Apathy rules, but who cares?

I thought about blogging on a particularly moronic bleeding heart leftie post by The Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony about the East Timor/Australia maritime boundary issue. And I contemplated discussing Michael Costello’s excellent article about the US/Australia Free Trade Agreement (he’s almost got me persuaded that it’s a bad idea on balance). I momentarily considered blogging on Richard Ackland’s SMH article about the latest disgraceful effort by Professor David Flint and the ABA in effectively letting commercial radio “cash for comment” deals proceed without interference. I even considered mentioning the bizarre story of the man whose penis exploded while having sex (via who else but Yobbo). But then I thought: who cares? It’s a beautiful day outside, the weekend’s coming up, and I’ve got more enjoyable things to do with my time than blog. That exploding cock is a bit of a worry though. I wish I knew exactly what they were doing so I could avoid it at all costs:

Dr Angela Domocos, head of the accident and emergency department at Cluj General Hospital, said: “It is very rare for this to happen. We call it an exploded penis because it happens when the blood cavities in the penis burst.

“I don’t know what this couple were playing at, but there must have been tremendous pressure inside the penis to make this happen.”

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law), civil procedure and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 20 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in the early 1990s.
This entry was posted in Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Russell
2022 years ago

Fuck, I’m slipping in my old age. I should’ve been the one to discover that exploding penis story…

David Tiley
2022 years ago

James, you worry about it more as you get older. I myself am obsessed…

Ken – now I am really confused about the Timor Gap stuff. You are arguing roughly the same position as Cast Iron Balcony – the difference is your lawyer’s mind and her citizen’s passion – and yet you think her position is “a particularly moronic bleeding heart leftie post”..

I don’t get the difference, the bludgeon or the language.

Norman
Norman
2022 years ago

On the other hand, David, although there may be similarities between champignons and magic mushrooms, it’s the differences which are most important.

Ken Parish
Ken Parish
2022 years ago

David,

I’d be happy for Australia to concede a significantly larger share of Greater Sunrise (e.g. 35-40%, perhaps even half), in a commercial negotiation where we give more to achieve a quick agreement so the resource can be developed.

Conceding ET’s entire maritime boundary claim is a completely different matter. That would concede ET not only the majority of Greater Sunrise royalties, but control of all other currently-known resources in that area and any that may be discovered in the future, when in international law ET’s claim is fairly dubious.

Neither ET nor Australia have particularly credible historical claims to control or useage of the offshore areas of the Timor Sea, and ET’s assertion of a midpoint maritime boundary is arguably a misconception of the international law position. Adopting a midpoint boundary is what is commonly done in relation to maritime boundaries between coastal states where there ISN’T any continental shelf to delineate that boundary e.g. between European coastal states, where the entire seabed is shallow coastal sea and both states are on the same continent (Europe). In light of the UN Law of the Sea Convention 1982, the contintental shelf edge assumes major significance in terms of legal control of undersea resources, irrespective of historical actual control (which, as I say, neither ET nor Australia can credibly assert). I don’t think Australia should surrender its strong maritime boundary claim under international law, but I DO think Australia should adopt a more generous approach to re-negotiating the royalty carve-up over Greater Sunrise, for both commercial and humanitarian reasons. They’re two separate (if related) issues.

Norman
Norman
2022 years ago

If my memory serves me correctly, Ken, at the time of East Timor’s final independence, Australia did make greater concessions to them than what had been decided previously when Indonesia controlled the territory.
I suppose I should be thankful the bleedin hhearts aren’t wanting to apply their same “logic” re fairness, to give Indonesia a greater share too?

David Tiley
2022 years ago

Maybe we should, Norman. My point is that we need stable neighbours, and if we can contribute to that stability, that is probably more valuable than a hard line on maritime boundaries. Stability, mind you, is not the same as feeding thugs and kleptocrats – I presume that is part of the reason we would keep the sovereignty and trade the rights.

Norman
Norman
2022 years ago

Not the sort of precedent some would deem wise though, David?

David Tiley
2022 years ago

Precedent is an interesting kind of fear that is used often to tar imaginative decisions, even in the lower echelons where I used to work.

Sometimes it is useful, because it raises questions of fairness. But often it is just a fantasy, evoking the possibility of an opportunistic request which has not been made, by a kind of applicant not yet encountered.

In relation to the law of the sea and our support for our neighbours, I guess the only people who could plausibly use such a decision as a precedent would be PNG, where we may want to do such a deal anyway. And we never forgo our ability to say no.

Norman
Norman
2022 years ago

Having already made one concession to East Timor, they’re now after a second. If they get that, we’ll possibly hear similar “positive” responses from them to those we heard last time; but why stop there?
Perhaps New Guinea AND Indonesia will never ever ask themselves why they shouldn’t try too; but I;m not convinced. If and when they did, assuming it was politically correct and convenient at that time, I could well imagine Australia’s Bleeding Heart Brigade types going into overdrive to stir up the issue here. I’d prefer to see our Government make a strong stand now.