I hate filler posts

| Wednesday, March 17, 2010
You get a bonus today, two posts. Both whiny.








Anonymous said...

The royal family are like living museum exhibits these days. They cost a lot to maintain but apparently the net effect is good for the economy because they generate tourism.
I'd still vote to get rid of them if I could. I just don't like the idea of unearned privilege at the taxpayer's expense.
Especially when Prince Charles starts lecturing us peasants on the benefits of organic farming and homeopathy.

Anonymous said...

Every piece of new leglistation needs to be ratified by a queens representative - the govener general even though it's mainly a figuirehead position I don't think there is much they refuse to sign

LabRat said...

The monarch of England is the head of state of both the United Kingdom and all its commonwealths, including Australia, which means they have all sorts of interesting powers that are simply not exercised as a matter of courtesy.

If she cared to, Queen Elizabeth (or more practically her assigned governor-general) could tell Australia, to pick the most conspicuous example, to find a new prime minister owing to not approving of the current one. And in 1975, exactly this happened.

You're "welcome". ;)

Klepsacovic said...

@Anonymous: Well see, that's why you need them. You peasants would know nothing at all about organic farming if not for their state-supported bloodline. Don't you feel better now?

@pugnaciouspriest: Has anyone tried sneaking a contract for something like "I get all your property" onto their desk?

Verdian said...

@pugnacious priest. Correct, but to be more precise, the Governor-General cannot independently exercise any power to 'veto' Australian legislation; nor can the Queen herself. The Constitution of Australia provides for the Royal Assent to be given to laws by the G-G acting under advice of the Ministers of the State, or rather, the Federal Executive Council. Which is to say, if the PM and Cabinet tell him 'This should be a law' he cannot withhold consent.

@Labrat. Whilst the Queen is Australia's head of state, she has no 'interesting powers' exercisable in Australia, under our Constitution or laws. The investiture of the Royal prerogative in the G-G gives them no further powers than as specified in the Constitution. The example that you use of the 1975 Whitlam dismissal was not because Kerr (the G-G at the time) did not approve of Whitlam (the PM at the time) but because he was exercising his constitutional powers to resolve a deadlock between the Houses of Parliament.

I would contend, however, that he acted ultra vires, although it may have appeared to be within constitutional convention at the time (e.g. Kerr had petitioned the Chief Justice of the High Court for an advisory opinion on a constitutional matter, and the appointment of Qld and NSW senators from different parties to the incumbents).

Anonymous said...

This is not a critique of the blog by far, just a suggestion from someone who is all too familiar with the issue.

Get off the treadmill. Throw away the posting schedule and post when you think you have a real gem. It's either that or death to a burnout.

You are already posting about how you post. Next in line are rants about someone else who posts about how he posts. Then half-baked, incoherent emo posts with the words "I am really stressed out, and am only posting because I feel I have to" written all over them.

Stop it. There is no race.

Anonymous said...

Same Anon as before.

To clarify: the problem is not the frequency of posts, the problem is the feeling that you have to post every day. Take this feeling over the corner and shoot it in the head. After you do this, you will have lulls, but on some weeks you will actually end up posting more than you are posting now.

One more suggestion (sorry for having too many): if you decide to abandon the posting schedule, *don't* make a lengthy post about it. Post a one-liner (eg, "I'll be back") and take a week of blogging vacations. This helps, a lot.

Klepsacovic said...

Gah, Australians... I thought government was overly complicated enough without unelected nobility thrown in.

@Anonymouses: That post was written on and for Whiny Post Day. Do not use it as evidence of burnout, boredom, or anything else. Instead it just means I was very enthusiastic about the day. It's a good thing.

LabRat said...

Yes, well, quick and glib description does that to history- yes, I do know what actually happened. And from the perspective of an Ammerican, the ability to remove another nation's elected leader is an extremely interesting power indeed.

Post a Comment


Powered by Blogger.