What Mike Rann does with his pinkbits.

Anyone who knows me well enough knows that I am easily irked.

But in all honesty, the currently fiasco involving our media-savvy Premier really is simply too much, and has raised my ire to the point that I must do that which I swore I never would. I shall blog.

For those of you unfamiliar with recent developments in South Australia's political scene, here is a brief summary. Premier is beaten with a magazine by the estranged husband of a woman who once worked at Parliament House. Everyone wonders why. Woman goes on television and claims to have had a love affair with Mike. Mike denies it.

If we believe Mike then certainly there has been no wrong. "Premier befriends waitress and develops a flirtatious relationship" is the headline, reminding me of Edina Monsoon's imagined scandal "Woman caught showing ankle to chimney sweep shock". So if this IS the case, why the fuss? This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. Men and women are free to interact. Men and women may, within the bounds of legality, morality and good taste, flirt. Ergo, no case to answer.

If we believe Ms Chantelois (am I the only person who thinks her name sounds like that of a brothel madam?) they had a sexual relationship which, for the purposes of my argument has two marked characteristics: (1) passions which often manifested themselves within the walls of our great, grey Parliament, and (2) it occurred after the estrangement from (or at the very least great tension with) her husband.

I find Rann's version of events more believable. The likelihood of someone being able (or intelligent enough) to conduct a torrid love affair in Parliament is so minute. The likelihood of Rann doing so mere metres away from a horde of Liberals is even more so (and surely being that close to a Liberal would most feeling "limp"). But EVEN IF (and it's a very big "even if") the Chant was verily sinned against on North Terrace, "coitus parliamentarius" might be in poor taste, but it's hardly a crime against the state or against democracy.

Furthermore (and again this is an "even if"), this was a woman who was estranged from her husband. Given that man's recent behaviour and demonstration of ill-temper, it's hard to imagine that man being anything but estranged from any woman. Rann was single. So a single man had sex with a woman in (at best) a dysfunctional marriage. What a horrendous crime! Woe! Alack! Come on, people: even Benedict XVI would probably just give them both a few Hail Marys to say and sent them on their way!

I cannot, for the life of me, ascertain the nature of the objectionable behaviour here.

Thus I can come to only one conclusion. South Australia must have become such a bastion of social conservatism that the public and media now demand that any person occupying high public office must remain celibate during their tenure unless they are married. And fucking in a bed.

I can feel the ground tremble as Don Dunstan turns in his grave.