Unpopular but JUST - like me.

In the past I have had certain unpopular severe views about what should be done with negligent parents. I should also point out that the level at which I consider someone to be a negligent parent makes the legal terms look fair.

As far as I am concerned, it is your job to care for those you have and if you are not intending to do it to the length of your abilities then DON’T HAVE THEM!

Now when I have seen cases wherein there has not only been negligence but also direct abuse I am all for them being neutered immediately and placed under a bond whereby they are not to be left in charge or indeed alone with any minor.

As far as I am concerned we show concerns of this sort with regard to Pedophiles so why not with those who don’t give enough of a damn to keep them safe, treat them properly or gods forbid those who directly engage in acts that harm them?

These actions would mean they can’t pass it on and that they will not have any legal reason to have children or be in charge or responsible for them.

I have heard people say then: “What about those people’s rights?”

Well as far as I am concerned they have forfeited their rights.

Rights are the sort of thing one is GIVEN in accordance with and as a reward for, living in harmony with the social contract. This is a fact and can be easily demonstrated to anyone who does anything NOT in accordance with that social contract. At that point one discovers that the so called “rights” are suddenly “privileges” and that mommy and daddy say you can only have them when you behave yourself.

It is about this point whereby we are catching up speed with this latest news item.

Road rage attack hospitalises WA toddler
Wednesday Aug 8 11:10 AEST

A two-year-old Perth girl has a serious head wound requiring plastic surgery after a vicious road rage attack.

The toddler was injured when a man began wielding a steering lock to smash the windows of a car being driven by her mother in Perth's eastern suburbs.

Police said the woman's car, which also carried her four-year-old son, was chased by two men in another car following a traffic incident.

Police spokesman Rex Haw said when the woman stopped outside a Bellevue hotel one of the men started smashing the car's windows with the lock.

"The woman has then driven off to a BP service station and she has realised her daughter had been injured and was bleeding," Mr Haw said.

"What police think has happened is that the lock has gone through the window and may have hit the child.

"She is now in Princess Margaret Hospital with a serious head wound and requires plastic surgery."

Both men fled the scene after witnesses called the police and ambulance services.

A 32-year-old Stratton man, who was the driver of the car, was arrested soon after the attack and has been charged with two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of criminal damage.

Police are still searching for the passenger of the car.

Police also are investigating another road rage incident in the north-eastern suburb of Balcatta, which involved two children aged 23 months and nine months, Mr Haw said.

Both children in this attack were unharmed.
©AAP 2007

Now I am going to say this simply because it needs to be said that way - this 32 year old Stratton man and his mate should be smashed in the same way with the same weapon. I would say by the mother but well I don't think she'd be trusted to do the once and be done with it so - choose a professional.

They have forfeited their right to survive unscathed in our society.

I know for a fact that many people drive like idiots. Some even drive like idiots with children. They should be bereft, (as I suggested earlier) BUT THERE IS NO EXCUSE GOOD ENOUGH to suggest that it is permissible for you and a mate to attack a woman in a car with kids with a steering lock. There is no traffic infringement that leaves you capable that is bad enough to excuse this sort of action.

NONE.

There is more I could say but why?

What would YOU say to this man and his mate?

I don’t think they are the sort that words would change.

It ISN’T OPEN SEASON BUT IT SHOULD BE!

Ah hell who am I kiddin'?

Dude, wherever you are ... there's BAD stuff comin' for you.

Sleep Tight now ...

There have been so much written and many jokes about the whole war on Terror that I think that I will have to just dispense with them. Suffice to say that we have been dangled out in harm’s way, left there and then mollified with moldy candy and rubber bones by our respective leaders.

This of course, as history shows, lays the ground work for any number of other curtailments of our freedoms and ways of life.

At some stage I shall have to see if I can dig up the newspaper spread that our illustrious government funded with our money some years ago wherein it made clear their definitions of terrorism. It was almost as chilling as the following…

Terror bill allows 'secret' police raids
Wednesday Aug 8 12:06 AEST

The Senate has passed a bill which will enable police investigating serious crimes to delay telling suspects that their properties have been searched.

The Crimes Legislation (National Investigative Power and Witness Protection) bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives, would allow federal police to apply for delayed notification search warrants.
Police would not have to inform suspects for at least three months, and in some cases several years, that a search had occurred.

The warrants could be issued to police investigating federal crimes carrying sentences of 10 years or more, state crimes with a federal aspect which carried sentences of 10 years or more and some other offences.
The bill would also enable police, intelligence agents and civilian informants to be granted immunity from prosecution for offences committed during undercover operations.

And foreign intelligence agents would also be permitted to take part in undercover operations.
©AAP 2007

The problem with is that our government has shown that it is quite happy to lump virtually anything under terrorism if it is in their interests. Hell the latest Hanif debacle shows that even if there IS no evidence they are happy to provide some. When this is flatly rendered implausible by existent evidence they will go via other options. It is a simple matter when you can say that there is some sort of on the quiet “moral reason” and make use of that, (where we differ from America is we still need one as we are too afraid to break international law and just imprison people without shown cause!)

When this is the case, it shows that anybodies premises can be searched without notification on the flimsiest causes provided you aren’t the sort of people the government would approve of. This is of course unless you are a part of enforcement, a foreign agent (!?) or a ‘stoolie’ – all obviously upstanding sorts that would never be involved in wrong doing – like Doctors for instance!

I a not even going into the point whereby you can be granted immunity for offences while under operations … does that stretch to planting evidence, illegal taps and surveillance and even murder if the suspect is obviously not going to be helpful? It is almost as terrifyingly vague as the “other offences” of the previous paragraph. Look I am not legal expert but even I know that this sort of wording is insufficient to protect my rights!

Say you were a part of a minority religion, that the government took a dim view of. Say you were a part of an organization that kept its views and beliefs separate from the everyday world. That you had to prove yourself and your loyalty to get into. Perhaps even one that considers that it has some binding laws that are outside those of the land – a group that keeps secrets from everyone else and that the government didn’t like you or thought you had something it might want …. Oh sorry that plot has already been used for Middle East II - the Return of the Bush ….

Your government is in control – go back to sleep now.

END OF LINE

Solipsicle – A New Flavour from Paddle Ass Pops

You know I don’t often forget that most people don’t think like me. I have had it drummed into me repeatedly over the years. Besides of which, the blank, “non plussed” face I often feel myself wearing when confronted with the latest offering of this world keeps me very aware that I am, (in some ways) “a man who fell to earth”. Whether that should be taken in the vein that I “fell from grace”, I am simply “falling down” or in fact perhaps I have fallen up or sideways is as usual - open to debate.

Still it is true that I find myself being confronted often with stuff and just drawing a blank. I find myself then having to think: “Oooook, now how can I best explain this in a way that frankly wastes as little of my energy as possible while still making my point of view clear?”

A short example of this was me going into one of Brisbane’s shops for the “Individually Inclined”, (shall we say) and asking the wee ‘chicky’ behind the counter where in the city I could get a new pair of “doc’s” at a reasonable price. A simple question I thought.

Her face glazed over and she said: “A pair of …….. what’s?”

I freely admit that I blinked several times at her poe faced as I digested this new thing. How could anyone not understand such a simple question?

Had I mispronounced something?

All I could think of to say was:

“Doc’s girl … Doc’s … boots .. you know .. Doc’s!?”

Slick stuff indeed but hell, at that stage I freely admit that it had short circuited me to the point that I simply couldn’t think of anything else more witty or elucidatory to say!

The late thirties/forties male who was obviously some sort of owner/supervisor from the other end of the shop came to the rescue and informed us that we’d probably have to go to the Doc Shop in the valley. *sigh*

As I said to the missus as we left:

“This is a joke .. not only is there nowhere in the city to get a good pair of docs … but you go to a freak store and they don’t even KNOW what Doc’s are! Gods I feel old. I don’t think I come from this planet some days.”

The same really can be said for another moment in recent past. You see the missus and I have this friend in a thoroughly unsuitable marriage. They were sweethearts and have never had anyone else. Now, years down the line, they are still together in a way that frankly shows more often than not, that they really are only together out of habit – that and perhaps a fear that they won’t get anyone else.

Now the male in this case is no favourite of mine though I will admit to never having had too much to do with him. He does not treat her well. By this I do not imply that he abuses her – well not physically. This is good as I lived for a time in an abusive household when I was a child. The fact that I had to put up with constant terror of one sort or another for years before I was large and skilful enough to enforce some new house rules myself has made me decidedly unsympathetic to males who throw their weight around women.

Instead, without wanting to put too fine a point on it he abuses her mentally and emotionally. He doesn’t directly victimise her in any exact quantifiable manner, instead he simply treats her with a level of respect I generally reserve for people I have never met and don’t care to meet again.

Now some of you know that I am a fairly intolerant sort – and I’ll wear that as a “fair cop”. Still, all that aside, I ask YOU what you might think of a male who responds to lingerie and a come hither with the words:

“What do you want?”

Such a thing of course, in the right tone, might be considered a joke .. indeed it is hard for me to not consider it so – I just can’t understand it as much else.

But no this would patently NOT be the case when the response was to say that she thought she might do a little something to make for a somewhat steamy evening to which the response was: “you’ve got tickets on yourself”

*Shakes Head*

Now over the time we have known her the missus, (delicate poison that she is) has given her any number of tips to spice things up and keep this coupling, (that we frankly think is something of a waste) alive and an on going concern – because well she doesn’t want to leave him. Mad – but let that lie.

Now he is aware that we don’t think much of him and we are aware that it is pretty much reciprocated – even though as far as its concerned he owes some of the more pleasant times of his recent life to our direct influence. Again, let that lie.

Now yesterday we got a text from her on holiday basically saying that while they are off on a holiday in a caravan wouldn’t it be nice if he actually spent some time with her. By this, (I should point out) I mean this generically! We are not even touching on anything “Extra Curricular” that a couple who sod off on holiday in a caravan else may get up to! He literally hasn’t been there half the time, (though I should not be surprised as he has said in the past: “I don’t like going on holiday with just you – it’s boring” WTF?!”

Now a little while after this we get another text advising us that there’d been some sport of blow up and that he had literally walked out in a sulk and vanished for hours and asking us what we think. What would we do.

Santina asks for clarification and notes that the response is oddly stilted. That it doesn’t sound like her. In hindsight this makes perfect sense but frankly it was hardly important at the time.

Now naturally my thought was simply to drive off and let him get some perspective. Frankly we have asked her repeatedly over the time we have known her why she is still with him. Again we are asked and we respond that frankly we feel she is confusing the soft spot everyone has for their “first time” and convenience with love – not that we aren’t sympathetic to such.

A wee while after some short stilted further responses we get a short terse one proclaiming a surprise for we “trouble makers” as it had been HIM ALL ALONG!

*Insert Vaudeville Melodrama Music here*

I personally think he did not expect to be sent my response:

“You flatter yourself if you think I am at all worried that you know what little esteem I hold your actions in.”

Now this bit has been playing on my mind since.

Why is it do you think that so many people these days seem to be stunned when they press any issue to find themselves confronted with someone else who is prepared to meet and match any bet they can make? It seems to be that too many people think that they can skate right up to outright insult and do so with impunity. They most certainly seem amazed when they get in response someone who is happy to be totally insulting and indeed go further if needs be!

Why I wonder?

I think it is because these days with all modern laws and suing for anything up to slight inconvenience, most people have begun to believe that they are living in a safe world where they are mightily important and no one could ever think absolutely nothing of steam rolling them into the dust at the slightest provocation. It is these same people who scream the loudest when their complacency is suddenly shattered by the intrusion of the fact that the word is hard and they are soft.

As they have difficulty with this, I suppose I should not be surprised by the fact that they have supreme difficulty with the idea that, (as I don’t care for them either way) I also consider that any amount of harshness required to teach them the error of their ways is permissible the second they become unpleasant.

Well now I am about as sick at heart over this as I am sick of the issue period.

I think she should leave him. I think she must be mad to put up with this misuse. I think she must be further mad that she wants to mate with this person. What kind of home will this give any children? Feh I am too tired.

I have said I think she should leave him before and will repeatedly.

The same questions demand the same answers sometimes.

Were he to be sufficiently eveolved I would sugest she stays there as it would make her life easier and happier but you know what? He doesn’t even think he treats her poorly.

In short he can’t be taught and so I shan’t try. Apparentyly I am a different breed.

Good night then.

I have had enough of caring for now ...