BOY, it’s COTT in here!!!!

The Olympics start tonight, in hot and humid Beijing. A quick reminder: Don’t forget to boycott it, not just because of the Tibet thing, but also the fact that it’s boring thing.

Yeah - hit 'em where it really hurts: Channel 7's ratings!! Woo-hoo!!

Also, in support of Tibet, don’t forget to watch Cadel Evans in the cycling on, I think, Saturday.

Yeah! Keep punching!!! Woo-HOO!!!!!!

The King o’ Rant (in E-Minor)

In my last post, I made reference to Bill Hicks, comedian par excellence, which reminded me of a show I saw in this year's Comedy Festival – Bill Hicks: Slight Return – effectively a Bill Hicks tribute show. With that kind of a synopsis, it had the potential to be truly awful, but it was actually really good.

In fact, I enjoyed it so much, I thought about writing a review, but I then remembered that this is a blog!! As I'm sure you're all aware, with a blog, you don’t have to write any opinions of your own – you can just find someone else who’s already written something you’ve agreed with, and then copy it or link to it.

In that vein – here’s a review of Bill Hicks: Slight Return, all of which I agree with (except for the other show also reviewed, which I didn’t actually see. Ah, to hell with it – I’ll agree with that, too): http://www.benambra.org/benambra/node/892

Easiest review I’ve ever not written.

The Green Stuff(ed)

Everyone knows that the world is stuffed, thanks mainly to the Baby Boomers. Curse them…and their progeny!!

It's tough to work out a solution to the myriad probems facing our planet, even for the experts. Some bright sparks recently thought they could kill two Big Bad Birds with one green stone by producing petrol substitutes with biofuels – thereby solving the world's energy crisis AND global warming. Hurrah!

Only problem is, the use of arable land to produce crops for biofuels has created a global food crisis, and apparently produces more carbon dioxide than it saves. Hurr…ahhh...

If only there was a crop that could create biofuel, but which doesn't take up land and resources that could be used to grow food, and which wouldn't create more greenhouse gases.

Wait a minute! I seem to remember a plant from my University days that fits the bill. What was it? Femp? Dr. Shemp? Bringoutthegemp?

That's right!!! Everyone's favourite weed: Hemp!

In those aforementioned Uni days, I helped organise a 'Hemp Week', dedicated to education about this miracle plant. I don't smoke myself, and there was very little in the Week about the recreational benefits of Hemp (although it was co-organised with the Mullers and Packers...), but it was back then, over ten years ago, that I first learnt that hemp could be used to make fuel.

However, an advantage that hemp has over, say, corn is that hemp is literally a weed. This means there is no need to carefully cultivate a crop, nor to allocate good land, or spend lots of time, money, and effort, for it.

Apparently this hemp – industrial hemp – doesn’t have much, if any, of the active component – THC – that gives marijuana smokers their high. But even if it did, wouldn’t growing lots of a weed that can save the planet beat growing lots of, for example, opium (yes, I’m looking at you, entire country of Afghanistan) or, say, everyone dying from climate change, even if it does lead to lots of Cheech and Chong jokes?

Hemp and marijuana get a bad rap these days, but time was that everyone was into growing it.

I’m going from memory here (of course, that’s what blogging is all about – facts aren’t as important as passion (and links)), but I’m fairly certain that George Washington grew hemp, and I think it was, like, compulsory during one or both of the world wars – see, for example, “Hemp for Victory”. The sails and ropes of sailing ships like those in the First Fleet were often made from hemp. It really was a Wonder Plant TM. Also, getting back to fuel, Henry Ford apparently intended for his new-fangled car contraption to be powered by a hemp-based fuel. Quoting from the article that sparked this rant:

“Stage one of the story dates back to the dawn of modern transport and the invention of the internal combustion engine. When Rudolf Diesel invented the engine that bears his name, he designed it to run on peanut oil. When Henry Ford designed the first mass-produced car, the Model T, he intended it to run on ethanol derived from two of America's most abundant crops, corn (maize) and hemp.”

But the conspiracy theory is that the DuPont corporation patented a process for making nylon out of petroleum products in the 1930’s, and successfully lobbied to have marijuana, and then, by association, hemp, made illegal, due to the competition the naturally growing and easily available Wonder Plant TM provided to Du Pont’s synthetic products. And a reasonable conspiracy theory it is, I think, too.

While on the point of the illegality of hemp et al, I can’t help but refer to Bill Hicks’ magnificent tirade about this issue, and his observation that “Doesn’t the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?”

Yes, Bill, it does. RIP, brother.

So, whaddaya say? How-about-it?!?! Ready to be a smelly hippy and jump on the “Let’s all grow hemp and save the world” bandwagon?

If you are, here’s a flyer: http://www.hemp4fuel.com/hemp4fuel.pdf

Changing the world, one rant/flyer at a time.

Why not 20 teams?

OK. So the AFL have officially snubbed Tassie, despite its awesome map, telling them they won't get their own licence for a footy team: Tassie out but not dead.
Now, I don't profess to know anything about anything - that's why I have a blog, not a newspaper - but two areas of Australia crucial to the past and present success of the AFL are currently missing out - Tasmania and the Northern Territory. I realise these areas may not have big populations (and therefore won't be as lucrative), but that shouldn't be everything (plus, see my future blog about my future plans for the North...)
We all know that His Royal Worshipfulness, Andrew Demetriou, won't budge from his plan to launch teams in Western Sydney and the Gold Coast, but instead of saying "either/or", why not go all out and add 4 teams instead of 2?
Plus, 18 is a weird number: 20 is divisible by 4 (and 5. And 10. And 20. Not 9, but who wants to be divisible by 9?) - surely that's important.
Of course, my preferred plan, with a nod in the direction of Monty, the legendary World War II Allied Commander, would be to outflank Western Sydney and the Gold Coast by launching Tasmania and Northern Territory first. The Australian Football League would then have teams in all 6 States and one Territory. That seems pretty 'Australian' to me. And Western Sydney and the Gold Coast would then have no choice but to jump on board.
It would be un-Australian not to.
PS I should mention that I'm a Saints supporter, and won't be switching, and hope that any suggestions that the Mighty Saints should move to Tassie would be arrogantly dismissed with a snooty wave (despite our proud association with the Apple Isle - "He's Darrel BALDOCK!!"). But I still think the fine people of Tassie deserve their own team.

The inalienable right to be annoying

The law has recently come down on the side of the angels in holding that a NSW law enacted for the purposes of the recent World Youth Day event (more correctly, it should have been renamed as ‘Catholic Youth-And-Creepy-Old-Men Week’) in Sydney was invalid. By angels, I’m obviously referring to the people on the side of justice and liberty, not magic fairies with wings (or even the literal, biblical, men-shaped ‘messengers’ – yes, I know my biblical interpretation).

This abhorrent law prohibited anyone from causing ‘annoyance’ to World Yoof Day participants (with fines of up to $5,500).

Apart from the fact that we don’t live in a theocracy (yet), what does that even mean?

And the court agreed with my rhetorical question, saying that there was "no intelligible boundary" on what "causes annoyance", and that, in relation to the defendants (two women who wanted to hand out condoms) the regulation "could be expected to have a chilling effect upon the exercise of their freedom of speech because of the very uncertainty about the degree of its infringement upon that freedom": Court Dumps 'Annoy' Law (it was even reported on the other side of the world: Sydney Overturns Pope Protest Law).

One of the the judges was also reported to have said: “Yippee!! Free condoms!!”

There was so much wrong with that law, and Day/Week, that I might just focus on one of the specific problems with the law, being that people weren’t sure if they could wear T-shirts with anti-Pope slogans (pretty harmless stuff like "Pope Go Homo" and "The Pope Is Wrong - Put a Condom On" – sweet pick-up lines, too, if you want them).

And then I will use that focus to segue into another Religion vs. T-shirt drama that broke just before the Pope arrived. Seems some kid was wearing a T-shirt on the Gold Coast that said ‘Jesus is a Cunt’. Charming, I know, and I hope my daughter brings a boy like that home one day (wearing the T-shirt, of course), but apparently the kid was then arrested and charged with causing offence. Lawrence Money from The Age then took up the case for the prosecution on his blog, no doubt expecting much support for his views.

Support was mixed, I must say.

Someone called the rilestar posted the following comment – it’s pretty switched on:

I agree that it's offensive, because it's clearly grammatically incorrect - this kid's got his tenses all wrong*!! It should be Jesus WAS a C-nt!!

As we all know, Jesus was a Jewish rabble-rouser who was executed for seditious activities by the Romans 2000 years ago. 2000 years ago!! He's an ex-rabble-rouser. In fact, the T-shirt sounds like something the Roman authorities would have authorised, because the said rabble-rouser vexed them so.

Conclusion: Button A for offences against grammar. The T-shirt should obviously be in past tense.

And possibly Latin.

* Obviously, a lot of the posts on this blog are offensive for the same reason. Next discussion: Why are atheists so much better at spelling?

The various posts make a good read – I can recommend wasting some time on them.

Finally, just to get this all back to what it’s really all about, apparently this photo was taken during the ‘celebrations’ (although the parking sign in the background doesn’t appear to be in English…)

Nonetheless, wherever it was taken, it’s Gold:

Tour de Awesome

My dear (pretend) friends!

I haven't ranted for a while, and I fear my blood pressure has been falling to dangerous lows, so it's time to get back on the RantWagon.

First: I've been staying up late and religiously watching the Tour de France lately (as have pretty much everyone I speak to, it seems), which has been, overall, totally sweet, especially with My Main Man Cadel wearing the yellow (until very recently) and Simon Gerrans winning Stage 15. However, as is usual at this time of year, some Drug Clowns have been caught clowning around with drugs, the main one being Riccardo Ricco (whom I translate into English as 'Richie Rich').

Rant No.1: Some people (such as John Fahey - see Rant No.2 below) are saying that this proves the Tour itself is the problem. Really? It's the best bike race in the world (as well as being an amazing and wonderful thing to watch). This means it's going to attract people who want to win it – and it appears that some of them will cheat to do so. Surely this is a reflection on the cheats, not the race, particularly if the race organisers are doing their best to expose and get rid of the drug cheats. In fact, many of the riders have been backing up this view lately, including Cadel, that the fact that the cheats are getting caught means the Tour itself should not be criticised: “What are they supposed to do? Do they have a free-for-all like some sports that don't have drug testing at all … are we going to be complimented for that?”

The tour organisers are on top of it, the cheats are being kicked out, and cheats' teams (and the sponsors in some cases) are withdrawing. Plus, Richie Rich himself was humiliatingly carted off by the gendarmes and faces a spell in jail. What more could people want? The Tour, and the majority of the cyclists, are doing their best...which is, incidentally, a lot better than other sports.

Or, as Greg Baum of The Age recently pointed out: “Think for a moment: what would be more disturbing at the Beijing Olympics, a rash of positive tests, or none?”

Rant No.2: World Anti Doping Authority chairman John Fahey (the former dancing premier of New South Wales) recently said “I firmly believe because I want to that Cadel Evans is, being Australian, completely straight and honest…I keep asking who is going to get ahead of him, because of something they are taking that is prohibited. That's my cynicism; I want him to win and I'd hate to see someone who is taking something pip him and get away with it.”

Now, apart from the fact that Fahey’s reasoning for believing that Cadel is clean is suspect*, in my humble and mostly uninformed opinion, Cadel’s already been pipped by a cheat – remember the 2007 Tour, anyone?

Rant No.3: If you win a race by cheating, you haven't really won. Even if you fool everyone else, YOU know that you cheated, which means that YOU know you haven't accomplished anything. So why do it? Money? Not if you're Richie Rich.

Rant No.4: The cheats don't seem to understand that, if you have an extraordinary day, you'll probably get tested. This is what got Floyd Landis when he won the stage that ended up (temporarily) winning him the race in 2006 – he got tested that day and was caught. Same with Ricco.

Therefore, I think I have worked out a conclusive theory for why these people cheat.

They are retarded.

Rant No.5: Stage 17 through the Alps, from Embrun to L'Alpe d'Huez. What the hell? Are they serious? Whoever designed that stage really dislikes cyclists.

That said - it's a must-watch. Get on it.

Finally, on a more positive note: someone give Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen a whole stack of medals. Their commentary is the mutha 'uckin' bomb.

* I know Cadel's clean not because he’s Australian but because he looks like absolute crap at the end of every stage. That's what I like to see in my cyclists.

Ranting for the good of the public (transport)

Getting back to me naively thinking I can make a difference, and following on from my recent post regarding my correspondence with members of Her Majesty's Commonwealth Ministry, I also wrote a little while ago to various Powers-That-Be regarding public transport in my fair home town of Melbourne, again as a result of an environmental campaign (this time by the petulantly-named organisation "PT4ME2").

The e-mail I sent out is reproduced below, but it was the responses I got that were more interesting, I regret to say:

Dear sirs/mesdames

I am sending this e-mail as a result of the campaign by PT4ME2, and agree with, and impress upon you, all of the below points. I say this even though I live close to the city and quite close to a railway station - other Victorians should also have easy and cheap access to public transport. I personally use public transport and cycle as much as I can, largely because I have two very young children, and want them to enjoy an Australia like the one I grew up in - not a congested, polluted, cesspool (i.e., covered in filthy water from rising, globally-warmed seas).

However, even if you're a global warming cynic, you can't deny that there are more cars on the roads every day, and everyone seems to be getting a lot angrier out there.

Whenever I look at maps of Melbourne, there are two glaring gaps in the rail network: the huge nothingness between the Hurtsbridge and Lilydale lines (where Doncaster and many other Eastern suburbs are) and the pitifully short Glen Waverley line. Rectifying these seem to me two easy fixes to the transport and pollution woes of Melbourne, and (if we allow ourselves to be a little cynical for a few seconds) sure vote-winners. Further changes would bring even larger rewards.

Here's that stuff I agree with, and thanks for reading/contemplating:

Melbourne is growing and more people need transport. With concern about climate change and rising petrol prices, Melbourne's growth is not sustainable without more and better public transport.

Victorians want more people catching public transport, cycling and walking; fewer trucks on our roads, more freight on rail; and fewer kilometres travelled by car and truck.

Public transport should: be fast, frequent, reliable, affordable and safe; grow as Melbourne grows; be available to all Melbournians; and be managed as an integrated, co-ordinated network.

This means bringing forward existing public transport projects, committing to new projects and accelerating programs to move freight off our roads and onto rail.

It also means rejecting new toll roads and road tunnels because they promote dependence on cars and increase greenhouse gas emissions.

The first, very quick, response I got was from Bruce Atkinson, member of the State's Opposition and the Deputy President of the Victorian Parliament's Upper House, the Legislative Council:

I acknowledge and thank you for your email regarding 'Better Public Transport'.
I strongly support improved public transport and I am keen to establish a broader, more visionary, more contemporary response to the needs of the community.
In that context, I am concerned that the recent Eddington Report did little to evaluate and advocate for the needs of mid to outer suburbs.
I am also concerned about the lack of connectivity in our public transport system planning, including the failure to address north-south routes, as well as areas such as Doncaster and Rowville that are not adequately serviced.
I will continue to advocate the need for improved public transport services to the current Government and to work with my colleagues to develop policies for the Liberal Party that are more responsive to community needs.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Atkinson
MLC Deputy President, Legislative Council
Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region

Not a bad response, really. Less impressive was the response from Lynne Kosky, Victoria's Minister for Public Transport and The Arts:

Thank you for forwarding your email to the Minister for Public Transport and The Arts, this acknowledgment of receipt.

That is the response, word-for-word. I don't even know what it means!!!

But I was the most impressed with what appeared to be a personally written response from the Federal Minister for Finance, Lindsay Tanner:

Dear Riley

Thanks for your email. I apologise for the delay in responding.

Although public transport is a State issue, the Federal Labor Government recognises the importance of public transport – especially in the face of climate change. Our National Platform outlines our commitment to working with State and Territory governments on issues of rail transport and urban public transport.

Last year I made a submission to the Eddington Review urging the State government to reject plans for another tunnel or road in the city, and to invest in public transport. I have attached my submission for your information.

Yours sincerely

Lindsay Tanner
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
Federal Member for Melbourne

www.lindsaytanner.com

The submission (which can be found here) was unequivocally in favour of boosting investment in public transport for Melbourne, and reducing our reliance on roads. Mr Tanner - a Tip of the Hat to you, sir.

PS As a literal post-script, I also got a letter in the post about a month-and-half later from the Department of Transport on behalf of the Minister for Public Transport. This letter assured me that "The Government is expanding public transport in Victoria", and released "Meeting Our Transport Challenges" to assist with this (albeit, in May 2006...)

Nothing like a response from a Government Bureaucracy to reassure you in case you had any delusions that you had a voice in a democracy...