Scott Morrison, Peter Costello, AFL futballers (sic), and no, you can't watch the filthy perverted video at the end of this piece ...

(Above: parental advisory. Geese crossing below).

As an organ of record, which is to say a record of the squawking of geese, it's the pond's solemn duty to note that the honourable goose for Cook, Scott Morrison MP, has recanted:

This morning, Mr Morrison conceded he had stepped over the line in the timing of his questions about the decision to hold the funerals in Sydney and his comments that relatives should not have been allowed to attend at taxpayers' expense.

"There is a time and a place ... if you step over the mark I think you have got to say so, and I'm prepared to do so," he told 2GB radio.

"Timing in terms of comments is very important ... the timing of my comments was insensitive and inappropriate." (here)

Of course when he ran his initial comments up the flag, that other goose, Tony Abbott, stepped up to the barricades

''Do I think this is a reasonable cost? My honest answer is: No, I don't think it is reasonable,'' Mr Morrison said.

Mr Abbott, speaking on MTR, said: ''I think everyone shares the grief of people who have lost loved ones, particularly in these horrible circumstances, but you're right, it does seem a bit unusual that the government is flying people to funerals.'' (here)

Oh yes, the cost of flying rellies around the country ...

As usual Barners was ready to fly the flag too:

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: But what cost do you put on compassion?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well, um... it is not limitless. The cost is what the Australian taxpayers are prepared to pay. That’s what the cost is but you can't do it with a completely open chequebook. (here)

Then Joe Hockey made his run:

Mr Hockey said: ''No matter what the colour of your skin, no matter what the nature of your faith, if your child has died or a father has died you want to be there for the ceremony to say goodbye and I totally understand the importance of this to those families.

''I would never seek to deny a parent or a child from saying goodbye to their relatives.''

And so Jolly Joe came to sound like a statesman, and Abbott could feel a little flanking manoeuvre going down amongst the moderates, given that Tony "shit happens Dr. No" Abbott has been sounding a little rabid lately, and suddenly Scott Morrison had gone a tad too far ...

And so it came to pass that the cloth eared, tin hearted One Nation tribe within the Liberal party, led by Morrison, were forced to lower the flag and leave the barricades. For the moment ...

There's plenty more grubbery where that little splenetic fit came from.

Meanwhile, the government is behaving with its usual diligence by returning a ten year old boy to the pen. Being locked up again should do wonders for his mental condition ...

But for a proper chortle, it's necessary to read Peter Costello's Hard to be charitable about sports stars' philanthropy, which after a detour through Warnie and Hurley, and philanthropic sports stars and St Kilda footballers, landed on this show stopper:

Footballers are not chosen for their moral principles. They do not go into a national draft for budding philanthropists. They can run and catch and kick a ball. What are the clubs thinking when they send them to schools to give guidance on life skills? Any right-thinking parent would quake with fear to hear that footballers were coming to their daughter's school to give a little bit of inspiration.

Oh dear, did that send the twitters into a frenzy. Parents should fear AFL players running school clinics - Costello, shrieked the HUN.

Angry teammate Harry O'Brien launched spray at Mr Costello saying he was out of touch with young people.

"Peter Costello you seem so out of touch with this generation. You had your time in the sun," he wrote.

"Peter Costello should be more like his brother Tim who is cool & does better work for socitey(sic)

Sic indeed. What it really means is that the swallows are shortly to leave the Mission San Juan Capistano, and soon football will fill the airwaves and the papers and oh ... the suffering, oh the humanity ...

But who to barrack for? Which team? Costello calling the footballers unreconstructed thugs, or footballers calling Costello a complete fool? Could they both be right?

Oh and there's a few more 'sics' in the HUN story, but it's a sickly sort of pleasure, watching the goose Costello do battle with AFL geese ...

And finally a note that in its desperate attempts to prevent itself from spiralling into complete irrelevance, The Punch has today played the cheapest card in the pack, by trying to lather up a frenzy.

Cue Melinda Tankard Reist babbling on in the usual way in Counterpunch: women aren't playthings, slaves and bitches about Kanye West, pornography, torture porn, and masturbation and so on and so forth, and then generate an artificial controversy by running a piece by Stephen Harrington taking the contrary stand in Punch: Kanye's twisted fantasy is art, not filth.

Some days you might end up with an Oxford debate. Not this time ...

Yep, it's the old sex v art v censorship thing, which has been doing the rounds long before the Marquis de Sade offered the world The 120 Days of Sodom.

I wonder if Reist has ever read de Sade? (If you can be bothered, he's available on the full to overflowing intertubes in zip form here).

It's something that should be done at least once, rather like having a dose of castor oil, and in that context Kanye West is still in diapers, and quite possibly not even up to the standard of Pasolini's Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma.

In the end, it comes down to what's to be done. Should de Sade and Kanye West be banned?

Yes, says Reist, and so we part company, though I'm sure she'll have endless fascinating conversations with Stephen Conroy and his giant thought police internet filter.

And there's a little irony. You see, to stir along the pot, the editors of The Punch inserted a YouTube clip into Reist's piece, with a warning "Contains graphic violent and sexual images."

Naturally I clicked on it - the only reason I look at half these things is because someone tells me I shouldn't or I mustn't or I can't, invariably to some kind of disappointment and sense of being conned - and guess what came up?

Oh and as for the half baked yawn inducing controversy, Reist at time of writing had only managed to score 70 comments from the right wing rabble that make up The Punch's readership, and Harrington a positively feeble 20.

Keep punching Punch, you never know, you might end up like a footballer or Peter Costello, and actually hit something ...

In the meantime, perhaps there's an answer to these questions.

How serious is News Corp about intellectual property rights when it links to an item that clearly involves a breach of terms of service, all in the name of fair comment of course?

And how seriously were Reist's strenuous objections to offensive images taken, given that it was counterpointed within the piece by a clip containing graphic violent and sexual images?

There you go, that's what happens when you turn yourself into fodder for Rupert's ruthless minions. A plaything ...