Arthur Sinodinos, witty repartee, Dr No wins the day, the women of Afghanistan are saved, and at last a consensus on gay marriage ...

(Above: spiffy claws, Dr. No).

Some fruity, rich, zesty reading this morning, and as usual the lizardy Oz leads the way.

Where else could you expect to find Arthur Sinodinos's cheerful call for bipartisanship on many fronts, with the astute Arthur discovering that it isn't Dr. No that's the problem, it's that Labor is averse to joint action.

Artful Arthur's idea of consensus?

La Gillardine has clothed herself in the garb of consensus.

Yep, la Arthurette thinks such witty personal abuse, reminiscent of my time in playgrounds, with sugar and spice and all that's nice and frogs and snails and puppy dogs' tails, is an artful way to promote meaningful debate and consensus:

Her political strategy is clear. Every time the Coalition opposes, no matter what the merits, Spartacus is tagged a wrecker. Her mantra is that we must all co-operate in the national interest. Smothering the opposition in this way is a time-honoured government tactic.

Even more strangely, with an idée fixe buzzing around in his noggin, artful Arthur dubs Dr. No as our very own antipodean Spartacus, so and thus:

The dilemma for Spartacus in this parliament will be how to inject more light and shade into his approach...

Bipartisanship is being pursued very selectively by the government. The natural opposition reaction is to resist. But there are traps in just saying no. La Gillardine's invitation to Spartacus to accompany her to Afghanistan was a no-win situation for him ...

This is a level of discussion we'd expect from a feral blogger, perhaps a resident of loon pond, what with all the movie references and trash talk ...

The comparison of Tony Abbott to Spartacus shows such a bizarre disdain for the real Spartacus, what he stood for and what he did, as to make the nickname comical in ways Sinodinos fails to understand ...

At the very least, Tony Abbott should be called Crassus, so he can develop a taste for oysters and Tony Curtis (may he rest in peace after giving us the joy of Some Like It Hot).

But we still prefer Dr. No. He was a lover of Dom Pérignon champagne, with a sense of style and an oriental dash to his clothing, handy in these China-dominated times, not to mention a spiffy taste in gloves designed to conceal hands capable of crushing stones, or the testicles of hapless Labor apparatchiks ... after they've been safely contained in a mink-lined prison ...

The rest of Sinodinos's special pleading for consensus follows a predictable synodine path. (Is that a word - never mind, it's as clever as turning Gillard into guillotine, and with about as much meaning).

Accelerate fiscal consolidation - fancy pants wording for spending cuts - and productivity reform, a clever nuanced phrase evoking the need to give the workers another hearty pounding by way of raising capacity, lifting the speed limits on growth, and shovelling more wealth down the throats of the rich are just the openers.

Next there's a proposal to re-open Nauru and shovel the boat people over there, out of sight, and out of mind, and a sideways slash at the ACTU for dumping on Abbott's paid parental leave scheme while peddling their own financial extravaganza.

Did someone mention accelerating fiscal consolidation?

But it's on Afghanistan that La Arthurette makes the most bizarre move, calling not just for a parliamentary debate on the subject, but a full blown inquiry, getting agitated that the government should dare to listen to the advice of its senior commanders:

Decisions to change our military involvement are necessarily taken at the political level and will take into account not only our capability and military stretch but also the geopolitical environment, including the effect of our decisions on our allies and enemies, in this case the global terror network.

But would there be collateral damage to the blather network?

A parliamentary debate should canvass such matters. The Greens should explain how withdrawal from Afghanistan and a Taliban victory would lessen the threat of global terrorism and advance human rights, particularly for women. To give the debate some context, perhaps the parliament can hear from Afghans about their expectations of the Western powers.

Yes indeedy, perhaps we can call in President Karzai and he can give expert advice on how the war has helped advance an understanding of the art of vote rigging in Afghanistan, while improving the export trade in opium immeasurably.

Nine years after the war began, we're to have an actual inquiry? What a pity as John Howard's chief of staff - a position he held from 1997 to 2006 - Sinodinos didn't persuade his boss to hold a full public and open enquiry into the benefits of trotting off to Afghanistan in lap poodle mode to suck up to the United States, and instead settled for being dubbed a man of steel. Thereby ruining Superman as an iconic figure for truth and justice ...

Right now, la Sinodyne should be careful what he wishes for, since the opposition is busy shooting itself in the foot over Afghanistan, thanks to the desire of its newly minted spokesperson's desire to make a gungho name for himself (what was his name again, dearie me, it's slipped my mind), by pumping up the views of a single soldier over all the top brass.

This has already led to a little flak, and a little heat, more than enough to offset a little jet lag.

Professor Dibb has told a National Security College forum in Canberra it makes no sense to boost Australia's troop commitment to a heavy war footing when soldiers are there mainly for training, mentoring and reconstruction.

"We're not alone in Uruzgan province- we've got the Americans there. They've got Apache helicopters, they've got Stryker armoured operations which are very capable," he said.

And their Strykers, which are a wheeled gunned vehicle as I understand it, are much more suitable to military operations in Afghanistan than a heavy lumbering tank that needs a lot of maintenance." (Defence expert takes aim at Opposition's Afghan stance).

The humbug about Afghanistan women should be counterbalanced by an understanding of the real reason the Howard government went to war alongside the United States, which had bugger all to do with feminism (or else we'd be fighting a lot of wars in a lot of countries, given the way the patriarchy goes about its guillotine business).

Professor Dibb, a former senior Defence Department official, says it makes no sense to boost resources by 25 per cent as has been suggested by the Opposition's defence spokesman David Johnston.

Ah that's right, that's his name, cutting a Johnstonian figure to Abbott's erstwhile Boswell. Back to the grumpy professor:

"We're there mainly on training and mentoring and reconstruction. He's talking about heavy war fighting, just as countries like America and the UK are talking about either reducing or getting out... as indeed the Canadians are," he said

He says Afghanistan is not of central strategic importance to Australia and contends the real reason Australian troops are there is to support the US alliance.

Yes indeed. For a key player in Howard's cynical government to call for consensus, while delivering humbug about women's rights, is a class comedy act for a Thursday morning. Perhaps La Sinodinos can explain what steps we're taking in a military way to sort out the militants and the anti-feminists in Indonesia, a country which produced the only significant terrorist attack against Australian civilians in these troubled times ... in Bali.

Though I suppose we could also launch a full scale, tank enhanced attack on the militants from Pakistan who did their dirty work in Mumbai, and liberate the women of the sub-continent by lunchtime, and settle down for cocktails at noon ...

Sinodinos rounds out his comedy stylings with a special pitch on climate change, provided of course nuclear power is part of the package, and maintains the rage in relation to the tax summit - damn you mining tax, damn you for your heartless impact on weeping billionaires - as well as tossing into the air an increase in the GST rate.

I know, I know, he's just a naughty boy, wanting to pull the wings off flies and La Garadine, and so deserves special treatment:

Speak roughly to your little boy,

And beat him when he sneezes;

He only does it to annoy,

Because he knows it teases ...

Wow! Wow! Wow!

I speak severely to my boy,

I beat him when he sneezes;

For he can thoroughly enjoy

The pepper when he pleases.

Wow! Wow! Wow!

Sinodinos rounds it out with heartfelt plea for understanding:

Next time a politician calls for bipartisanship, ask them what they are prepared to sacrifice to get it.

To which we add a coda.

Next time a columnist calls for bipartisanship, with flip nicknames and cynical asides and provocative poses not even Abbott would adopt, ask him what he got up to during the Howard years in the way of bipartisanship politics ....

But at least the rambling musings of La cynosure allows a tribute to Tony Curtis in a couple of favourite movies.

Sure it was Jack Lemmon that collared the last laugh, along with Joe E. Brown, but I can still remember tottering from the cinema as a child with my understanding of gender radically transformed by Billy Wilder, and Curtis played a big part in the show.

Here's the last lines (spoiler alert), and they make for way better reading than La sinodinos:

Up front, Osgood is blithely steering the boat, keeping his
eyes straight ahead. Jerry is looking over his shoulder at
the activities in the back seat.

OSGOOD: I called Mama - she was so happy she cried - she wants you to have her wedding gown - it's white lace.

JERRY (steeling himself) Osgood - I can't get married in your mother's dress. She and I - we're not built the same way.

OSGOOD We can have it altered.

JERRY (firmly) Oh, no you don't! Look, Osgood - I'm going to level with you. We can't get married at all.

OSGOOD Why not?

JERRY Well, to begin with, I'm not a natural blonde.

OSGOOD (tolerantly) It doesn't matter.

JERRY And I smoke. I smoke all the time.

OSGOOD I don't care.

JERRY And I have a terrible past. For three years now, I've been living with a saxophone player.

OSGOOD I forgive you.

JERRY (with growing desperation) And I can never have children.

OSGOOD We'll adopt some.

JERRY But you don't understand! (he rips off his wig; in a male voice) I'm a MAN!

OSGOOD (oblivious) Well - nobody's perfect.

Jerry looks at Osgood, who is grinning from ear to ear, claps his hand to his forehead. How is he going to get himself out of this?

But that's another story - and we're not quite sure the public is ready for it.

How about it La Arthurette? Ready for it yet?

(Below: vale Tony Curtis).