Wild, wild (hairy chest in the) west

I'm travelling around the country still, so I haven't been able to rant as much as I'd like (at least on this series of tubes).

But I'm currently in Perth, where the State Government recently and dramatically changed. In fact, it was all a bit crazy here, as the Nationals were tossing up which of the major parties they would like to govern with. Although they ended up surprising no-one by choosing the Libs, this situation did finally help them grow a pair, and realise they had the right to demand a little more from their 'colleagues'. Good to see their researchers finally read my letter, even if was two years late...and referring to a different Government...:

The Nats should flex their (love*) muscle
It is often overlooked that the Nationals hold the balance of power, not only in the Senate, which is important, but also in the House of Representatives, which is even more so.
Although being in coalition with the Liberal Party allows the Nationals to govern jointly with that party, the Liberals also seem to forget that without this coalition, the Liberal Party would not be in government. I cannot help thinking that they do not give the
Nationals the respect they deserve for this situation, and simply regard it as a
fait accompli.
To my mind, the Nationals should be able to demand more ministerial places in the Government than they have at present, and a host of other benefits besides, for giving the Liberal Party the privilege of voting alongside them — much as Brian Harradine was able to secure many advantages for his constituents when he held the balance of power in the Senate a few years ago.

Nonetheless, as I recently predicted, it looks like Labor's vaunted stranglehold on Australian Governments coast-to-coast was merely a temporary aberation...

And the worm continues with its turning.

* This word did not find its way into the printed version...

Blog rant

No, this is not a normal rant on a blog, this is a rant about my blog.

What the hell's going on with the layout on the main page? All the headings and links used to be a lovely shade of green, and now they look crappy blue and grey, crappity-crap-crap.

I'll admit that I played around with the html editing a bit (despite my total lack of knowledge about what those words in that order really mean), but that's only because I was forced to, due to my lack of knowledge...

Plus, the times seem a bit out (I think I'm posting in American time).

And what's going on with all those immigants?

I must contact the People o' Blogger, and work this out...

Why don't YOU go slavia?

Speaking to my driver (“my driver” for 20 minutes, anyway) on the way home from the airport, I found that he was Macedonian, or, more politically correctly (assuming the UN is correct politically), he was from the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". This got us talking about the disputes between the Greeks and the...people from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia...about who is allowed to use the name of “Macedonia”.

So I’ve got an idea: How about one gets the name “Macedonia”, and the other gets “Macedon’tia”?

UN, here I come.

Cold-and-dead-in-the-ground-Play

I’m travelling for work for the next two months, on and off, and so last night I found myself on Qantas' 7:10 flight back from Canberra to Melbourne (and, no, this isn't a rant about Qantas - too pred-ICTABLE!! Plus they've got James Squire cans.)

Listening to the in-flight radio, as you do, I was pleasantly surprised to hear a bit of the Flight of the Conchords BBC radio series on “The Smile High Club” channel. Cracking stuff.

After that finished, I then considered my options to be either “Billboard” or “Rock on Q”, and I ended up settling on Rock on Q thanks to such gems as Cheap Trick’s “If you want my love” and Van Halen’s “Dreams”. Yeah! Cock it, Rock-et!

Maybe the station should be called (drumroll) “Cock on Q”!!

Sweeeeeeeeet cock pun!

Anyway, at the end of the flight, I flicked through the in-flight mag to see what I’d missed on Billboard, and discovered that my fateful choice had meant that I had missed an insipid offering (I imagine) from that excruciatingly mediocre band ColdPlay!

Whew! Dodged quite a bullet, there.

That band is cankerous. Who the hell's buying their albums?!?!? Please stop, because I don't want another near-miss like that again.

And thanks again, Cock on Q.

Speaking of prisons...

...as I'm sure everyone does...
Here's a submission I made to the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council last year. A warning: it's a little more serious than my usual rants. Not so much of the sarcasm...

Dear sir/madam
I wish to make a submission regarding the inquiry on Continued detention orders (which I read about in The Age this morning).
I support the suggestion that it may be possible for a judge to order that sex offenders remain imprisoned beyond their sentence if a judge is of the opinion they may re-offend.
I do not think that imprisonment is the right punishment for all sorts of crime - particularly some property offences and drug offences which do not physically harm others. However, sex offenders cause untold misery to innocent members of the public (whether children or adults), and, once such a person has been found to have a committed such a crime by a court of law, the public has the right to expect that that person will not be allowed out again unless it is absolutely certain that they will not re-offend (admittedly, I probably come to this view since I feel that life sentences for such crimes would not be unreasonable).
For the record, I am not in favour of such measures, or even lengthy imprisonment, for all crimes. I have heard it said that the Opposition wants the measure extended to murderers and arsonists. Although murder is a horrible crime, there are many different reasons why someone may kill someone else, and not all murderers prey on vulnerable members of society in the way that sex offenders do (except for, say, serial killers and perhaps contract killers). For example, if a wife kills her abusive husband, or even has a melt-down and kills her loving husband, once she has served her time as determined by a judge, I would think that was enough.
With respect to arson, again there can be different reasons for setting a fire, although I do think that firebugs who deliberately light bushfires should be locked away for life - in a country like Australia, that is simply insane, and tantamout to terrorism. But formulating rules that allow for such distinctions may be difficult.
Thanks for your time.
Yours faithfully

(Ranty McRant)

The Council got my submission.

And ignored it.