Equality for all! Not just the married!

So, it looks like this ill-conceived, expensive, non-binding, divisive, responsibility-dodging survey is going ahead.
When it was announced, rilestar made his feelings known:

So @TurnbullMalcolm & @LiberalAus you gutless wonders - I assume we'll get a plebiscite every time you want to raise taxes or cut services? https://t.co/ZZRT0fKZp7

— Riley J (@rilestar) August 8, 2017

Prognosis? Unlikely.
But ignoring the ridiculous waste and the fact these politicians can't just do their jobs and represent the people and vote in Parliament rather than making us do it for them and despite how terrible this decision is generally for the fabric of Australian society (*takes a breath*), it's good to see some surprising people coming out (no pun intended) in favour of the sensible, non-terrible option (that's Voting 'Yes', in case it wasn't clear).
Case in point, Amanda Vanstone of all people (and the whole article's good - you should read it!):

"Heterosexuals have been rushing out of marriage for decades. If gay people want to rush in I'm delighted. Let's not listen any more to that rubbish about marriage being between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life. Our own laws support the "for life" rule going down the gurgler. Now it just means until such time as you think you might be happier in another marriage. "To the exclusion of all others" is less and less a likely outcome. The only one left is "between a man and a woman"."

And, even better, she succinctly states that this vote is about "whether we believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives." Clearly, we shouldn't.
"It's not about what you want for yourself. It's about letting other people have proper recognition of their relationships."

That's right - unless you're a gay person who wants to get married...this doesn't affect you. It's not about you. This will not force you to get gay-married. Just let them be happy! 

Of course, the churches - especially Catholics* - are doing their usual bit of ignoring the logs in their own eyes while staring uncomfortably long at people in their bedrooms (and making it like THEY are the real victims here). This guy in particular is probably just annoyed that priests can't marry their altar boys and says "It is true..." and "There is no doubt..." a lot, but, as we all know, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"**. 

 

Also, here's a truth: There is no doubt you are a hateful monster, and the opposite of what Jesus preached.
Incidentally, the winning response to him was this, by good ol' Bazza:

Bazza Aug 18 2017 at 10:29am Yes we should listen to Catholics in this debate. They are the ones who believe that eating magic bread transforms into the flesh of a 2,000 year old dead guy so they can be forgiven for a sin they were born with because a magic rib woman was talked into eating forbidden fruit by a talking snake. They can take the moral high ground.

Plus this idiot, who says she's not against gay people, but she'll go to the effort of voluntarily voting 'No', just ... because?: "As a 30-year-old woman, everyone expects me to vote 'yes'. But I won't be"
Annie's response was perfect:

AnnieAug 23 2017 at 4:31pm
As an elderly, Catholic, long-married, rural woman, everyone expects me to vote "No" but I'll be voting "Yes". Why? It's not about me. It's about giving the same rights I enjoy to others. Yes, I believe marriage is the bedrock of our society and I believe we will be so much richer when it is open to those who have waited so long. Good, loving, committed marriages can only be beneficial to our country. Yes!

Annie reminds us that some Catholics are actually practising what they preach, and actually doing what Jesus (and the current Pope) would do. In fact, both St Ignatius' College in Sydney and Xavier College in Melbourne have "cautiously endorsed same-sex marriage in messages to parents, staff and students, directly rebuking recent statements from church leaders".
Of course, they're Jesuits, who are notoriously reasonable. Reason has no place here!
Anyhoo, just do the right thing in the upcoming 'plebiscite', and vote 'Yes'. It's easy, and everything's going to be fine. Oh yeah, and people are dying, including kids. Be a hero and help save their lives.
Encourage everyone you know to do so, too.

Show the world that Australia really is the land of the Fair Go. Be relaxed and laid-back. Or are you un-Australian? Maybe we should have another $122 million survey, sort that out...
* Disclaimer: I'm married and a Catholic. Well, I was raised a Catholic, now I'm a Pastafarian Jedi. But I am 100% convinced that (a) my marriage can cope with other people getting married, and (b) Christians will still keep doing whatever they want to do, just as they have since the time of Nero...
** Ironically, Obi-Wan, that is an absolute. Try "Only Sith ... and maybe some other dudes ... deal in absolutes, probably, bruh!"

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.

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.

I don't want to say "I told ya so". But I just can't help myself.

A quick mini-rant: a while ago, I suggested that the State Labor Governments around Australia could be in trouble, especially that of my home state of Victoria.
Well, it looks like others are now adding to the chorus: Brumby and his crew face testing times.
Plus the NSW Labor Government is looking even more dodgy than usual, and their latest mini-budget is, with all due respect, an absolute shocker. As Ross Gittins recently said in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"THIS mini-budget is a sham. It purports to be about responding to the severe downturn in the NSW economy, but will in fact make things worse."

Assuming they all go down in the next set of elections, well, let's just say it couldn't happen to nicer clowns...

Government by the people, for the investors

Public transport in my fair city is a mess. So a recent report of an Eminent Dude saying that the rail operator, Connex, “should be sacked and management of Melbourne's suburban trains brought back into public hands” was music to my ears.

Hear, hear, Eminent Dude!

Unfortunately, there’s little likelihood that our so-called Government will act on this very sage advice.

Why? I think it’s because Governments generally have realised that, if they outsource problem areas to the private sector (no doubt for a premium), they can set up a buffer between themselves and the public.

Take…I don’t know…public transport, for example.

Public transport was privatised in Melbourne a while ago, ostensibly to increase competition and, thereby, increase efficiency and decrease cost (of course, this reasoning effectively went the way of the dodo long ago – there is now one train provider (Connex) and one tram provider (Yarra Trams)). Unless you live opposite a train station and a tram stop, I doubt there’s much competition going on. Plus you should probably move.

Anyway, despite the fact the original benefits put forward in favour of privatisation seem to have evaporated, privatised public transport remains.

But here’s the thing: when people complain about the operation of public transport these days, they complain to, or about, the private operators.

The Government can even join in!

It has effectively sidestepped a potentially damaging electoral issue.

Prisons are another one. What the hell is a Government doing outsourcing the process of the punishment of crime to the private sector?!? And then I remembered some of the scandals which can occur with jails, including prison escapes (sorry: Prison Breaks), corruption, mistreatment of prisoners, or even the opposite: prisoners getting it too good.

Again, the Government can blame the private operator if any of these things happen, but it’s ‘not their fault’. There’s no votes in prisons, so get rid of them.

What I’m saying is: our Government has no balls.

PS Prisoners get it too good.