on Pea and Chook will be known collectively as "My staff." Individually they will be my "male staff" and my "female staff." In any case this is far more appropriate since they clean up my bush chocolate, mop up my bush lemonade, hand feed me on request, change my bedding and come running when I squeal like a girl. Hah! Who's the dumb animal?
Still on the subject of dumbness. I was sitting in my cage sucking on a bean this evening while watching the Channel Ten News. Actually I was mostly watching the commercials that the news interrupts from time to time. There was a disturbing item concerning a poor Singaporean solicitor who, while innocently enjoying his lunch at Brisbane's South Bank was the victim of a vicious and unprovoked attack by one of Australia's most deadly killers - an ibis. This brutal assasin apparently landed on his picnic table in an attempt to pinch a bit of his ham sandwich. Such was the violence of the Ibis' attack that the traumatised solicitor was forced to hit the bird five times before jumping on it's head and neck in order to subdue the murderous feathered fiend. Thank heavens that the bird was so badly injured it had to be destroyed. At least now it can't make further attempts on people's lives. In any case in Singapore, death is probably the penalty for the attempted theft of a ham sandwich. You can face life in prison simply for taking a durian into your hotel room.
Now, does that strike you as being a little cowardly? The solicitor claimed in court to be afraid of birds, but surely if you're afraid of a bird you just walk, or run a few metres away. You don't waste time beating the poor thing half to death and then jump on it's head. Surprise, suprise the solicitor didn't even have a conviction recorded. The magistrate just ordered him to seek anger management. Was this a case of the legal fraternity sticking together? Surely they don't do that sort of thing do they? When will magistrates learn that cruelty doesn't stop with killing and injuring animals - it nearly always escalates. One day its an ibis, next year it's his kids, or his wife.
Oooohh! I am becoming a serious piggy aren't I?