Bah, humbug

I know I should probably do something about how Xmas is a con, that 25 December was a pagan holiday stolen by the Roman church, blah, blah, bah, but I haven't posted for ages and simply couldn't resist a classic Scrooge-ism.
Speaking of Scrooged, if you haven't seen it before, watch Bad Santa for Xmas. Best Xmas movie ever (second best is Scrooged).
Hope you had a rantastic 2009, and I'll try and get back on the rant-wagon in 2010.
rilestar out

Theocrazy

A quick one - due to an article on Barney Zwartz's blog on The Age website about a proposal to allow limited sharia law for mediations between muslims - all voluntary and subject to Australian law at all times (apparently).
Provoked some hearty discussion, most of it ill-informed and of the bad-rant-variety - y'know, racist, xenophobic stuff (not like the good-rant-variety: "Here's why you're wrong and I'm right (add gag)").
Anyhoo, when a bloke called Harry stated the following:

"Our constitution made Australia a Christian Theocracy (in fact). Moslem's in Australia have been saved, in this life only, because of our Christian culture and Heritage. Like it or lump it their fleeing the horror of Islam, arriving in Australia literaly means Moslems have been saved by Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings Australia has followed.
We are a Christian nation', 'Christian culture' with to which newcomers should conform, while enjoying freedom for their own beliefs."
All sic as.

The rilestar can't let that slide:

"I know I shouldn't bite when crazy people say crazy stuff, but Harry from Sydney's comment that Australia is, constitutionally, a Christian Theocracy, needs some rebutting: the constitution says quite the opposite, and preserves the secular nature of Government - section 116: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
The original white settlers of Australia may have been Christian themselves (although I know that at least one of my convict ancestors was Jewish), but that doesn't mean it's a theocracy run by religious nutjobs in accordance with the Christian Bible (Kevin Rudd notwithstanding) or that everyone who subsequently comes here has to be Christian, just as everyone who has arrived since 1788 doesn't have to be a convict or a prison-guard.
Newcomers should only conform to our rule of law, not to any particular religion or culture (especially Harry's) - culture naturally evolves anyway, and every individual has the potential to change our culture, whether they were born here or not. I was brought up a devout Catholic but have rationally chosen to be an atheist (or Pastafarian, according to the latest census). And now I'm commenting on a blog!
And speaking of the rule of law, I agree with Godot that taxpayers of other/no religions should not have to pay for setting up these types of tribunals that may entrench discrimination on the basis of a certain person's reading of 1400 year old texts.
But apart from that, why the hell not?"

Why the HELL not, indeed.

"I like the boy"

A long time ago...a REALLY long time ago...like, Bert Newton-long ago...it was thought to be very funny to put black paint/polish on one's face and pretend that one was a "person of colour".
I KNOW. Super-funny.
But now, not so funny (funny now is dressing up as a lady on a football-based show, or perhaps pretending to molest a manequin with a photo of a woman's face stapled on to it. Guffaw.)
But blackface is not funny now.
Harry Connick Jnr knows it (it's on wikipedia already!) But he seemed to be alone tonight on the (as I think he called it) "Hey Hey, You've Got No Show" Reunion Special tonight.
Who cares if those clowns are doctors, Daryl?!? Medicins sans humour mais avec beaucoup racism.
Harry - with you all the way.

We will never forget Pixie-Ann, you clown

That rilestar guy's been at it again.
Magda Szubanski recently ranted about cyclists on Beach Road in Melbourne, and finished off by saying car drivers should take one out with their car door.
She's a difference-maker.
A message board about this seemed to have a fair bit of support for her untenable and ridiculous position (which she has since apologised for) from clearly retarded people who should not be allowed as passengers in cars, let alone drivers, and so rilestar weighed in with this:

Every time I'm riding my bike and I see a car driver run a red light, I just think: "How funny would it be if I stab the next car driver I see in the throat?" Oh, hang on. That wouldn't be funny at all. Plus, an over-reaction like that, killing someone who might have nothing to do with my initial frustration, would make me a bit of pyschopath.
So relax "car drivers" (just so you know, most cyclists also drive cars at other times, so the distinction is quite unnecessary - plus this means we DO pay registration, et cetera, et cetera). If a person upsets you, you know the only person you should feel upset at? That's right - that other person. Not an entire group.
Unless you're a Nazi, of course.
As for Magda Szubanski, she may not be fat any more, but man is she lazy. A rant at cyclists? Wow. Ground-breaking. Let me know the next time she unleashes on bank queues or her mother-in-law.

So let me do the ranting, Magda, and you can do the unfunny thing.
For an entire career.

It was the best of times...

...it was the blurst of times.
The best was most of the game until maybe half-way through the last quarter.
The blurst? Everything since.
Man, this sucks.
I know one thing: Geelong is no longer my second team. They are close to sixteenth (obviously allowing for any South Australian teams to remain below them).
Ahhhh. It feels good to really despise a team - we Saints don't have any real rivalries, but this is the beginning of a beautiful one.
Onya Maxy. Pity you couldn't play on the day, and you'll be missed.
And despite some people singing his praises and betting that he would win the Norm Smith at odds of 101 to 1, according to Rohan Connolly, Raph Clarke should have made way for Maxy on the day.
That said, we still love ya, boys. We're used to disappointment and loss and the crying and the losing of the sunglasses and licking of the strangers after the game.
Next year, yadeyadeyada.
PS Onya Cadel, too. That's what I'm talkin' about.

Pick on someone your own spellingz

Oh. My. God.
I have a confession to make. A horrible, gut-wrenching confession. And even though this post is in support of something, meaning it should technically be an ‘anti-rant’, I’m putting it firmly in the ‘rant’ category.
A rant at myself.
Because, today, I agreed with Miranda Devine.
I feel terrible, but she MADE SENSE.
Not the whole time, but at least for a bit...and I agreed with her.
How can this be?!?!
She wrote a piece about Friend of the Show Steve Fielding, and the ridicule he’s been receiving about his inability to pronounce or spell words properly. Ordinarily, that’s hilarious. I agree with Larissa Ham and John Richard's posse when it comes to being a spelling and grammar snob.
Plus, he’s in the legislative game, he should be able to read and write.
But he’s admitted that he’s grown up with a learning disability – possibly dyslexia – and been ridiculed all his life about it. That’s way harsh. He’s clearly not dumb – and even if he was, the voters (and ALP powerbrokers, who ensured he got their preferences over the Greens) put him in office. There’s nothing in the constitution about dumb people not being able to serve (let alone about dumb people not being able to vote - a topic for another rant, methinks).
But that’s beside the point. He’s not dumb – he’s admitted he has a learning disability, and possibly so does his son. So, if that's true, LEAVE HIM ALONE. To use a well-worn footy analogy: play the ball, not the man.
He’s a Climate Change Denier. THAT’S why he’s a clown – no need to get into his personal and family life.
Some civility please, people.
Don’t make me agree with Miranda Devine again.
PS Speaking of footy: Go Saints (registered for my GF ticket OH YEAH!).

How about I suspend YOUR sentence?

With a knuckle sandwich. Yeah, that's right, you heard me.
Background to that confusing opening:
It's a very easy bandwagon to jump on...and so I shall.
I reckon any judge who lets a child sex offender off easily is suspect, and in unrelated news I'd like to point out this case where a man called RODNEY PETER SMITH downloaded 40 hours of child pornography video and 7569 images (with most of the children between five and 10 years old, even some babies!) and was given a suspended sentence.
For the non-legal among you, that means he walked free.
Here's an idea - the cops should have the power to check the computers and secret passageways of any judge who doesn't give a child sex offender a harsh penalty. For Christ's sake, the maximum penalty for one of the charges was 10 years' jail!
Knock it up a notch, judge!
Don't make potential right-wing nutjob Steve Medcraft, the spokesman for People Against Lenient Sentencing, spell it out to you: "Suspended sentences are a farce on most of the charges... Sex offenders should not have the luxury of suspended sentences. It sends a poor message to the community that our standards are this slack."

Of course, judges don’t suspend sentences for cyclists who hit cyclists, but maybe they empathise more with child sex offenders, that's all I'm saying…
Note: None of this constitutes contempt of court. I totally promise and affirm.

A Massive Dickhead Part II

A Sequel of Stupidity.
In a classic case of a fat, no-talent pot calling a much more talented kettle which also has a weight problem "fat", Kyle Sandilands also made the hilarious comment that Magda Szubanski could lose more weight if she was put in a concentration camp. Because that's what concentration camps are for: weight loss.
Man, that guy's a cocknocker.

Happy are the unemployed

Jesus said that, didn't he? That's gotta be the only reason the Catholic Church is trying to force one of its most popular priests, Father Bob Maguire, to retire.
I don’t know if I should support their position, knowing that actions like this could ultimately lead to the death of the Church, or support Father Bob, because he’s a good bloke.
Obviously, if I was religious, I’d be going for the position that destroyed the most people possible, especially people who have slightly different beliefs, because that's what religious people like. And that would mean supporting the Church's own-goal in this case of getting rid of good priests who don’t molest children and thus contributing to its own decline.
But I think I’m just going to have to support Father Bob on this, even though a win for him would mean priests such as he can continue preaching, thus allowing the Church to survive a little bit longer.
Call it my un-Christian values.
Good luck, Bob. Fight the power.

What a Raph-elation!

Some commentators out there think it's big and/or clever to bag people who are just having a go. Case in point: there was an article in The Age a few weeks ago about each footy team having a scapegoat for when things go wrong, and the poor recipient of this low type of behaviour in the St Kilda Football Club tends to be Raphael Clarke.
But I watched him last night in the Collingwood v Saints Qualifying Smashing and I must say that, much like his TMNT namesake, with the right encouragement he just gets better and better.
He was holding tackles, nearly kicked his first goal of the year, and pushed Magilla Ma-Rocca around to such an extent that I believe Raph now Owns him!
So good on ya, Raph - don't listen to the haters.
The Norm Smith is yours to lose.

Hell hath no fury like the Catholic Church

Really. Why would you even bother trying to join, or remain with, a dysfunctional pack of clowns like this?: “Sex abuse victim told to 'go to hell'.” By an Archbishop, no less.
Though he's not alone in his total lack of sympathy, and moral standing, by any means.
To quote Jerry Seinfeld (in relation to the New York Yankees, but apt, nonetheless): "That's a hell of an organization they're running up there."

Reduce, reuse, burn sh*t

Some people, like one-time nemesis of this blog Steve Fielding, say that accepting climate change as a fact, and acting on it, will result in a loss of jobs and economic growth. Those people are closed-minded, short-sighted dinosaurs with no imagination, and also they're ugly.
Fact is, the dinosaurs are vastly outnumbered (not counting birds, which are apparently dinosaurs), the rest of the world IS going to accept climate change as fact, and this is going to be an enormous OPPORTUNITY for jobs and growth.
For example, I just read this in the New York Times: China’s Incinerators Loom as a Global Hazard. Apparently, "As China runs out of landfill space, it is racing to build incinerators, a growing source of toxic emissions"...and fun, if you're a five-year old living in Melbourne suburbs in the seventies. Although I don't recall burning mercury and dioxin.
But let's not get into "who burnt what first".
The point is, it seems to me that there's a market in China for coming up with ways to deal with their waste - y'know, stuff like recycling, reusing, and composting it. Rather than setting fire to it.
Whoever gets on that first is gonna GET PAID.
Odds are, it won't be Steve Fielding.
And speaking of odds: Go Saints.

Twi-lite

According to this article:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon is pretty sure who would win in a fight between his hunky vamp Angel (David Boreanaz) and Twilight hero Edward Cullen.
"Angel would kick the s**t out of him. He's Angelus," Whedon told MTV. "[Edward] just gets shiny in the sun. Boreanaz would have him down in a heartbeat."

Totally.
UNLESS that Edward guy was able to bore Angel to death before Angel got close enough to thump him in his stupid face.
I know I may upset 12-year old girls everywhere with this comment, but my God*, that movie was a snorefest! Here's an example from the script:

Moderately attractive so-called-vampire looks longingly at moderately attractive human girl.
Moderately attractive human girl looks longingly at moderately attractive supposed-vampire.
(Repeat)

Which reminds me, I've seen a lot of crappy films I could rant about. Must get on that.
Oh yeah - and here's a cool song about vampires from a band that's SO last century.

*Disclosure – I do not own a God.

If this particular Friend is in need, stay the hell away

You, my loyal sometimes-reader, know that I like to write flippantly, about matters of little to no consequence.
However, I need to get serious, just for a moment. Then I can take us to Nothing Land once more.
I watched a documentary last night called "A Loving Friend" by film-maker Kerry Negara. It was hard yakka, not because of the quality of the film but because of the subject matter. This is a blurb about it from the Melbourne International Film Festival's website (which is also showing the film this year) - I managed to copy the text in between cyber-attacks by disturbingly patriotic Chinese:

"In his posthumously published diaries, Australian artist Donald Friend made shocking admissions of sexual liaisons with children across Asia and the Torres Strait, though many among the arts elite of Australia continue to deny any wrongdoing on Friend’s part.
"Filmmaker Kerry Negara confronts this culture of evasion and the creation of the “nice, culturally acceptable pedophile”. Her documentary encompasses the viewpoints of academics in Canberra through to unprecedented interviews with Friend’s houseboys on the island ‘paradise’ of Bali."

Yeah. A real laugh-fest.
Now, obviousy, Friend was a complete sicko.
But it's his friends and peers in the arts community, the so-called "elites", who are really vile in this documentary.
People like James Murdoch, a fellow artistic wanker-type in Bali, who said the young Bali boys "gave" themselves to Friend - basically saying: as long as no money changed hands it was OK (conveniently ignoring the fact that children are incapable of making such decisions rationally - that's why they need to be protected, not exploited).
And Chris Carlise, a former diplomat, who said the boys appeared to grow up fine and get married, and so they weren't "damaged goods". So, y'know, fuggedaboutit.
And Margaret Olley, a...um...Stupid Old Cow, who said the boys were lucky because Friend gave them opportunities that other, unassaulted, Bali boys did not get.
I'll refer to the members of this "elite" as Wannabe Pedophiles (or "Paedophiles", let's not get paedantic. Though "Pedophiles" had more hits with a Google search, says he expecting the Federal Police any minute now).
First things first.
I don't care how good an artist Friend was*, Friend was a selfish, narcissistic predator, who didn't really care about the children under his "care" - he just wanted to have sex with them.
And I don't care if he looked after the boys financially. Wannabe Pedophiles like Margaret Olley who make this argument are basically saying "If you're nice to the children you're putting your dick in, you're all right!"
And I don't give a flying fuck with a consenting adult about how charming and genial he was. As Bernadette McMenamin from Childwise, a charity which tries to fight child abuse, said: "Monsters don't get close to children, nice guys do."
You were all sucked in by a sociopath, Wannabes.
And others who make semantic arguments about the definition of a pedophile, contortioning themselves to avoid the fact that that's exactly what Friend was, here's a cold hard fact for you.
In Victoria, section 45 of the Crimes Act 1958 states: "A person who takes part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 is guilty of an indictable offence" (other Australian States are very similar).
One of the fuckheads in the film tried to argue that a pedophile was someone who had sex with children under the age of 10 or so, and pretended to be mortified that there would be people like that, very different to our good Donald.
And those who try to argue that it's culturally acceptable to have sex with children in Asia, it's a crime there, too, douchebags.
But, of course, Australians are racist. Especially Australian Wannabe Pedophile Douchebag Arty-Farty Cocknockers.
I'll put some hypotheticals to these Wannabe Pedophiles.
What if a truck driver was living in Bali having sex with children? Would you equally leap to his defence? Or what if Donald Friend had a house full of young girls that he regularly had sex with? WHITE GIRLS! Horrified yet?
And another thing - it's not like the evidence is equivocal about Friend's activities: this is all actually based on Friend's own words in his now-published diaries. So what we know is based on the BEST possible version of events assuming Friend didn't embellish his diaries! Imagine if what he did was even worse, but he chose not to write about it, or exaggerated things to put himself in a good light.
In relation to the publication of the diaries by the National Library, in accordance with Friend's wishes, I found this great article about Friend, and the National Library's complicity in glossing over Friend's wrong-ness: National Library gives arts community a bad name
My only gripe with the film was that Kerry was a little too hands-off, though good documentary filmmakers generally are. But I would have liked to see some Michael Moore-style in-your-face blunt accusations and unwanted opinionating (y'know, like in this blog). The subjects in this documentary, like those mentioned above, seemed to get a bit of a free ride. That said, I'd love to see their faces if they ever watch this doco.
Speaking of which, it's still on at the MIFF, and I recommend it, even if it is harrowing viewing, it tells an important story.
* I'm gonna come out and say it: He was a shit artist and his painting of bananas looked crap. But, don't worry about my opinion, Wannabes. To quote James Murdoch about Friend's child-fucking, "It's not a big deal".

Discriminating discriminators

Victoria's anti-discrimination laws are currently being reviewed, and a suggestion has been made to remove the exemption allowing religious bodies to discriminate.
First, this is a bit of what our former Treasurer and Exclusive Brethren apologist had to say about this very reasonable proposition:

"The Christian churches want to continue current practice. But a host of community organisations wants to change it. The Federation of Community Legal Services told the parliamentary review that the law should change, claiming: "To allow religious organisations a broad exemption for conscience encourages prejudice..."
"Just think about the moral vanity of that statement. According to these lawyers, a religious conscience leads to prejudice. How did the church arouse public conscience over slavery? How did Florence become a haven for the arts and letters? How did civilisation develop in the past couple of millennia without the Community Legal Services to guide it?"

My response in letter format:

"It was ironic that, in the same edition of the newspaper that Peter Costello used as his vehicle to promote intolerance for people who don’t subscribe to the exact same religious viewpoint, another article reported that yet another child has died for religious reasons: “Dead girl's mother: sickness caused by sin”
"Peter, do you really think we should let decisions on what is or is not right to be dictated by people like this?
"The fact is, our society has progressed despite religious doctrine, not because of it. Religious authorities, comfortable with the status quo, are always resistant to change. But thankfully, our secular society has been able to make leaps and bounds in terms of democracy, precisely because it has not stayed in the dark ages of superstition and entropy.
"Made-up religious reasons should no more be a basis for discrimination than made-up racial reasons."

Although my letter didn't get published (possibly because I never sent it), many other reasonable people replied and were published on my behalf (though no-one made the clever link to the crazy lady article), such as this one from Janine Truter de La Basin:

"PETER Costello seems without irony when he talks of the benefits that religious conscience has brought to society, and fails to mention the oppression of women, the biblical endorsement of slavery, the Crusades, the jihads, the Inquisition and, more recently, the sexual and physical abuse of thousands of children in church homes and parishes, and terrorist attacks around the world.
"If religious institutions truly uphold human rights, they will have nothing to fear from this review. But for those who want to sack a pregnant female teacher because she is unmarried, on the grounds of religious conscience, legal standards for human rights are clearly timely and necessary."

I know, I know: "Religion, blah, blah, TV, blah, Lance Armstrong, blah." That's the Rant O'Clock Way.

"A Massive Dickhead"

Woo-hoo!
Kyle Sandlilands has left both buildings! I actually don't watch or listen to anything that he does, but every time I read anything about him, he seems singularly unpleasant.
It's a shame that it has taken this latest unsavoury saga (involving the interrogation of a 14 year old girl about her sexual history until she revealed she had been raped when she was 12), for network executives at Channel 10 and Austereo to get rid of him.
And, unfortunately, it seems that he, and many others including their so-called "listeners", don't understand that this latest issue isn't about the revelation of the rape - it's the fact that they were interrogating a 14-year old girl about her sexual history live on the radio. If the rape revelation had not occurred, Sandlilands would probably still be sitting pretty, calculating his next vile premise to get morons to keep tuning in to listen to him and his much more attractive, probably nicer, possibly vacuous sidekick (though, to her credit, it appears that she has tried unsuccessfully in the past to stop inappropriate stuff going to air).
Nonetheless, it appears to have sparked a dialogue about this type of "entertainment", and this this dude has some good ideas about protecting children in the future: Freedom of speech has limits when it's about exploiting children
The other benefit of this episode is that it reminded me of Dave Hughes' bit o' gold at the 2007 Logies, when he "said he was shocked Anthony Callea was gay, just as he was that Guy Sebastian had curly hair, Shannon Noll was a bogan and Sandilands was a "massive dickhead"".
I can't find the video of this online, but I did find this bit from Rove a little later, after Sandlilands said he wanted to punch Hughesy in the throat:



Apparently, their feud has continued, with a Twitter War erupting earlier this year, which Hughes again easily won.
I've been writing about this for far too long, so I'll wrap it up with this extra bit of gold from Jess McGuire from a few years ago: I Admit It, I Was Wrong.
Looks like other people have hated him a lot longer than I.
And I respect them for that.

Manchester Awe-chestra

First things first: Manchester Orchestra are not from Manchester and are not an Orchestra.
But, man, can they play some tunes!
I blogged about one of their songs recently, but got to see them in the flesh playing many more songs at the HiFi Bar on Monday night. Now, I don't know if this is because I was standing directly under the speakers and about 5 feet from the guitarist, or because I'm just getting super-old (when my Dad was my current age, I was frickin' 12 years old already - get yer calculators out...or your ya-yas...) - but that was possibly the loudest gig I have ever been to. And I'm including in this Metallica, Ministry, Soundgarden, Strangelove, et cetera, et cetera.
Actually, Ministry were pretty bloody loud, too, come to think of it.
But this was bone-jarring stuff.
And fantastic. They made my head go forwards then backwards then forwards again. Repeat.
I agree with what this dwarf had to say about the night in almost every respect.
Get on it, already!
Oh yeah, and Chris Freeman is a psychopath (though he's now shaved his head and bangs his head and plays double drums more than on that youtube video - still, watch from 1:37).

An unhealthy stuperstition

Just watching the last stage of this year's Tour de Boredom (don't get me wrong, I love the Tour, and have stayed up to watch every stage for the last 3 weeks, but this year, with Cheatador being all-conquering, it's not very exciting...) and I've started thinking about teenagers having sex.
First time, for real!
(An aside - Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen have just, at 11:56pm, agreed with my blog entry about Allan Davies! I didn't know they (or anyone else apart from Fenz) read it! They didn't actually mention the blog, but they were pressed for time - the cyclists are over 80 km from the stage finish, and I'm sure they don't have time to talk about "sources"...)
What I'm thinking is best phrased as a question: Living as you do, being a blog-reader, in the 21st century, if someone you're near starts coughing all over you, do you (a) rely on what science has given us in the last 200 years and get some kind of medical solution to the problem, or (b) turn to religion, and hope that 2000 year old texts can deal with, e.g., H1N5 flu?
Since you can read, I know you'll go with Option A. We've known for about hundreds of years now that religion is no good when it comes to health issues. Being told you're inhabited by seven devils might have been useful 2000 years ago, because people back then were morons, but these days it's not as useful as it used to be.
So. Looking now at teenagers, or anyone else, having sex, which involves a lot more human fluids than coughing on each other (if you're doing it right), I put to you humble blog-reader, should we treat that as a health issue or as a religious issue?
Oh, really? We need to consult our two to four thousand year old texts, rather than the more recent scientific method which has no doubt saved many, many people than religion ever has?
You're an idiot. And your daughter's going to get pregnant to an idiot.
Yes, you.
No, not you - the first guy.
Yeah - you know who I'm talking about, first guy.
You idiot.
PS Go Lance and Cavendish for tonight. That's right. I'm not afraid to pick the outsiders...
PPS Go saints.

Scenic Highway Robbery

Just found out that Tom Boonen has abandoned the TDF due to "intestinal issues", but the question that's not being asked is: what does that mean for Allan Davies?
To ask it more sarcastically, SO glad that Tommy was successful in his appeal against his inability to start in the TDF due to "nosebag issues" the day before the TDF started, only for Aussie Allan Davies to be told he had to go home the day before the TDF, only for Tommy to ride at the back of the peloton for 14 stages, only for Tommy to bail due to his "lack of ability to win anything issues".
Lame.
Lame issues.
And while we're on English-speaking people being robbed (let's have some decorum and not mention all the people English-speaking people rob), Mark Cavendish was totally robbed at the end of Stage 14. From what I've seen, The God of Thunder is also The God of Lame Whingeing, and has cost the Manx Missile a well-deserved jersey.
Though, to be fair, apart from 2006, the handing out of the jersey is often unfair...

Tour de Gallipoli (et de Farce)

Watching Le Tour right now as I write and you read (assuming you read this in real time, which is, let's face it, impossible), and I've gotta get this off my chest: this Tour is a lot like World War II.
Not just because there's some Germans who want to get to Paris, or the Swiss want to cover themselves in ill-gotten gold (I'm looking at you, Fabian Cancellara). I'm talking about the misuse of Australian bodies.
I knew that the lead-out man for Mark Cavendish was Aussie Mark Renshaw. However, I didn't know until Thor "God of Thunder/Compatriot of Ant-Man" Hushovd won the fifth stage into Barcelona that HIS lead-out man was also an Aussie - Brett Lancaster. So TWO of these supposedly world-class sprinters were really relying on throwing their Colonial Australian Sacrifical Lambs into the trenches before they could claim their own glory in a peculiarly European War.
That's right. They can't do it without their Anzacs.
On top of that, fellow Aussies Michael Rogers and ironically German Heinrich Haussler were injured that very day in the famous Battle for the Spanish Roundabout, which is suspicious to say the least.
And speaking of "least", last but not the, our own General o' the Tour, Cadel Evans, has been fighting bureaucracy and stupidity, and his own Belgians, just to stay in his own position. Sir John Monash, anyone?
(Or maybe, Mel Gibson or that guy with the donkey - Australian History wasn't a priority at my school ... because it was an Australian school.)
Still, the World War II comparison isn't all bad - I'm actually hoping for one other replay of Dubya Dubya Two: let's see if the Americans can come in and save the day, last-minute, annoying everyone with their "will-they-won't-they", we'll-still-charge-you-for-the-privilege, cavalry style. I'm of course referring to Lance Armstrong and Levi Leipheimmer. Surely we can rely on the ANZUS treaty so that these allies/undercover agents can deny Cheatador another victory.
To that end: Go Lance.
I like Lance A Lot.
Boom boom.
PS After last night (being Saturday, as I write, in real time, not fake time), Cancellara is the winner of the ongoing Biggest Cock-Knocker competition, for his petulant demands that Cadel leave the breakaway group that Cancellara had belatedly joined AFTER Cadel basically created it, with Vladimir Efimkin a solid runner-up, for his embarrassing efforts in the breakaways all day, where he did NO WORK all that same day, and then tried to overtake his three fellow breakawayers in the last 3 kms, only to be beaten by ALL THREE of them at the line.
You Cock-Knocker.

I'm a Rock Star! AKA So let's all get in a (Rock) Fight

This morning I read that the Government is considering banning people from climbing Uluru/Ayers Rock/Uberock (my personal invention and fave), prompting a wave of complaints: Uluru climb ban 'last thing tourism needs'
I used to think that, if I ever got to Uberock, I wouldn't climb it, out of respect for the traditional owners, and because I was self-righteous and judgmental.
However, I now think: It's just a big rock. Sure, the local aboriginal tribes believe it has religious and spiritual significance to them, such as that "during the time when the world was being formed, the Uluru climb was the traditional route taken by Mala men when they arrived at Uluru" or that it "was built up during the creation period by two boys who played in the mud after rain", but we now know about geology and tectonic movements and evolution and rocket ships, etc. Fact is, their religious beliefs are verifiably untrue. Quaint, yes. True, no.
And I say this to be fair as possible. If I'm going to trash on Judaeo-Christian myths and legends, I can't very well give the Aborigines a free pass, can I? No, you're right, I can't.
(Isn't it nice that I'm no longer self-righteous and judgmental?)
Anyhoo, the Government seems to have stepped away remarkably quickly, with call-back radio all a-flutter and this article appearing that afternoon: Climbdown? Uluru proposal sparks debate
That's because they know Australians are racist and don't care.
But I do.
And one day I'm going to climb it.
And get hit by lightning.

The Dude Abides

The fact that something like this exists means for me that humanity is not beyond redemption: http://www.lebowskifest.com/
And don't even get me started on dudeist priests...
Gold.
And for something weird, I just found this:

Le Super-Tired

Le Tour de France has begun!
Simon Gerrans was a surprise omission from Sastre's squad (methinks he was jealous of Gerrans' stage win in the Giro), but apart from that (oh yeah, and Contador's inclusion in Lance Armstrong's squad), it is ALL good.
Yes, EVERYTHING is good.
Oh - and Thomas Dekker getting done for taking EPO, despite not being on Cadel's team when the infraction occurred.
The time trial in Stage 1 around Monaco was great, with our man Cadel hangin' in there only 5 seconds behind Contador and Cancellara taking out a great win. Due to going out on Saturday night, I didn't see this until 5am, and, needless to say, Stage 2 was then tough to watch last night.
But that's ALL GOOD.
Because the Tour is back.
Bon chance, all!
Oh yeah, plus Allan Davis getting told to "Go Home" when Tom Boonen was brought back into his side was harsh, Quick Step, very harsh.
But it's ALL GOOD.
Note: If Contador wins a stage and does his finger pistol thing (instead of, say, pointing at his cock), I will punch the cushions on my couch SO hard.

Oh, when the Saints Go Over There!

My lack of things to rant about didn't last long. Just found out that Raph Clarke has been named in the Saints squad to play Geelong on Sunday.
You've got to be fucking kidding me.
I was actually trying to search the net to see if Saints champion Matt "Goose" Maguire had finally been named to play with the seniors this week. I was virtually convinced that, with Max-y Hudghton out, Maguire would finally get recalled.
Instead, I read the bone-chilling news that all-round lower-case goose Raph Clarke had instead been given the job.
The only thing that guy has ever done right was be Xavier Clarke's brother. It's all been downhill since then. Whilst watching a game recently with fellow Saint, Joey Jo Jo Junior (Shabadoo), we agreed that it's a miracle that St Kilda can win any game whilst Raph Clarke is out on the field. When he's out there, it's like adding another player to the opposition's team. We could be 20 goals up, but if Raph Clarke then steps foot on the grass, it could all go Benjamin Button.
And before you think I'm being harsh, check out this, and this and this. That's right - I can selectively link to stuff to show I'm just part of the herd (although his 6 clangers from 7 disposals against North in Round 11 earlier this year speaks for itself).
But even putting Raph Clarke to one side, we've gotta get the Goose back out there. The guy's a dead-set legend (plus he's been a gun at Sandringham lately), and if we don't he may go to a team that actually gives him a game.
I'm not sure if the Saints coaching staff read this blog, so I just might need to put something in writing to them. They love advice like that.
Note: If Raph Clarke gets out on the paddock and plays well on Sunday, this post was a gag. Y'know - "Just messin' with ya, kid, you're all right!"

Because I said so

No rants today, just some stuff I like (I'm getting soft - I actually like stuff!)
First - great song, with Bears:

Seeing these guys on July 27th at the Hi-Fi Bar. Sweet.
(If you're interested, there's a good explanation for the meaning behind the lyrics here. That rilestar guy blows my mind.)
Second, and in relation to some other stuff I posted a while ago, a classic Star Wars, SNL, O.C. mind-meld:

And that's all I've got for now. Put your feet up, relax. There's plenty of time for proper ranting later.
In the meantime, July the Second be with you (it works better on May 4th).

Who's Chasing the Chasers?

Borat apparently.

Anyhoo, my recent sojourn meant I missed ranting about The Chaser's naughty episode a few weeks ago.

I actually didn't see that episode, the third in the series I think, mainly because the first two hadn't really been that funny.
Suffice to say, I also didn't think that the dying kids "sketch" was funny ... or necessary ... but I also have the exact same opinion about censorship. If someone makes a joke about dying kids and people are appalled and don't watch any more, as many wowsers who probably weren't watching before have said they will not, then the show will die a natural death and the market will have spoken. No need for the ABC to get all antsy/auntsy, and start firing people and pulling shows off the air.
Someone needs to tell them: "They're only wowsers, Aunty" (except for the people who have actually lost kids to a bad sketch (or whatever, I didn't see it, go ask your father)).

Anyhoo, the 2 week break seemed to do them some good, as I thought their first episode back from exile was eeeexcellent, Mr Burns'-style, much better than the dross they were serving up previously (be interesting to see how they go in tonight's episode).
A gem I thoroughly enjoyed was their lampooning of the Catholic Church's claim that excessive wealth is a sin:

Which brings to mind another recent event involving the Catholic Church, when the Victorian Supreme Court held that the finance arm of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd was "harsh, unreasonable and unnecessary" when it kicked some guy out of his home and sold his home out from under him.
They didn't need to - they were going to get their cash anyway - so I guess they just wanted to.

Ahhhh, Catholics. You guys* are Hilaaarious!

* Disclosure: I am nominally one of those guys, if you believe baptism scars a person ad infinitum.

Madden-ing

Last week, the Honourable Justin Madden, Minister of Planning for Victoria, wrote an article in The Age "Opposition to a bigger Melbourne smacks of cultural snobbery", in which he railed against cultural elites, claiming only he had the knowledge and power to determine what was right for Melbourne.

I took umbrage, as did many others including Michael Leunig, and wrote him the following:

"Dear Mr Madden

I recently read your article "Opposition to a bigger Melbourne smacks of cultural snobbery" and thought that, since you basically represent the people of Victoria when it comes to planning issues, you might like to hear my diatribe in response to your own diatribe.

First, apart from the standard (and lame and lazy) tactic of accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a latte-sipping, champagne*-swilling "cultural snob" (presumably because said antagonist might have a University degree and some intelligence), since when did the childhood experiences of one politician suffice for a justification of Government policy?

You also state that "Planning policy should be about the aspirations of individual Victorians." Really? I aspire to have an iPhone - is the Victorian Department of Transport going to help me out with that?

Instead, shouldn't planning policy be about ensuring that the city of Melbourne, indeed - the State of Victoria, operates in the best way for Victorians as a whole, irrespective of individual aspirations?

An idea I've been trying to put forward for a while - and I'm pretty sure I stole it from someone else, so I know I'm not the only one - is that the Government should start putting money into our regional cities, like Ireland apparently did with cities like Galway. The fact is, Melbourne is sprawling - it's a-sprawling! - and the planning answer shouldn't be "newly arrived people should have a choice to live on the city fringes". By all means, provide more services to the city fringes, but someone has to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. In fact, someone did do that: your Government, with the "Melbourne 2030" planning boundaries your Government now wants to get rid of.

The Government should realise that it is unsustainable to simply let more and more people move into Melbourne's surrounding countryside. In particular, where are these people going to get their water? And no-one has been fooled into thinking that removing Connex will fix the public transport system.

An obvious alternative is to invest in Victoria's regional cities - especially ones that can be self-sustaining. I'm thinking here of cities or towns on or near the coast, which can get their own water supply going. Since you also seem fond of making policy decisions on the basis of looking at a map, an ideal candidate would appear to be Wonthaggi. Assuming the Government's other bad policy of installing an enormous desalination plant near Wonthaggi gets up, Wonthaggi will have a great water supply right next door. Rather than burning more coal to pipe that water to Melbourne, how much easier and more efficient to pipe it to Wonthaggi a few kilometres down the road? Get some jobs and infrastructure going down there, and similar places, and you've got yourself a sustainable and popular planning policy."

I forgot to mention to Justin that, while he may have his Airport West experience to identify with the proletariat, my great-grandfather, from a mining family in the area, was killed in a drunken fight outside a pub in Wonthaggi. That's cred.

But for now, I'm thirsty, so I'm going to get myself a latte.

* Since it's now illegal to refer to any sparkling wine as "champagne" unless it comes from that particular region in France, I reckon we should start calling our sparkling "shampain". Different as. Spread the word.

Stating the obvious

So, Connex is no longer in control of out trains, having lost the contract. Whoop-dee-doo, exclamation point.
Don't get me wrong - Connex was lame as, and had to go. But, as many people have been pointing out, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad latin, Melbourne's public transport won't be fixed by simply replacing the operator. The Victorian Government is the one really at fault, and those involved will no doubt be hoping that the Victorian public will (a) think they are improving things, rather than (b) punish them at the ballot box.
Fat chance.
It's (b) time.
As RMIT transport academic Paul Mees was reported to have said, the operators were not the problem: "While Connex and Yarra Trams will be no loss, replacing them while leaving the system of privatisation intact will change nothing..."
"The real problem is . . . that nobody is in overall charge of our rail system; nobody is accountable for its performance. Changing the brand name on the sides of the trains and trams won't fix any of these problems."
The sound-biteable Mr Mees is actually a critic of privatisation, bless him, and that's where the problem really lies, but as I've said before - the Government wants to be a step removed from running the public transport system, so they have their "plausible deniability", unquote (I know I already unquoted, I do what I want).
Even worse, although it's common knowledge that the Victorian Government LOVES roads and HATES trains, I had no idea that the Department of Transport, to trick people into thinking that it is independent and objective, simply makes shit up so that rail looks almost as expensive as roads.
If any of you political hacks actually involved in this decepticonation are reading this, just to confirm your own suspicions of self-loathing, you suck SO hard.

I was going to start on the Government's failure on the water stuff, but I'm tired.
Oh, so tired.
Newsflash: Government sucks on water stuff. More to come.

The Twits

OK. I've been offline for a while, and, no, it's not because I've been in hiding after my Last Post, and, yes, it's because I've been boycotting the blogosphere whilst The Sirmarco Letters were also offline*.
But The Sirmarco Letters are back up and running, and I haven't been taking my Rant-Acid tablets, so it's time to LET LOOSE.
I've saved up a rantastic amount of bile, and will commence placing said bile on the interwebs very shortly.
In the meantime, against my better judgment ("you mean there's BETTER judgment?!?!"), I've finally jumped onboard the Twitter-Wagon as a means of mini-tweeting my Rants. Well, mini-tweeting, anyway. Check it at https://twitter.com/rilestar.
rilestar out
*No, it's not. It's probably due to a predilection for procrastination...but I don't have time to work out the reasons at the moment. Maybe later. Boom-boom.

The (Broken) Promised Land

Those who read this blog will know of my moderate beliefs - including that Religion is Poison - but the subject of Israel really gets my goat.
For the record, I understand it's a complex situation, and I'm not really taking any particular side (unless there's an atheist side I haven't been told about). But a recent article in the New York Times by George Bisharat, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, does not put the Israeli Jewish side (not to be confused with the Jewish people as a whole) in a good light. He begins by saying:

"CHILLING testimony by Israeli soldiers substantiates charges that Israel’s Gaza Strip assault entailed grave violations of international law. The emergence of a predominantly right-wing, nationalist government in Israel suggests that there may be more violations to come. Hamas’s indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians also constituted war crimes, but do not excuse Israel’s transgressions."

He then goes on to list the specific offences, including the deliberate targeting of civilians and use of white phosphorous, and concludes that the Israeli political and military personnel who planned, ordered or executed these possible offenses should face criminal prosecution.
And if that's not enough to get stuck in your craw, here's two more words: Mordechai Vanunu. No, it's not an exotic spicy dish (though it sounds delicious), but the name of an Israeli Traitor/World Peace Hero (depending on which side you take, and I'm clearly taking a side in this case), who exposed Israel's secret nuclear program in 1986. According to an Easter article I just read in The Age ("A Defiant Spirit"), he has spent most of the time since then in jail, and now, even though he has been released, is prohibited from leaving Israel or talking to journalists.
This, to me, seems unfair to say the least and, dare I say it, especially unjust and undemocratic.
Now, before you start getting all Uncle Leo on me, just because I'm against disproportionate aggression by a majority against a minority (or its own people who display moral courage) doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitic (I've always said I'm quite in favour the Semite tribes, such as the Hyksos, the Jews and, of course, the Arabs). And I only like the Jewish Conspiracy not because I think it's true, but because I would love to live in a world run by the likes of Jon Stewart, Andy Samberg, Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld (if not Woody Allen).
Also, my great, great, great, great grandfather was Jewish, so, y'know, they're my people.
But a war crime is a war crime.
Plus, the whole justification for kicking the Palestinians out of their homes and then bombing them for 50 or 60 years seems a little spurious to me. The main justification being that the Jews were there first and it's their "promised land" (this justification is not only put forward by Israelis, but also, more obnoxiously I think, some evangelical Christians in the US, who believe in the literal truth of Bible and who think they can hasten Armageddon if the Jews are allowed to return to their land).
With that in mind, here's a quick Rant O'Clock history of Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
The original occupants, or at least the ones before the Jews, were actually the Canaanites (maybe we should give it back to them?). Around about 1500 BC, give or take (due to the lack of whadayacallit... evidence!), the Jewish people escaped from Egypt and proceeded attacking and slaughtering the locals, all supposedly with the approval of their genocidal and racist God. King David took over Jerusalem around 1000 BC, and his descendants ruled the surrounding lands for the next 400 or so years, until the Babylonians attacked, wiping out most of the northern part of the kingdom (Israel), and carrying off those in the southern kingdom (Judah) to exile in Babylon (hence the song). Most scholars think this is when most of the Bible (or, at least, the Old Testament) was actually written (or, at least, put down in something approximating its current form), when the Jewish people longed after their lost lands, and they were also able to adopt/steal a lot of Babylonian legends, such as Adam and Eve, and the Flood.
They were eventually allowed to return to their lands (by the Persians, who handed the Babylonians their Babylonian arses), but were then progressively conquered by such Empires as Alexander the Great's Greeks, and, of course, those wacky Romans.
The Jews had a falling out with their Roman overlords, and were eventually banned from entering Jerusalem from around about when the Romans razed the city, along with their precious Temple (this one having been built by King Herod only relatively recently), in 70AD, until it was conquered by the Muslims in the 7th century. During most of the intervening time it was an important Christian city (probably the most important), and the home of many important Byzantine buildings.
Ironically, it was the Muslims who let the Jews back in after they took over, in AD 638, but obviously it was a very important city for them, too - the third holiest city in Islam after Mecca and Medina - and has remained so ever since.
Subject to a few conquerings and re-conquerings by the Crusaders, it then remained a Muslim city until the Ottoman Turks were defeated in World War I, and the British managed it as part of their Palestinian Protectorate.
So, although I'm prepared to admit that this part of the Middle East, and Jerusalem, were legitimately won by the war-mongering Jews of around 3000 years ago, for the last 2000 years it's been the home of many, many other people. Incidentally, in that time the Romans took over Britain from the local Celts, though they were in turn defeated by the Anglo-Saxons, who were then defeated by the Normans. Also, for most of that same 2000-year period, the land comprising the United States of America was controlled by various Native American people (and, for that matter, the only people living in Australia during most of that time were the Australian Aborigines). The Slavs didn't move into Europe until the 6th or 7th century, the Magyars didn't move into Hungary until the late 9th century, Ghengis Khan had sex with many, many women.
So very many.
And so on and so forth.
In light of this, assuming we want to be consistent, are we going to allow all of the people who can trace descent to those original inhabitants to move back to those countries (and then subjugate the people already living there)? Of course not (mostly because I mentioned Britain, the US and Australia, for one thing, and the indigenous people in those whitebread countries are getting diddly-squat).
That said, after the tragic events of World War II and the Holocaust (not to mention the anti-semtitism that was endemic in most of Europe before then ... apart from the Muslim controlled areas, of course), it made sense to allow Jewish people to have a homeland of their own where they could feel safe. Palestine/Israel probably made as much sense as anywhere else (if not more).
I'm just saying they shouldn't bomb civilians and kick them out of their houses for no compensation.
So, what's the solution?
First - Jerusalem is clearly an international city with international problems, and it should be under international jurisdiction. This was actually the plan after World War II, but when the 1948 "War" broke out, the British made like the French and ran away screamng like ladyboyz, leaving the city solely for the Israelis.
To divert your attention from the many different cultures I just insulted in that last sentence, allow me a digression which is not a digression. I'm currently reading a book called "From the Holy Mountain", by William Dalrymple, a fascinating tale about his journey from Greece and Turkey, through the Middle East and to Egypt, retracing the steps of John Moschos, a Byzantine monk who wrote about his travels and the people and places of those lands in the late 6th century. Mister Dalrymple's interviews with the Christians still living in Jerusalem are quite shocking - despite the fact many of them have an unbroken history in Jerusalem going back over 1500 years, the Jewish authorities are apparently keen to highlight any Jewish connection to the city whilst sweeping any other group's connections with the ancient city under the archaeological carpet:

"There have long been accusations that Israeli archaeologists have a tendency to excavate not so much to illuminate the general history of the region as to uncover their own history, in some cases allegedly digging through and discarding as irrelevant the intervening Turkish, Arab and Byzantine layers. Indeed, to Israel's great credit, many of the fiercest criticisms of this political bias have come from Israeli liberals incensed at what they regarded as the right-wing nationalistic bias of the country's archaeological establishment. In 1992 the Jerusalem-based archaeologist Shulamit Giva accused Israeli Biblical archaeology as being 'a tool in the hands of the Zionist movement [attempting] to find a connection between the ancient history of the Land of Israel and the historic occurrence of the [modern] State of Israel'... Other liberal Israelis have attacked the way the history of the region is presented to tourists. The former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvinisti, himself a respected historian of the Crusader period, has attacked the bias in the Tower of David Museum of the History of Jerusalem, the principal museum of the Old City. 'After the Israelite period,' commented Benvinisti, 'the written text informs us that the city was occupied by foreigners. Describing them as foreigners emphasises the exclusivist character of the museum's perspective - only the Israeli-Jewish claim to the city is granted legitimacy. In fact the Israelite period only lasted six hundred years, but all the periods which followed it are represented as a chain of occupations - Persian, Byzantine, Mameluke, Ottoman and British.'"

See? The Israelis are ALL RIGHT - people like Shulamit and Meron have got it goin' on! That's what I've been saying all along!!!
But I think the rest of the world, not to mention the non-Jewish residents of Jerusalem, deserves a Jerusalem run by a more open-minded administration. I imagine the only people against Christians being treated fairly in Jerusalem would be Christian evangelicals...
Secondly, the people who have been kicked out of their homes - many within living memory - have a right to live somewhere other than a refugee camp. And they should probably receive some kind of compensation. The two-state solution currently being put forward by the US would go some of the way towards allowing this. And the US is in a unique position to ensure it becomes a reality. In fact, I would wager that the US could put a halt to violence in Israel in a heartbeat - at least, from the Israeli side - by simply turning off the military aid taps (currently around $3 billion a year). Maybe some of that money could even be diverted to be given directly as compensation to the Palestinians, since no-one else seems willing to acknowledge the issue.
I'm sure we would see the right-wing, nationalist Israelis come to the negotiating table a lot more quickly should these suggestions be put forward...
Plus, Obama could save some cash. Republicans like that that, don't they? At least, they used to, before that Bush guy...
OK. So now I've solved the Middle East problem, Israelis and Palestinians will be living side-by-side harmoniously, Islamic terrorists both in Israel and abroad will chill the fuck out, and everyone lives happily ever after.
What other problems can I now solve?

And another thing...

Looks like those clowns in dresses have been doing it again. What a pack of clowns.
Since we've just been talking about Christians, let's also talk about one of their favourite topics: condoms.
Recently, the head of the illustrious Catholic Church, El Papa (or La Papa - I always get those two confused), said in a visit to Africa that the scourge of HIV could be made WORSE, not better, by the distribution of condoms: Condom row clouds Pope's visit. And, on Good Friday, Archbishop George Pell joined in the Pope's chorus.
I find it laughable that a bunch of men who never have sex (at least, not with adult females), seem to think that they have any authority whatsoever to dictate to people about their sexual lives - especially impoverished people in the Sub-Saharan desert. Especially when what they say is demonstrably wrong.
Plus, I know for a fact that Jesus didn't say the word "condom" once. He hung out with prostitutes, for Christos' sake! He certainly didn't tell gentiles how they should copulate.
Not to mention the fact that THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET. We humans are headed for an ecological disaster of our own making, and allowing people to have sex without fear of pregnancy (or death) seems like a pretty good idea. If God is so against it (assuming He's got the time to check out what people are doing in their bedrooms or mudhuts), let him sort it out with them later.
Leave the rest of us THE FUCK ALONE.
And, uh, Happy Eostre.

Happy Eostre!

With (a) many, many mass shootings happening in the US for some reason (the most recent, in New York State, the worst “since 16 April, 2007”), and (b) it being Easter, I thought it was high time to revisit President Obama’s comment about some American people clinging to their guns and religion.
Actually, these very two things – guns and religion – hilariously came together in a wacky incident at a shooting range in Florida, when a mother shot her SON in the back of the head and then killed herself, because she thought she was the Anti-Christ. Her suicide notes stated "I had to send my son to heaven and myself to hell" and that she had to do it in a public way so the world could also be saved: "Hopefully when I die, there will 1,000 years of peace."
Nutcase.
Religious nutcase.
But anyway, have a happy Easter and eat lots of chocolate eggs left by the Easter bunny in memory of the crucifixion and supposed resurrection of one Yeshua Mashiah (you might know him as "Jesus" the Messiah or "Christ". Or perhaps "Jeebus"). If you do believe in the resurrection of Yeshua, just one question. Who found that his body had been removed from the tomb: was it just Mary Magdelene, or a group of five women? You see, the answer depends on which Gospel you read - Mark: two Marys and Salome, Matthew: two Marys (note to self: good name for a cocktail), Luke: five women including the two Marys and Salome, John: Mary Magdelene alone. Not very helpful considering it's probably the most important event in Christianity (e.g., Pauls' words in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 15, Verses 14 to 17), particularly for those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
For an omnipotent being, he sure struggles to keep his facts straight.
And we can keep playing this game, too. For example, had the stone in front of the tomb been rolled away before the women/woman got there ("Yes" for Matthew, "No" for Mark)? Was there an angel (or angels) there? Did Jesus ascend into heaven and, if so, did he get on with it the same day as the resurrection (Luke), or 40 days later (actually, Luke again, but writing the Acts of the Apostles).
Ahhh, such fun.
Still - Happy Eostre, everyone!

World's most liveable city(s)

I love Melbourne (even though it is called "Melbourne" and not "Batmania" as originally proposed). But it's getting too big - it's one of the largest cities in the world by land area, with an urban sprawl to rival Los Angeles. The transport system is breaking down, we're syphoning off water from rural Victoria at a time when they need it more than we do, and more and more bogans are bashing each other, and others, in the city.
It's unsustainable, a view reiterated by Sally Capp, the chief executive of the Committee for Melbourne, in an article in The Age today: "The Australian dream of how we live is due for a revamp". The "Melbourne@5 million" plan she talks about, which proposes six new centres for Melbourne, in addition to the CBD, being Frankston, Dandenong, Ringwood, Box Hill North, Broadmeadows and Footscray, is a good start (especially if they support it with a train line running around between those areas as well). But it still involves building up Melbourne even more.
A while ago, I read of an idea to emulate Ireland's plan to focus on building up its regional cities, such as Galway and Waterford, rather than just Dublin. While this idea is unlikely to find a lot of support amongst Victoria's Melbourne-centric politicians, it makes a huge amount of sense. It seems Australia is unique in having a few huge cities spread out across a continent the size of Europe or the US, and then lots of tiny unresourced ones.
SO I'm putting it out there, sycophantic yes-men and faceless bureaucrats: it's time to focus on building up the rest of Victoria (people respond well to being called "sycophantic yes-men and faceless bureaucrats", don't they?). I'm thinking towns like Warrnambool, Wonthaggi and Wodonga, as well as towns that don't start with "W": like Sale, Portland, maybe Lakes Entrance. Put money into these towns and provide opportunities for work (particularly Government work). More jobs and infrastructure equals more people attracted to those areas equals less people in Melbourne equals less clogged roads and less need for water and energy equals something-something. It'll be better for everyone.
That said, I don't plan on leaving Melbourne, but then again I drink lattes and live in the inner city.
PS When I originally typed in the heading for this post, I accidentally wrote "World's moist liveable city(s)" and it made me snigger immaturely.

Back on the rant-wagon

All right, the longer I put this off, the more likely I will release the considerable energy locked up in my atoms in the form of some kind of explosion.
First up, here's a little missive I recently sent to one of our representative geese in the Senate.

Dear Senator Fielding
Regarding your recent opposition to the Government’s alcopops tax increase, I need to ask you a question: Are you serious? Actually, since I’m from Victoria and you theoretically represent Victoria, I need to ask another one: Are you for real?!?
I thought you and your Christian Brothers were all for reducing excessive alcohol consumption, particularly in relation to our youth. These sugary drinks are now expected to drop in price by $2 each, which can only encourage increased consumption.
Although it may not have gone as far as you would like, the Government’s tax increase was basically good policy (in light of the existing taxation of alcohol, anyway). Apart from directly targeting these types of drinks, it was actually fixing up a discrepancy between the taxation of full spirits and these spirit-based drinks. Plus there were the extra measures added after negotiations with the Greens and Nick Xenophon (who I think is your one-eyebrowed baby). It was what is known as a no-brainer.
Demanding that all alcohol advertising be removed from sporting broadcasts, seemingly on a whim, from nowhere, MAY be good policy. But that needs to looked at carefully. Policy on the run is never good.
In addition, do I need to point out that the Government got many, many more votes than you? Of course, the fact that the ALP’s preferences got you in IS pretty funny, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, you’re also looking a little bit funny, now, too. Bit of a joke, you know? It's not just me; see, for example, "Imbalance of power" in The Age on 22 March and "Lower alcopops levy lets us drink to a simpler tax system" in The Australian on 26 March (if you don't read that one, you were referred to as a "goose"). This petulant foot-stamping has probably done your cause more harm than good.
We could also blame the Opposition who voted against the measure en masse for apparently no reason, but you’ve become the scapegoat in this charade. People like a scapegoat.
Anyway, um, best of luck.
Regards
Riley

Ahhhh. I feels good to rant again.
By the way, if you also would like to contact this gentleman - go for it: senator.fielding@aph.gov.au
Now, what else has been happening?