ACCORDING to science, research and real stuff, there is one superstition that is true. With the Chinese New Year, a Friday the 13th this month and another looming, it’s probably worth revealing what it is. The Chinese New Year began on February 19 and this one’s the Year of the Goat. Those born in a goat year are supposedly destined for a bad life – they’re not cut out for competition, as they are seen as followers not leaders. Apparently some Chinese time their conception efforts to avoid births during the Year of the Goat, while some of those who might be due around the New Year are hurried along. Hitting the emergency delivery button to avoid bad luck surely has to be one of the most dodgy reasons ever for a premature birth. RITUALS: Nadal the most superstitious tennis player ever? ADOPTION: Black cats suffer bad luck prejudice MUST DO: Sport’s strangest superstitions Anyone who’s willing to risk the health of an unborn child to avoid bad luck perhaps shouldn’t be having kids in the first place. Then again, I know someone who’s a great mother but also believes she’s a psychic. Which she proved by looking at me and saying, “I know what you’re thinking right now. You’re thinking that you don’t believe me.” Which was correct, but proves nothing. Of course I didn’t believe her, because all that stuff is rubbish. But I digress. Some believe the bad luck associated with being born in the Year of the Goat can be avoided by rearranging your furniture, lighting a few candles and trying not to fart. Or something. We’ve also had a Friday the 13th this month. Which some also consider bad luck because Jesus was crucified on a Friday and there were 13 at the last supper and people are gullible. In general, but on Friday the 13th in particular, it’s suggested that it’s bad luck to walk under a ladder, open an umbrella inside and break mirrors. Other bad luck omens are walking on cracks, black cats and spilling salt. On the other hand, good luck…

“Beer thieving pig gets drunk and start a fight with cow” Great headline, however I’m sure it’s something that goes down in many Australian households every Friday night. Indeed, this is not news if by “pig” the article is referring to a: 1) Mining magnate 2) Politician 3) Footballer 4) Police officer (awww SNAP!) 4) Any Australian male It does, however, refer to an actual wild pig. With tusks and everything. Who stole 18 beers from an Australian campground in Port Hedland, Western Australia. Then drank them all, because in Australia, even the animals don’t do anything in moderation. The pig had been on the tear for days, and according to campers even tried to start a fight with a cow. Which apparently did not end well. The pugnacious porker was last seen resting against a tree stump on a riverbank, nursing what is probably the worst hangover it’s ever had. Unless during the week it works in finance or banking, among the fat cats and other pigs who are known for their mid-week benders. In better news for the pig, it’s not likely to be charged. As the campers were only upset about the loss of beer, and as pigs don’t carry wallets, the campers were sceptical of the animal’s ability to pay them back. In other weird Australian animal news, a fish with two mouths was caught at South Australia’s Lake Bonney. Gary Warrick caught the bony bream and commented that, “Both mouths are actually joined together. The top one opens and closes but the bottom one looks permanently open. Other than that, it’s a normal fish.” Warrick has worked as a commercial fisherman in the area for many years, and has stumbled across other deformities including odd-shaped heads. Making up this tricky trio of weird and wonderful fauna stories, limpet teeth have just been found to be the strongest biological material on the planet, knocking spider silk from top spot. “The structure of these tiny sea snails’ choppers is so strong, engineers could copy it to make cars, planes, and other objects prone to collision,” said Asa Barber,…

Ever sent someone a naughty naked totally NSFW pic? Then paused before hitting send because you were worried exactly what they might do with it if you and that person didn’t work out? Highly likely, as you can’t even remember their name. Well it was late, and dark, and you’re not even sure what they looked like. Anyway…do you think they have it in them to be nasty? To use that pic for good instead of evil? Hence the internet fairies or storks (or wherever new apps come from) delivered us: Snapchat With the added bonus that if someone was to screenshot one of your pics, it even tells you. How good is that? BIG BONUS. People under 25 even use Snapchat for other stuff. Like socially media or waffles or something. So it was with some surprise that I heard about Snapchat intending to do the news, and being all highbrow about it, with its new “Discover” feature. News stories will be up for 24 hours, thus keeping up the “snap” part of the chat. Also, they’ll be in three parts. Going on narrative on us, like every decent story ever told. In a swipe to the face of other online news providers, Snapchat stated, “Social media companies tell us what to read based on what’s most recent or most popular. We see it differently. We count on editors and artists, not clicks and shares, to determine what’s important.” Lofty goals indeed, from a company whose core business remains crotch shots, titty flashes and dick pics. I’ve gotta say though, I’m personally sick to death of news feeds filled with whatever’s most titling today, according to what’s been shared and clicked the most. Stop telling me about what happens behind the scenes of air travel that I just “wouldn’t believe”. I don’t give a shit. So I like the idea of content based on the views and decisions of editors and artists. You know, how the news used to be way back nearly a decade ago. In the contemporary media landscape, however, every single successful anything is extremely adept at…

Still high on the sugary love of International Nutella Day on February 5th (every year don’t ya know?) here are ten things you may not have known about Nutella. Including some French parents who’ve been banned from naming their kid after the spread. Which is a very good thing. Ten things you may not have known about Nutella: 1) The name is a result of combining the English word “nut” and the Latin suffix for sweet, “ella.” 2) One jar of Nutella is sold every 2.5 seconds throughout the world. 3) You could cover the Great Wall of China eight times with the number of jars of Nutella sold in a year. 4) You could circle the world 1.4 times with the amount of Nutella produced in one year. 5) Nutella became so popular in Italy that Italian markets began to offer free “smears” of Nutella to any child who showed up with a piece of bread. This trend was referred to as “The Smearing.” Which means something completely different on PornHub. 6) In the US in April 2012, Ferrero, maker of Nutella, was sued in a class action lawsuit for false advertising that led some to believe that Nutella carries nutritional and health benefits. They lost, ‘cos it doesn’t. Nutta one. 7) Nutritional breakdown: Nutella contains 70 percent saturated fat and processed sugar by weight. A two-tablespoon (37 gram) serving of Nutella contains 200 calories, including 99 calories from 11 grams of fat (3.5g of which are saturated) and 80 calories from 21 grams of sugar. In addition, the spread contains 15mg of sodium and 2g of protein per serving. 8) In summary: two tablespoons of Nutella contains 21 grams of sugar. That’s like, totes heaps. 9) In 1806, Napoleon tried to halt British commerce with a blockade that caused the cost of chocolate to go through the roof. So chocolatiers in Turin started adding chopped hazelnuts to stretch the supply. That’s where all this nuttiness started. World War II saw a chocolate shortage once more, so Italian pastry maker Pietro Ferrero in 1946 again added hazelnuts, originally producing a solid…

So, how Aussie is the phrase “Yeah, nah”? It’s truly awesome how confusing it is to anyone who hasn’t heard it before. For anyone who has, it’s the perfect start to any awkward reply. “Yeah, nah I don’t know what happened to your cat. Or your microwave.” “Yeah, nah I suppose I did see him with his tongue down her throat. At the christening.” “Yeah, nah maybe I did put the traffic cone in your bed, but ya know? Stuff.” Which leads us to the biggest ongoing “Yeah, nah” in Australian history. It’s been happening all week, and my prediction is that it’ll stretch out for months more. Watch out for it, as it’s contained in each expression and reply from every Australian Liberal Party politician or supporter. To summarise: “Yeah” – we know Tony Abbott is the greatest ever clusterfuck of a leader, wrapped in regret with a side of what the hell were we thinking? “Nah” – we can’t do anything about it, because of the way we berated the Labor Party over the Kevin-Julia-Kevin thing. Like if we got rid of Tony, we’d never hear the end of it. By definition “Yeah, nah” is basically saying, “I don’t know what to say”. It’s a placeholder where you need to buy time because someone is waiting on a reply, but you haven’t yet got one ready. Usually, during the time it takes to say “Yeah, nah” you’ve worked out what to say, and some semblance of a decision follows. The Australian Liberals, however, have no idea what to do, or say. Hence as well as being the biggest “Yeah, nah” in history, it’s also the longest. Already it’s been running for weeks, and it’s likely got months to go. Here’s the massive problem. Tony was never meant to be Prime Minister. He’s too stupid to do the job, and as a result, too dumb to know when to quit. He keeps going on about a “captain’s call.” What sort of idiot Prime Minister needs to invoke a sporting analogy to claim authority? Surely a “Prime Minister’s call” is more important. Also, the…

“That girl you’re drooling over, she’s got a mother.” “The topless waitress, she might be someone’s mother.” “See that stripper? Now look above the banana but below the tattoo of a dragon. See that c-section scar? She’s someone’s mother.” “That orgy you’re watching? At least one of those seven girls must be a mother, and all of them have one.” “What are you yelling about? You wouldn’t talk to your mother like that.” I’ve been told several times, “What’s wrong with checking out someone’s mother? She knows what it is, knows where it goes, and she’s clearly up for it. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have any kids.” Anyone who’s told me that, well, we’re not friends anymore. Anyway, a new ad for the Peruvian branch of Stop Street Harassment targets serial catcallers, with their mothers. By transforming them into “hot mamas” and parading in front of their sons. Who do the expected calling out, and are called out by their own mothers. Then, these men hopefully proceed to have nightmares for the rest of their natural lives. In the PornHub version, the boys get a spanking which quickly escalates into something a whole lot worse. Or better, depending on how twisted you are. Okay, so maybe not, but the whole thing is staged. So it’s a possibility. Does the fact that it is all written, directed, acted and sponsored detract from the message? I don’t think so. Several similar videos kicked around in 2014 and claimed to be real, but were staged or selectively edited. Street harassment is a very real problem. In 2014, SSH (Stop Street Harassment) got an independent firm to do some research. They discovered from a 2,000 person survey that 65% of women had experienced street harassment, 23% had been sexually touched, 20% had been followed, and 9% had been forced to do something sexual. Among men, 25% had been street harassed (a higher percentage of LGBT-identified men than heterosexual men reported this) and their most common form of harassment was homophobic or transphobic slurs (9%). Which is shocking. Recent figures indicate that around one-third of women…

The 36 questions that will make you fall in love. With anyone. Sounds dangerous. It started way back in 1997. Before Twitter, Facebook, Reality TV, the Internet and gluten. You know, the good ol’ days. Anyway, a journalist in New York recently wrote about ‘em, and they’re all the rage again. She was on a first date, the guy whipped them out and six months later they were married. Happily. Apparently. They’re at the Business Insider and they’re based on the theory that love can be cultivated with anyone instead of waiting around for it to strike us down through a mix of chance, fate and alcohol. Back in 1997, State University of New York psychologist Arthur Aron separated two groups of people, then paired them up within their groups and had them chat with one another for 45 minutes. The first group spent the 45 minutes engaging in small-talk, the second group got a list of questions that gradually grew more intimate. Not surprisingly, the pairs who asked the gradually more probing questions felt closer and more connected after the 45 minutes were up. One of those pairs ended up married six months later, hence the rumour that these questions can lead to love. It’s common-sense. Instead of small-talk, ask a bunch of probing and deep questions, and of course you’re going to feel closer to someone, making these questions, if nothing else, excellent date-night fodder. There is only sketchy anecdotal evidence of them leading to love with any sort of regularity, which basically means no evidence at all To fall for someone you need to be attracted to them in some way beforehand. For example, if you don’t like olives, no matter how good and deep the chat is, there’s no way you’d ever want to screw one. So does it really work? Could it possibly? Well what better way to find out than to try it for yourself. So I asked my girlfriend the 36 questions. The overemphasis on death didn’t do me any favours. The questions did, however, allow my partner and I to share some extraordinarily intimate information. Nothing…

So, what is the number one job to have if you want to be seen as top marriage material? Maybe the role of Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman? A sexy, but otherwise lost and bewildered young lady who’s definitely up for it? What about millionaire? Or billionaire? Wedding Planner? No, not that one, because you’re only meeting people who are already taken and unless you have no morals, that means they’re out of bounds. Divorce Planner? Is that even a thing? I could do that. I would be so good at that. Here are my six steps to a successful divorce: Start taking money out of the joint bank account and stashing it in a safe place. The middle child is an ideal hiding place as nobody ever thinks to check the middle child. Put all the furniture that you want as close to the front door as possible. File for divorce If the reaction to step three is extremely negative, quickly load the furniture you like into a van and light the house on fire. Scream for everyone to get out the house, and realise you should’ve done this first. Whoops. Laugh hysterically until arrested. Sell the rights to the tele-movie and make a million dollars. So it turns out that (not for the first time) I’m wrong. Businessweek combed through and gathered together some US Census statistics on the subject. They tell you which professions are most likely to be married, divorced, and single. If graphs are too hard, the UK Mirror has broken it down a little. Now let me break it down a little further: Apparently the most likely to be married are dentists, other different types of doctors and that sort of thing. That suggests professionals in stable high paying careers are often taken, and stick it out once they are. Among the most likely to be divorced are factory workers, nurses and just about anyone else who isn’t a doctor. Maybe it’s the stress that comes with trying to survive on a lower-income, or for factory workers, the stress of having to look for…

This week, it’s something that happened last week, but whatevs. It’s pretty Australian to be late isn’t it? I don’t know, I can’t be stuffed finding out. Which I reckon is pretty Aussie too. Anyway, at a KFC Big Bash match last week, a seagull was doing absolutely nothing wrong – maybe just looking for chips, hot chips or french fries, depending on where you’re from – when it was suddenly and outrageously clocked by a cricket ball at extremely high velocity, and flattened. It was fair dinkum out cold. (Video below) Thousands breathed in sharply, fearing the worst for the poor bird. Fielder Rob Quiney delicately carried it from the field. Well, as delicately as an Aussie sportsman can hold a possibly dead bird. Think of a dog at a barbecue running around the backyard with a stolen sausage. Anyway, he placed it delicately(ish) behind the boundary rope, waved for someone to help (do they have vets at the cricket now?) then went back to the Big Bash. He was the only one though, as a couple of deliveries later, what followed was the biggest roar from any crowd at any event on any night for a very long time. The seagull was up! Every camera switched from the pretend action (cricket) to the real action (groggy bird). The seagull was visibly breathing in very deeply, and proceeded to stumble around for a few minutes on legs that must’ve felt like squashed chips (or hot chips, or French fries, or potatoes for the purists). Next, the seagull was back in the action. The ball and two fielders approached. The seagull, sensing its moment, made an attempt at revenge, mistaking its saviour for its attacker and flew for Quiney’s ankles. A near miss! Another huge roar from the crowd! Watch it here: Only in Australia can a bird widely regarded as a rat of the sky and pigeon from the beach, so quickly enter the hearts and minds of thousands, just for being belted. There’s nothing Australian about succeeding. What is far more respected is doing what you do, then copping one. Instead of…

My new regular column “The most Australian thing to happen this week (imho)”… For The Big Smoke. Check it out! A journalist went for a jog. Not for a drink, a smoke or a cry over his meagre wages. A jog, around Parliament House, with a colleague. Afterwards, one of the two journalists, Nick Butterly of The West Australian, was stopped by a guard at the public entrance metal detectors, and asked to remove his t-shirt. She said, “I’m sorry sir you will have to take that off. It’s offensive.” The t-shirt featured a renowned headline from the New York Post: “Headless body in topless bar.” The Department of Parliamentary Services was asked to clarify what the rules are on t-shirt slogans, and who gets to determine what is, or is not, offensive. The official response was that Parliament had a longstanding policy of not allowing offensive messages on garments within the House. “Offensive messages may relate to a number of issues, including protest slogans, comments on murder or terrorism and those deemed to be not fitting the decorum of the House,” a statement read. This is barely a week after French newspaper Charlie Hebdo was attacked, millions around the world marched in favour of freedom of speech, violence around the world inspired by this issue is ongoing and the Australian Parliament came out in staunch support of freedom of speech. Barely a week after all that very vocal support for a French newspaper, an Australian journalist wearing the headline of an American paper is told to strip naked. This either shows that the Australian Parliament completely misunderstands what free speech is…or that female security guard has just bestowed on the world one of the finest examples of irony ever. It’s possible that she has the greatest sense of timing and humour in all of history, and we’ve all missed the joke. However, I doubt it. So in relation to freedom of speech, the Australian Government’s position is pretty much: “Yeah mate, we’re all for it. Go for it champion. Say whatever you like. Free country and all that… What’s that now?…