Horse 887 - 30 Years Later

It was 30 years ago today that the small orange cat Garfield, broke cover and into our daily newspapers. That's 30 years of slightly inane marketing genius aimed at exploiting the wallets of people everywhere.

It is true that Jim Davis did want to create a marketable character, and the proof of this was that within 5 years, the product saw sydication in world-wide newspapers and already a sizeable stack of merchandise.

The comic strip itself is no longer drawn by Davis, who at the age of 57 didn't want the quality of the work to "age" like Schultz' Peanuts did. In fact this shows in that the quality remains quite consistent. Also, like Peanuts the ages of the characters never change.

One of the funnest things I ever found was this:
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
Garfield Minus Garfield which is the strip minus the titular character. What we're lift with is described on the site as "an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life" through the eyes of Jon Arbuckle. "Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness in a quiet American suburb."

Davis has created 10,950 comic strips, two movies, 133 television shows and specials, and sold 135 million books. Something that big can not be ignored very easily.

Horse 886 - The Micro Micro Car

The sight of a 6'5" Jeremy Clarkson trying to fit into the miniscule Peel P50 on Top Gear on Monday night was certainly one of the funniest things I have ever seen. The car at just 53" long and less than a cricket stump wide is truly a marvel.



Whilst the car could only do 38mph or 61km/h, it's 49cc DKW moped engine could get as much as 100mpg. At £199 new, even adjusting for inflation it only comes out to about £1034 in 2008 prices.

Having seen Jeremy drive it through London, I would be very scared to drive it through traffic; especially considering the monarchs of the road the London Omnibus rearing down behind you.

Although Clarkson says that it would be subject to the Congestion Charge, a look at the Transport for London website indicates otherwise.

My Ka look positively monstrous next to the Peel P50 and in a world where petrol is fast becoming a luxury, I would love to see a modern re-interpretation of it. The world would be far safer with 90,000 of these critters rather than big-fat Land Cruisers.

The man in the 'coon-skin cap, in the big pen...

... wants 11 Dollar Bills


You Only Got Ten!

Horse 885 - The UN-Constitutional UK

I find in the Telegraph this week the following article:
Link found here.
The UN Human Rights Council said the UK must "consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican".
The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka.
It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy.

The resulting report said Britain should have a referendum on the monarchy and the need for a written constitution with a bill of rights. The monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year but even groups representing taxpayers said there was no case for getting rid of it.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "With so many human rights abuses around the world the UN should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world.

"Saudi Arabia and Cuba should pay a little more attention to their own human rights record."
The UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan.

Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.
A royal source said: "People here certainly haven't detected any appetite for a referendum. The Queen is a focus for national unity, identity and pride."

I have a submission I'd like to present to the UN consisting of just two words; the second one is "off" - you can guess the first.

I've already reviewed previously the fact that the UK has not one but THREE Bills of Rights in Horse 882, but perhaps more intruguing is the question of why the UN would want to review the UK's politcal process in the first place.

The League of Nations which existed from 1919 until 1946, was largely toothless and ineffective; especially when it came to the agression of the Axis Powers and the causes of World War II. So when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin proposed an allied council in 1943, the idea was retained and the UN proper came into existence on 24 October 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.
Then there is the case of the little known declaration of the "United Nations" from which the UN itself eventually came from which was united in the cause to dismantle "Hitlerism".
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/paw/274.html

I don't see what would be acheived through writing a constitution for the UK. There exists a vast mass of parliamentary legislation as well as well-established but uncodified conventions which exist. The Queen herself has reserved but largely unused powers which history has shown in both the UK and in cases like Australia on the 11th November 1975, is better to be left unwritten and unexplored.

It makes sense that the UN should look into making sure that elections are free and unbiased in places like Zimbabwe or Iraq where there are the breaks from a pure dictatorship, but the UK? Surely a parliamentary process which was born from the ashes of a rump parliament and based on the principles that people had the right to vote for their sitting member in the first place counts as a democracy? I could of course be totally wrong here. What of the countries which existed as a result of the British Commonwealth and have their own parliamentary democracies based on the halls at Westminster, what of someone like... I don't know... Sri Lanka? What is your game here? Do 1948 and 1972 mean anything to you? No?

Further to this I suspect that within the 21st Century, the UK will probably change into a republic but what form that will take I know not - this will be for the people themselves to decide at a referendum. That is of course the point of all of this, it is the people's self-determination that ultimately gives government its power; not the documents and the instruments through which its vested.

The UN is very quickly in danger of turning into Ouroboros but instead of the snake eating itself, its in danger of disappearing up its own fundamental orifice; perhaps they should extract their head?

Horse 884 - 30-0 QUEENSLAND!!!

QUEENSLAND 30 - New South Wales 0, dud, zero, blot & egg.

What a way to arrive back in this wonderful Australian country which we call Australia with none other than the Rugby League State of Origin which is played according to the highest principles on the planet - those principles being: "Peace through violence, harmony through brutality and getting everyone to shut-up and behave just like us or they’ll cop a boot up the date and a fist of fives." It's State vs State, Mate vs Mate and if you happen to be Russell Phone-Thrower Crowe it's also Hate vs Hate. What bigger chapter in the Book of Feuds is there than this? Where else can you find spitting, dacking, wedgies, gouging, groping, pig-rooting, fighting and roughhousing broadcast live on telly in this wide BROWN land.

Only last week whilst I was out of the country, Willie "The Brains Trust" Mason had proclaimed that there would be 65,000 "nutbag redneck" Queenslanders filling The Cauldron, notwithstanding the fact that it only holds 52,500 people.

King Darius Boyd crossed twice, The Ambitious Walker Hannant who still looks very slow and 1967 Folau all shoved the pill to the deck while Thurston put them over the bar. The Cockroaches played like a bunch of White Flag merchants as they didn't break their egg. 30-Blot... 30-BLOT is disgraceful and it should be stomped out of the game. Everyone wearing a blue shirt should be given instant life bans from playing the code. What sort of message does this send out to the kiddies? It truly is chilli on the stick stuff and I HATE IT.

So we move to Game III, after which we can all put the card table away until the Festival of the Boot Parts 1 & 2 sponsored by Frosty Lahood Motors Australia.

Horse 883 - Robo Story

I have been looking for details of this cartoon for ages, and now I finally have some screen caps to prove that I am not totally bat-crap insane.

Robo Story was a 52 episode French cartoon series produced by Belokapi which first aired in 1985. In France it was shown on France 3 at 11:30 at night but didn't really gain worldwide note until Cosgrove Hall redubbed it and it was shown on BBC2 and the ABC.

he series revolved around Myrtille (or 'Blueberry' as she was known in the English version) trying to get to her space-shuttle so she could return to Earth. Her attempts were frequently thwarted by an incompotent enemy called the Wrigglers, whose leader spoke to an unseen voice and reminded him that he was "the lowest of the low"

The series employed a quite idiosyncratic style of animation, notable especially for its dark tone and sparse, industrial soundtrack. Admittedly it's not hide behind the sofa stuff like Dr.Who but if you're 8 years old and watching your favourite characters die, then it's still not very nice.

This series belongs most definitely in the 80s alongside other cartoons like Belle and Sebastian, The Mysterious Cities of Gold, Ulysees 31 and Astroboy. The problem is finding copies of DVDs for all of these. The 80s were just in the realm of videotape, and so copies deteriorate much faster than the movietone film of Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons of the 50s and 60s - so I am on the hunt now.

Horse 882 - The Bills of Rights

I was listening to the ABC yesterday and one particular lady who probably meant well and went all patriotic, wound up her sense of moral indignation and decided that it was unacceptable that Australia should make a stand on China's Human Rights record (in a discussion over the Olympics) when Australia itself didn't have a Bill of Rights. How dare a country have no Bill of Rights of its own! And wasn't it high time that we had one?

People agreed with her until someone quite rightly made the point that Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights" it more correctly has two!

Two?

It's more or less by historical accident but the story is worth noting. But first we need to jump back all the way to 99 years before British Settlement in Australia and 102 years before the US Constitution.

The state of England after the Civil War and the period of the Commonwealth under Cromwell had seen the bloodiest fighting on English soil, which it was hoped would ensure that the rights of free people weren't encroached upon by the monarch. Perhaps in that climate, simultaneous acts were passed in the English and Scottish Parliaments. These were the Bill of Rights (1689 - England) and the Claim of Right (1689 - Scotland). For the most part they were identical in operation, except that English Law was deemed to apply to England and the empire and so the Bill of Rights of 1689 would apply to Australia under force majure.

The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are as follows:

Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain immutable civil and political rights. These include, but are not limited to:

- freedom from royal interference with the law
(the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)
- freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament
- freedom to petition the Monarch
- freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
(specifically conscription during times of peace, though this has been further defined by the British High Court that martial law is in opposition to this right)
- freedom to have arms for defence, suitable to their class status and as allowed by law
(Note the difference between an allowance and a right. This is very different in operation to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution)
- freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
- the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself
(the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
- freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
- freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial

- Roman Catholics could not be king or queen of England since "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince". The Sovereign was required to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion.
- William and Mary were the successors of James.
- Succession should pass to the heirs of Mary, then to Mary's sister Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs, then to any heirs of William by a later marriage.
- The Sovereign was required to summon Parliament frequently, later reinforced by the Triennial Act 1694.

The term Englishmen doesn't necessarily mean someone from England here. Historically and under various adoption of phrase acts, has been taken to mean everyone under authority of the Crown (because prior to 1701 the "United Kingdom" didn't formally exist) - note that this currently includes Great Britain as well as British Commonwealth and specifically the named Dominions of New Zealand, Canada and Australia. Also, given that the colonies in America didn't declare independance until 1776, it means that in effect that the English Bill of Rights did apply in America before they wrote their own.

The phrase "Not limited to" is also noteworthy. When framing the Consitutition of Australia of 1900 (UK) it was decided that the practice of the American model had in fact limited the rights of American citizens under law to what was explicitly spelled out in the legislation. Since Australia was to grasp its own Westminster Parliament, those rights were deliberately left glib, just so that they would never be challenged at law because the law itself was unwritten.

I note that this should form part of the basis of the rule of law in Australia, since under the Statute of Westminster Act 1931, all acts after 1931 are independant within the various countries but that the rule of law which existed, still did so unless subsquently changed.

What this means in effect is that since there has been no Bill of Rights passed by an Australian parliament after 1931, then the existing one remains in operation.

However, the second Bill of Rights which is applicable in Australia is quite wide ranging. On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - found here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

It frames the general rights of the individual and again as a result of one of the bloodiest conflicts that the world has ever seen. Australia was one of the chairs that drew up this document and was most vocal in trying to get nations to sign up to it.

So miss patriotic lady whilst it might be "high time that we had" a Bill of Rights, the fact is that we already have two, but as to the question of Australia making a stand on China's Human Rights record... we should do that anyway surely?

Cheer Up Emo Coke

Stabby rip stab stab.

Horse 881 - Australia Should Out-Corolla Corolla

People in Australia are coping with high petrol prices by buying smaller and more fuel efficient cars. Whereas in March 2008, the Commodore was still king, I note that they only shifted 25 of them across the country to private buyers.

For nearly 20 years the top two spots were held by either the Ford Falcon (4.0L) or the Holden Commodore (3.8L, now 3.6L). For the month of April 2008 the trend shows something vastly different.

Australia's most popular car is now the Toyata HiLux with 3814 sales. Corolla sales tallied 3722 units in April, while Holden managed only 3324 Commodore sales. The Falcon which for many years outsold the Commodore because it was a bigger car (think XD-EA versus VB-VL) now languishes at No.8. The trend extends further than this with the "big Aussie sixes" (Falcon, Commodore, Aurion and 380) selling 12,000 for 2007 whilst the Corolla by itself sold 15,000.

In basic terms, when the price went up people bought smaller and more fuel efficient cars. This is even more pronounced in Europe where people are taxed to the hilt and buy even smaller cars. Or if you look at America where petrol prices are far cheaper, the cars are bigger - in fact I note that Ford don't even bother to sell the Fiesta (let alone the Ka) in the US, because it's "too small".

Maybe my idea to buy Mitsubishi's ex-380 plant wasn't as stupid as you may have thought. I bet that my idea for an Aussie 2L car would sell like wildfire, based on the assumption that it would out-Corolla Corolla. Certainly, Corolla is outselling the "big Aussie Six".

Is Mother's Day a public holiday?

Horse 880 - Purple Razors

Whilst doing a spot of shopping at Franklins near where I work, I was in the aisle for razors when I spotted a "two for one" offer on Schick Xtreme 3 "for women". What's remotely remarkable about this is that after comparing the packets side by side, I concluded that apart from the colour of the packaging and the handles of the razors themselves, that they were pretty much identical. So being the "educated" consumer I am, I fronted up to the checkout and attempted to purchase said product.

Upon presenting my goods to the till, the checkout lady gave me a look as though I had contracted leprosy or broken some unearthly social code of conduct.

"You do realise that these are for women? They're purple."

I should like to point out at this juncture that I did walk out of the shop with my purchase and have subsequently found that there is a small material difference between them - the "ladies" razor comes with a strip of Vitamin E for "sensitive areas".

Sensitive areas? Do the manufacturers not realise that running a sharpened blade across one's face whilst at the same time stripping the top layer of skin, slicing through potential blackheads and invariably causing shaving cuts is potentially a "sensitive" operation? Notable characters like Homer Simpson and the Little Aussie Bleeder, Norman Gunston have made satirical comments with regards this. What could possibly be more "sensitive" than one's face?

And since when did products "for women" associate themselves with purple? Traditionally blue was for boys and it was pink which was for girls. Purple if anything suggests either unisex, or more traditionally either royalty or Cadbury (and anyone who wishes to run a razor over a Top Deck or a Dairy Milk quite frankly needs their head read). If you do mix pink and blue you do get a purpley colour, so are they suggesting that these razors have LGBT issues?

I would suggest that because a "women's" razor in theory would be used in places other than one's face (unless being bought by a bearded lady) then they've probably been built under a more stringent standard. Certainly my experience is that it took fewer strokes and there was less irritation than the "man's" razor, so if anything I'd be more likely to buy the product in future.

In the first place, don't I have the ability to buy literally anything in the supermarket? Shouldn't I be able to buy motor oil, sugar, tinned asparagus, sanitary napkins and shaved ham in the same purchase if I so desire?

No Frills has the best policy - white packaging with the word "razors" on the front. No colour, gender, eyebrow raising issues there... which would be just dandy except that the product just doesn't quite cut it.

Horse 879 - Is the MINI cool?

The Prawny Bard has finally seen the light and is going to replace his clunky and ill-styled Commodore. His question to me this morning was (and thanks largely to Top Gear) "Is the MINI cool?"

Yes
...but it has no right to be.

1. The MINI IS British.

Hang on, why should that disqualify it? Ahah, the answer to that is the same as every other British car and delves into the very creation of the vehicle itself.

In the 90s when retro was in fashion, Volkswagen released their Beetle which was a Golf in silly clothing and Chrysler bought out their retro I-don't-know-what-I-am PT Cruiser. Back in Britain the MG Rover group was in trouble. Their 100 & 200 series continued years of tradition by being total piles of steaming crap. The MINI (all capitals to distinguish it from THE Mini) was intended to sweep away both.

The car was already tooled in it's entirety and was even in ye olde worlde jalope shoppe premises at Oxford and Swindon where many Austins and Morrii (is that the accepted plural of Morris?) had wheeled out before. Thus the new MINI would roll out the same doors that the old one did. I ask you, can anything cool ever come out of Swindon?

The MINI was in theory a perfectly well conceived car. It was a 1.6L motor car without pretention and didn't have to hide what it was. Yes it was bigger than the original, but building a car that small with today's crash regulations is a much more difficult task and MG Rover weren't prepared to go there. MG Rover's troubles were already huge, and they eventually sold out to BMW. This brings me to reason 2:

2. The MINI is German.

Well it's owned by BMW. German cars in principle aren't cool. Cool is different, innovative but worst of all, has the potential to be commercially inefficient. With that last piece of surgical equipment, BMW hacked away MG, Land Rover and Rover until they were left with just the MINI which they spun into a new group and out on it's own.

BMW also hacked through he production workforce and streamlined the new company but even BMW had the tenacity to realise that the car was mechanically better than their own 3-Series. Virtually every British car ever produced previously came with its very own set of random faults. Not general faults common to the make but unique random faults specific to that individual car. To combat this BMW introduced Quality Control, something which had never before been seen in Britain.

3. The MINI isn't a Mini.

This was always going to be a problem. If you were going to name the "Icons of the 20th Century" then six things always appear on the list - Beck's London Underground Map, the Volkswagen Beetle, the Coca-Cola Bottle, the Golden Arches, the Swastika and the Mini.

This isn't about comparing two cars anymore, because the new MINI is competing against one of the very things by which the 20th Century was defined. In the case of the Mini, it goes along with Mods, Beatlemania, the Swinging 60s, it defined how rallys were to be won and when it was disqualified from the '66 Monte, the Monte Carlo Rally instantly lost its shine.

The original Mini could be dressed in the Union Flag, a checkerboard roof, a black bonnet or even a horrid lime green paint scheme and you still could not undermine how cool it was. As far as The Cool Wall goes, the car that came from a sketch on the back of a napkin was so cool that next to it, even the DB9 fridge feels like wearing an overcoat in the Sahara.

So then, set against all of this why the heck did I answer Yes?

1. It is actually cool.

So it's not the original. Get over it. The new car has to be taken on merit for what it is... a 1.6L in-line 4 and possibly a hot hatch. It's therefore competing with the Fiesta (not cool - except in XR4 mode), the Barina (also not cool), the Micra (not cool, expect if you are a hairdresser), the Yaris (not cool), and the Colt (not cool).

The packaging of the vehicle therefore has to define what it is. MG Rover went to a lot of trouble to make sure that everything was in "proportion" and styled the car before it got sent to the wind tunnel and not after. The MINI is a car rather than an appliance like the Yaris.

2. It actually is cool.

Slight shift from number 1, in that the car is cool enough that even if numptys, numbnuts, nonces and nongs own the MINI, it will still be cool. Fat buisinessmen don't want it because it's to small, and slimy corporates with oil slick hairdos instantly disappear when the step inside. That's what it's about really isn't it? No-one really cares who's inside when you're doing 110 down the motorway, all they see is the car. BMW = wanker. Corolla = boring git. Mini = cool car.

Like the original which the late great Alec Issigonis scribbled on the back of a napkin, the MINI also has one rather strange design quirk. During the final clays of the car, designer Frank Stephenson realised that he'd forgotten an exhaust pipe. So rather hastily, he stripped an empty can of Stella and jammed the beer can into the rear of the clay mock-up. The production car retained the distinctive exhaust tip.

3. It is actually cool.

Clarkson quite rightly pointed out that the car isn't Sub-Zero but set against the backdrop of other cars it is cool. For a car to remain cool even after James May owned one, it is in fact cool. Generally if a car appears in the Cool section on the cool wall then it's cool. The MINI is, and because it is, it is and therefore it is... no nyah.

Is the MINI cool? Yes.

Horse 878 - Rollo's $1 Offer

Dear Mitsubishi,

So you got it hideously wrong with the 380. Sure, there was nothing wrong with the car and I must say that it is a very well put together motor car (naturally as it was built by Australians; as we all know Aussie built cars ARE built to the toughest standards in the world). So why did your 380 fail, and why does this involve me?

If you look at the sales of motor cars for last month, No.1 was still the Commodore (even though that is trading on fleet sales) but Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are all hacks. Those being the Toyota Corolla, the Mazda 3 and the Hyundai Accent. It must be said that all three of these cars give the driver a totally uninspiring experience and why should they? That's not what they're about. People who buy these sorts of cars are typically people who don't give a fig about performance and merely want something that won't cost them a fortune at the petrol pump and be big enough to cart around the weekly shopping.

I note that you already do have a 2L hack motor car in the Lancer, so why not just retool the now dormant plant to build that. Surely that has to be better than merely laying aside a billion dollar plant. Or better yet, build the "Great Australian Aussie 4". Redefine the market, show some initiative. Or better yet, sell the plant to me for $1.

I bet that I could have Australia's biggest car company in five years. All I need is the plant. I have faith in Aussie workers to build a better car than the rest of the world. There you go Mitsubishi. There's your offer. I'm willing to offer $1 in exchange for all of your debts and I'm laying it on the table now.

$1

...think about it.

Horse 877 - (We Only Got) Four Minutes to Save the World

There is a certain song by a songstress who should have given up years ago, currently doing the rounds on the airwaves and taking up valuable airtime that would be better spent with the sounds of two enmeshed banshee two-stroke chainsaws.

The song that has gained my ire is none other than 4 Minutes featuring the caterwaulings of Madonna and that prize git, Justin Timberlake. Some of the lyrics are reproduced below:

We only got four minutes to save the world
No hesitating - Grab a boy
Go grab your girl
Time is waiting
We only got four minutes to save the world
No hesitating
We only got four minutes huh four minutes
So keep it up keep it up


Problem 1: Save the world from what?

We're consistently told throughout the song that we've only got four minutes to save the world, but at no point does it address what we need to save the world from. Is it giant asteroids? Perhaps an attack of the radioactive hamsters? Maybe it's an internal problem like global warming, a sudden volcanic explosion, instant world famine. We have no idea; because of this we can't identify any strategies to help us and we can't even develop a plan of action.

Problem 2: Lack of urgency.

If we've only got four minutes to save the world, then you'd hope that there'd be a better sense of urgency but for the four minutes and four seconds of the album track, they continue to sing on anyway. Justin wastes valuable panicking time by going "uh" no fewer that 87 times! For goodness sake, even the people in Toyota's Rav V6 advert gave more of a crap when they heard that there was 200 Killer Wasps. Madonna and Justin seem to care not a tinker's fart.

Problem 3: Inaccuracy.

Just when does our four minutes start from? I can let slide that the song is 4:04 long, but as time passes, you no longer have four minutes to save the world but some time less than this. If you had four minutes to save the world at the beginning of the song then half way through you'd have to sing "we've only got two minutes to save the world" or "we only had four minutes to save the world".


And now:

Kofi Considers

"I'd be using my four minutes to save the world more productively"
Indeed Mr Annan... Indeed.

Horse 876 - When God Says No

The biggest question I have have the moment and and finding difficult to come to terms with is one of what happens if God says "No". It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that God has several answers that he can make to any given prayer: Yes, Wait, No, or something else.

Consider this:
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years.
- John 1:5-7

Now it's logical to assume that Zechariah and Elizabeth probably would have liked to have had children. In the first century BC it's not like there were any social security systems or superannuation, so in general, it would be assumed that your children would look after you in your old age (assuming you got there).

It's not a difficult thing to imagine the years of tearful requests this couple made to the Lord. Try to feel the pain and frustration each month when they realized their prayer had been rejected again. As the months turned into years, the prayers must have grown more and more desperate, for each year as the couple grew older, they knew their chances of having a child grew dimmer. Admittedly in verse 13 we're told that eventually the request was finally granted, and God's plan prevailed (with a son who would in time prepare the way for Christ himself).

This isn't a case of sin getting between Zechariah and Elizabeth and God. We are told that they were "upright in the sight of God". Clearly there must be some sort of other operation going on here. The other major principle is that we and indeed everything in the universe does not exist for our happiness but ultimately for God's glory.

Just as He did to these people God sometimes and will continue to say "no" to our prayers, if it suits His greater plan. Studying God’s "Nos" in other peoples’ lives though, is much easier than applying the lessons to our own. Ungranted prayers will always disappoint us and ultimately, the answer to a given prayer has little to do with yielded rights. That a right has been yielded does not mean that the matching need or desire will be met, any more than not yielding rights means that the need or desire will not be met.

Moses' "send someone else to do it", Elijah's "I have had enough, LORD, Take my life" and even Jesus' "Take this cup away from me" are all examples of prayer which had a definate "No" as the answer. Yup, even the only truly righteous person who ever lived was still given the answer of "No".

It just happens that at this moment, I'm being given the answer of "No".

Horse 875 - The Brink of Anger

Call it an act of conscience or maybe even possibly damage control, but I have reached a point where potentially I may have a) found an apartment to live in, but b) will be prevented from doing so because of the actions of the real estate agents.

A charming lady from church, Sarala, who used to live there, vacated the premises on the 24th and spoke to me about the possibility of moving in (could this have been a potential answer to prayer?). After looking at the apartment, I began forming sums in my head and came to the conclusion that it was indeed a find apartment which showed tremendous potential and had a simply glorious view. After a small amount of negotiation with the real estate agents, I phoned the future Mrs Rollo and asked for an in principle opinion.

As time wore on, it became apparant that the estate agent was not forthcoming with returning documentation to Sarala; nor did it spell out the terms for the release of her rental bond. It actually appears that on the face of it, they were deliberately dragging out the process to exact more rent out of her, so that the rental bond would be cancelled out - this is not only highly unfair but also as I found out through both the Rental Bonds Board and the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal also illegal . I tried to phone them on a number of occasions but someone was either to busy to field my phone calls or the person I needed to speak to was out.

Fast forward to yesterday the 10th of April, and I received a phone whilst merrily dozing on the 238 bus across the Harbour Bridge. The real estate company said that they were ready to approve my application and that they were ready to contact the landlords. However, this call was distinctly odd, for only after I gave them my details did I check where the number had come from, and lo I saw the words "private number"; my incoming call register does not record the number either.

For me, all of the alarm bells are currently ringing blue thunder. Not only this, but because the real estate company still has not returned Sarala's rental bond, my faith in their ability is pretty well hanging by a silver thread. If they can do this to one person, then they also have to potential to do it to me as well; thus I do not want them as my agents. However...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

I can not do nothing.

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" - James 1:19

Due process has been followed through, and now after considerable waiting, I intend to unleash professional anger on these people. It really gets my ire when decent common people are taken advantage of. Unless I receive total confirmation this afternoon, that terms have been settled then I will fight. I think that I was placed upon this earth to be perpetually annoyed; and now... you do not want to be on the end of it.

DO NOT WANT

Horse 874 - Pontiac... No Name

The people at Pontiac who have decided to rip off out great Aussie Ute, have a distinct problem. Not only have they never really seen this sort of vehicle in the last 20 years with the demise of Chevrolet's El Camino, but they have even settled on a name for the little Aussie Bleeder.
So vexing is their quest that they've launched a competition to name the thing:

http://pontiac.emipowered.net/tamethename/



If it wasn't already called the Ute, what about... Mullet - Business in the front, Party in the back.

Can I please have an egg? Look, I settle for a scorpion...
... it's still better than asking for an egg and getting nothing.

Horse 873 - Lyrical Madness

Some songs that lyrics that inspire, others are memorable and fit the zeitgeist perfectly - then again there are other lyrics that just send you to Charlie McSanity's Home For The Eternally Bewildered. These then are just a few of those:

Your Song - Elton John
If I was a sculptor
But then again, no.
Maybe if you were a lyricist but then again, no.

Staring at the Sun - U2
There's an insect in your ear
If you scratch it won't disappear
Do you think that they get a lot of midges in Belfast? Help there's a midge, but I can't scratch it because it won't go away! Argh!

Leaving New York - REM
Leaving was never my proud
Lions live in prides but what is a proud? This lyric is made of sad.

Horse With No Name - America
There were plants and birds and rocks and things...
I'm guessing that one of those things was one of REM's prouds.


Smooth Operator - Sade
Coast to coast
L.A. to Chicago
Maybe Sade didn't do that well in geography? Chicago is 744 miles from the nearest coast.


Whenever, Wherever - Shakira
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble
So you don't confuse them with mountains
It's a simple mistake to make if you consider how far away Chicago is from the coast. Oh look are the Rocky Mountains pretty? Aw drat, I've confused them with Shakira's breasts again. I hate when that happens.

Bad - Michael Jackson
Your butt is mine
Your elbow belongs to someone else though.


Avril Lavinge - Sk8er Boi
He was boy, she was a girl
Can I make it any more obvious?
No

War Song - Culture Club
War is stupid
And people are stupid
Hur hur... your face is stupid... hur hur...

MacArthur Park - Jimmy Webb
Someone left the cake out in the rain
What the heck? Who in their right mind leaves cake out in the rain in the first place?

(You're) Having My Baby - Paul Anka
Having my baby, what a lovely way of saying how much you love me
That's a bit extreme! Wouldn't a nice card and some flowers also have said this?

But as usual, the best worst lyrics are noticed by someone else. The theme from Friends
I'll be There For You - The Rembrandts
So no one told you life was gonna be this way
except that the second verse says...
Your mother warned you there'd be days like these
Self contained contradiction... terrible.

Aw...

The Game... I just lost it.