Friday, September 14, 2012

McMahon and McEwen Frustration

I've been reading my old blog posts lately.  I read one a day, minus days we're on some kind of holiday-vacation adventure.

Before we went to the water park hotel, I read my January 5, 2009 post. It was about William McMahon.

This morning I started to read my post from January 6, 2009. It's about John McEwen. 

I got to a paragraph that bothered me.

As I said in my previous post, McEwen didn't like McMahon for being a potential homosexual. And also they had political disagreements regarding the economy. McMahon was into free trade.

I don't understand why I said that.

I don't remember finding definite evidence that McEwen's problem with McMahon was his suspected homosexuality.

And I just read my post about McMahon a few days ago.

I went back to read the post.

Maybe I missed something.

But no.

From my post, it seems I only suspected that MAYBE McEwen was homophobic.

The only thing I could imagine is that I did read something that confirmed for me that McEwen was homophobic about McMahon, but I failed to write it in the McMahon post. 

I decided to look at the website I linked to for the information about McEwen and McMahon.  

As far as I can see, the website is gone.

Now I'm trying to figure out what to do with the offending paragraph. Should I delete it? I don't want to spread false information. Not that many people read that post. 

Not that many people read my blog, period.

And who knows.  Maybe it's not false information.

I think I'll just keep it and add a little (maybe) there.  That might work.  

5 comments:

Andrew said...

McMahon was as camp as a row of tents, to use the parlance of the era. Anyone who might have blabbed about him must be long dead. McEwan? Black Jack? Very corrupt, as only a NSW politician could be back then.

FruitCake said...

Andrew, I trust your inside knowledge of who does whom.

Just googled 'sonia mcmahon dress' and found an SMH article [with photo of said dress].
The article claims sonia helped fight 'baseless rumours' about McMahon's sexuality. Presumably some people still assume everyone in a heterosexual marriage is 100% heterosexual.
Personally, I agree with Stephen Fry's observation that human sexuality is complicated. [Master of understatement].

Had no idea Julian was married to Danii Minogue.

All that I remember of the little chap are two things - that when Fraser won the election that finally ousted gough, some commentator must have interpreted labor's vote count in a positive light, causing Billy to interject [excitedly] "But we won, we won!" For the rest of the election night broadcast that's all he had to say. Of course, if one remembers the voice the story is funnier.
He appeared not just as camp as a row of tents so much as the whole jamboree.

The second was the report that Billy had had an accident - He swerved to avoid a child and fell off sonia.

People can be so unkind.

Michael said...

Have to disagree with Andrew about McEwen. He was Victorian and not corrupt.

Historians have speculated about his dislike of McMahon, but the main reason the Country Party refused to initially accept McMahon's leadership was disagreement over tariff policy.

Dina said...

Andrew, Fruitcake, and Michael:

I don't understand half what you guys are saying. I'm going to have to start googling.

Actually, I do understand Michael.

Fruitcake, I do understand your point (and agree) that hetero marriage doesn't prove heterosexuality. I'd say that's especially the case in politics. To come out of the closet back then would be political suicide.

Not that this proves that McMahon was gay. Nor would it prove that McEwen disliked McMahon because of the potential homosexuality.

I agree with Michael. It was probably a tariff thing. I would be VERY surprised if McEwen wasn't homophobic. But I doubt that was his top reason for disliking McMahon.

Dina said...

Okay...googled.

Now I understand camp as a row of tents.

That's cute.

And Fruitcake your jamboree remark is very clever.

I'm still undecided about McMahon's sexuality; and not sure I care much.

I'm more bothered by my blunder.

Or maybe it was not a mistake and 2012 Dina is failing to understand 2009 Dina. Maybe I knew something then that I don't know now.