Sunday, December 23, 2012

Chrissie

Cecile's christmas present to me.

My christmas present to Cecile

Friday, November 16, 2012

Usual

That shit [religion] was going on all over the planet…follow for the best atheist posts on tumblr

Age Letter

So let me get this straight - If someone admits to cardinal Pell in the confessional that he is a paedophile, Pell will keep this fact a secret, and in the catholic church this is known as 'clearing the air and uncovering the truth'

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Its on its way !


Advocate letter

Dear Sir,
Your correspondent J Gill (Advocate 11/7/2012) has taken the trouble to list his reasons for opposing gay marriage, and I thought it might be a good idea to comment on them in justifying my advocacy of a change in the present law. 
* Marriage is a long term cultural institution, as is slavery, misogyny and religious indoctrination, and the longevity of these latter abominations is not a good argument for their retention. It may come as a surprise to Mr Gill to learn that sexual union can  happen outside marriage, and rumour has it, that this has actually occurred.
* It is true that a same sex couple cannot conceive without a little help, but neither can naturally infertile heterosexual couples. Perhaps Mr Gill thinks we should ban IVF as well. If fertility is an important consideration in allowing marriage, presumably Mr Gill would ban marriage amongst the elderly or the handicapped.
* The present marriage law certainly protects the right of a heterosexual couple to marry, but I am at a loss to understand how allowing same sex couples to marry will take away any rights from any heterosexual couple. 
* Children's rights are important, so I invite you to ask the question  'Would a child's rights be enhanced by being raised in a  hypothetical same sex household, where the child was nurtured, loved, provided for and respected, or in an equally hypothetical heterosexual family where the child was abused, malnourished, and neglected ? ' The sexuality of the parents has always been irrelevant to the quality of a child's life, and academic studies world wide have confirmed this obvious fact. 
* Children are, as a commonplace, raised today by parents who have divorced or separated. Does Mr Gill suggest that the 'inalienable rights' of children to be raised by their biological parents should extend to the children of divorcees ? If so, does he propose to outlaw separation ? If not, how does the raising of a child by a single mother differ  fundamentally from the raising of a child by a single mother and her girlfriend ? 
* Consider what the word marriage can suggest in our society. Friendship, courtship, engagement, family, love, respect. To deny  equality to same sex couples is to suggest that they are undeserving of these attributes. In noting that marriage is different to other relationships, Mr Gill seems to propose that heterosexual de facto couples should also be discriminated against. 
* The argument that marriage is by definition only between a man and a woman, is a weak one. I would remind Mr Gill that here in Australia, the definition of a voter was for many years  ' A male person over the age of 21' Good people saw the essential immorality of this definition, and they changed it !
* I was interested by the passing reference to abortion in Mr Gills letter. I have to tell him that in my view a handful of non-sentient cells in a woman's body immediately after conception, have no rights at all, and that I would rather see ten thousand early term abortions, rather than see one child being born to be  uncared for. Discriminating against a blastocyst is like discriminating against an amoeba.
I happen to be a happily married man, but if for some reason, I felt like marrying another man sometime in the future, I should want far more persuasive arguments than those furnished by Mr Gill to convince me that continuation of the present discrimination is justified. 

Saturday, September 22, 2012

The speech Julia Gillard forgot to give after the Sydney riots




Fellow Australians. Muslim Australians. I recently spoke to you, after the disgusting display of violence which you perpetrated on the streets of Sydney,  in response to the release of a film in the United States. On that occasion, I emphasised the repulsive character of the film before condemning your lawless aggressive and dangerous behaviour. I now realise that that I may have done both you, and your fellow non muslim Australians a grave disservice. A little while ago, I stood in front of a group of executives representing foreign owned mining companies, and told them that they did not have the right to exploit our minerals in ways which were deleterious to our nation. Their response was slack jawed disbelief. But it had to be said, because certain fundamentals in a society constituted such as ours are non negotiable. So, I say to you, muslim Australians, you do not have a right not to be insulted. You do not have a right to use violence, or the threat of violence to get your own way. You do not have a right to force your religious views on people who do not share your faith.
Have you ever wondered why so many people have an instinctive distrust of Mr Tony Abbott ? It is because, whatever his views on tax cuts for billionaires, or on labour relations may be, we recognise that his raison d'etre is simply to force his religious views on our society. In doing so he stands firmly in the tradition of his church, who for a thousand years, routinely murdered atheists, that is to say people like me, for the crime of not being catholic. The word heretic has as its root a Greek phrase which means ' free to choose' and catholics murdered a million people who wanted to be free to choose. Thankfully, that sort of thing no longer happens in western society. Why ? Did the popes and their followers suddenly turn around and say that it had all been a ghastly mistake ? Not at all. Our forefathers who were better and braver that ourselves, fought religious barbarism in the western world, and were triumphant, but only after the deaths of millions and the suffering of millions more in appalling and protracted wars. They established a western, secular, democratic, liberal tradition which has lasted from the demise of religious autocracy to the present day. When you consider the values and practises which characterise our society, that is to say, democracy, freedom of expression, the rule of law, tolerance, the rights of man etc, you will have noted that all were at one time or another opposed by religion, and religious leaders. The freedoms and rights which you enjoy here in Australia were none of them created by religion, and were generally established in the face of bitter religious attacks.
When I survey the state of human rights around the globe, I cannot help but notice that religious societies are generally those in which human rights are least respected. I also note that secular societies enjoy a level of religious freedom which religious societies never do. Like everyone else, I was thrilled by the spectacle of the Arab Spring. Here I thought, were nations and peoples fighting for their freedom against a group of the most disgusting and bizarre dictators imaginable. Alas, far from creating freedom, the uprisings have established a critical mass of religious barbarism, the legacy of which we may struggle with for many years.
The Turkish Prime Minister recently said that he believed 'islamophobia' is a crime against humanity. I need hardly remind you that he is at the forefront of a movement to destroy secularism in Turkey, and forcibly return one of the few free societies with a muslim majority to a pre Ataturk theocracy. The comments that he made are, however, deserving of a response. This is partly because so many Australians are beginning to question the very basis of our multicultural traditions as a consequence of your actions. Many of you will suggest that the violence exhibited in Sydney the other day was no worse than that practised by the CFMEU, another group with a tradition of violence and intimidation. It is not because these vicious industrial thugs are my personal sponsors that I point out that whatever the shortcomings of the CFMEU might be, they do not represent a threat to the very basis of our society, but you do. If one has the temerity to point out the obvious fact that peace in the Middle East will never be possible unless the Americans and Israelis end their brutal, illegal, immoral and racist occupation of Palestine, and return to the 1948 borders, you can expect to be showered with accusations of anti semetism. Such accusations however, do not alter the facts. If you point out that to discriminate against women is evil, immoral and wrong, you can similarly expect to be accused of 'islamaphobia' In the past we have taken the trouble to emphasise cultural diversity, and a tolerance of different traditions, when we approach problems of this sort, but I wonder if we have done you muslim Australians a grave disservice by doing so. We may have tempted you to believe that it is acceptable for your religious views to take precedence over the very foundations of our society here in Australia. When I say that it is unacceptable for you to attempt to intimidate us into giving up our freedoms, this is not 'islamophobia' it is plain common sense. How can you expect your fellow Australians to respect you when you call for a cartoonist to be beheaded for exercising his freedom of speech ? How many of you have marched to protest against the genital mutilation of girls in islamic countries ? How many of you have drawn placards condemning the muslim practise of throwing acid at the faces of supposedly disobedient women ? In your tradition, you do not visually represent your prophet mohammed, and that of course is your right. But you do not have the right to prevent others from depicting him if they want to. Your use of violence and threats to stop certain cartoons has had two consequences, firstly a truly amazing proliferation of mohammed cartoons on the Internet and across the media, and secondly, a well earned distrust from your fellow Australians. You say that you will punish anyone who insults islam, but doesn't your holy book insult non muslims ? You cannot stone women to death, hang twelve year old boys accused of homosexuality, and suicide bomb innocent civilians, and then demand our respect for your beliefs. When Enlightenment values were adopted as the basis for our society, freedom of religion was one of the most important rights that was guaranteed, although these values were established, it must be said, in the face of enthusiastic religious opposition. However, religious freedom was  granted with two significant provisos, firstly no one has the right to harm anybody in the pursuit of their religion, and secondly, no one has the right to force their religion, or their religious views on anybody else. I am afraid that you muslim Australians are in danger of deserving our enmity by your refusal to respect these fundamental rules.
Time and again I have heard from you the claim that islam is a religion of peace, but the evidence of the nightly news bulletins belie this claim.
If you saw a black man on the other side of the road and said, without meeting or knowing him, that he was a thief, you would be a racist. If he walked across the road and took your wallet, calling him a thief would be nothing less that the truth. If your fellow Australians are dismayed by your violence, they are not being 'islamophobic' they are expressing a noble concern for the values and practises which in our country have created a free society. If you doubt this simple truth, let me remind you that whilst we guarantee your right to practise your religion here, and welcome your building of mosques in Australia, precious few churches or synagogues or buddhist temples, or mormon tabernacles are ever built in Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Iran. If you are an islamic woman who wants to wear a burka on our streets, nobody stops you, but I wonder what the reaction would be if I put on a short skirt, and walked hand in hand with my boyfriend along a road in Tehran ? There is something deeply troubling about a philosophy which demands freedom for itself while at the same time attempting to deny those same freedoms to other people.
We have welcomed you in to our country, and invited you to participate with us in a fair and tolerant society. You have repaid us by trying to take away our freedoms. The Sydney riots represent a fundamental challenge to the values of a nation which has greeted you, in a way which islamic nations would never greet us. I invite you to prove to me and your fellow Australians that you are deserving of that welcome.  

Friday, September 7, 2012

A 'plane is born




Recent photos from  the UK showing the progress of my new Thruster.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Temora










Just got back from a delightful trip to Temora in NSW, where I attended Natfly, the annual get together of the ultralight federation. It was 580 kms up on Friday, followed by 580kms back on Saturday, and in between a few quality hours of gawping at planes. Christopher Hitchens accompanied me on CD, and it occurred to me again that his protestation of atheism seems constantly contradicted by the obvious fact that he writes like an angel, no matter what the subject, from Middle Eastern politics to blow jobs.
I met Tony Henty there, who informed me that numbers were well down from last year, but I thought the turnout was still very impressive. I took some time to admire the Jabiru J230 which he had just purchased. The rows of manufacturers outlets gave one ample opportunity for dreaming. My only criticism was that I saw only a couple of Sapphires, one Lightwing, one Xair, and a Bantam and Thruster on display as historic aircraft. In short very few of the sorts of aircraft that interest me, and lots of high performace plastic imports which don't. I also visited the Temora Aviation Museum, and looked at the glorious aircraft on display there. My favourite military aircraft, the Canberra was there as well as a Spitfire, a Hudson, and many others. This museum must be unique in that all the aircraft are airworthy, and regularly fly at airshows.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Down House


Well it is nearly that time of year again, when we all troop off to the World Atheist Conference, and indulge in an orgy of feeling (and being) morally and intellectually superior. Nothing of course, could make up for the absence of Christopher Hitchens, although in that regard, as Humphrey Bogart said in Casablanca, "We'll always have YouTube, kid" We will however be entertained by the remaining superstars of the movement, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, and my personal favourites, AC Grayling and Ayaan Hirst Ali.
I was trying, the other day, to account for the great popular success that Richard Dawkins has enjoyed recently, and have come to the conclusion that a key reason is the clear, precise, accessible and non technical language in which he expresses himself. In this he resembles his idol Charles Darwin himself. Of Dawkins popular works, all of which I have, my favourite is "Climbing Mount Improbable" Like Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins has shown himself to be a Darwinophile, not just interested in propagating, explaining and expanding Darwin's theories , but also fascinated by the minutiae of Darwin's personal life and his times. I can identify with that idea - I went to the Galapagos, followed Darwin's footsteps in South America, and the Falklands, and recently walked the Hobart foreshore, where Darwin's presence during the voyage of the Beagle is commemorated. In pursuit of that Darwin groupie experiences, I may in fact have gone one better than Richard Dawkins himself. I have visited Down House, Darwin's house in Kent on many occasions, and have walked the famous Sandwalk dozens of times. Darwin often referred to Down House, which ironically was a former vicarage, as "My ugly house" but to my eyes, it is magnificent, and its setting the acme of gracious living, a la Mr D'arcy. It was my first visit however which was the most memorable. I had obtained a guide book which noted the closing time of Down House to be 5.30pm , and armed with that information, arrived in the afternoon, with the intention of exploring the house for a couple of hours. The garden was obviously going to be out of bounds, as it was snowing heavily. I had failed to read the pamphlet properly, and shortly after gaining access, was interrupted by a young fellow who was wandering around the house, asking all visitors to make their way to the exit. When I remonstrated with him, he pointed out that Winter opening hours extended only to 4 O'clock. As the other guests departed, I explained to him that I was a certified Darwinophile, I had come all the way from Melbourne just to look at this sacred site, etc.. I am afraid that I laid it on a bit thick. He responded by saying that my ticket was valid for another visit, but I countered by explaining that I was flying out to Australia the following day. (That bit at least was true) He looked gratifyingly concerned, and once the door closed behind the last of the other visitors, gestured for me to follow him. We walked along the corridor, and then into Darwin's study. There was a rope barrier which allowed only limited access to the room, and this he removed. "Take a seat in that chair" he said, and I did as I was told, and settled into a battered leather chair which had prominent arms. He picked up a broad plank of wood from the floor next to the chair and settled it across the arms, enclosing me, and forming a type of desk. He said quietly, presumably in order not to be overheard by the other employees, "Although he had many tables and desks, Darwin wrote while sitting in that chair using that plank to rest his paper on. He sat where you are, when he wrote the Origin of Species." Has Dawkins bum enjoyed such historical propinquity, I wonder ?

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Age letter

The real climate change debate

Q "Do you think climate change is happening ?"

A "Of course, the science seems undeniable"
Q "Do you think that we are contributing to global warming ?"
A "Certainly, there is unanimity amongst serious researchers, and climate change sceptics have been exposed as either crackpot British Lords, or conscience free employees of the coal industry"
Q "Do you think that as a nation we should act?"
A "I demand that as one of the highest per capita polluters in the world, Australia acts immediately and decisively to reduce carbon emissions"
Q "So you are willing to pay a little more in tax to help the transition to a green economy ?"
A "Get stuffed you socialist-communist bastard, I am off to vote for Tony Abbott"

Courier letters

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent Mr Mangan (Courier 20/1) should be congratulated on his keen knowledge of history. He was right to point out that in Democratic Greece, and Antique Rome, homosexuality was considered an unimportant fact of life, occasioning little comment. Christianity took away the right of people to be gay, while at the same time launching an attack on learning in general and science in particular, that is when they weren't busy burning heretics, and repressing Jews. This period of christian domination was called the dark ages for a good reason. Thank heavens we've all (except perhaps Mr Mangan) come to accept many of the values of that earlier, more enlightened age.



Dear Sir,

Your correspondent George Mangan (Courier 14/1/2012) objects to the word 'gay' being used by the homosexual community worldwide, and to the use of the word 'marriage' to describe same sex couples. Now whilst most people would reasonably dismiss his letter as the rantings of a homophobic bigot, I am pleased to write in his defense. His obvious motivation is not a nasty, uncharitable and ignorant prejudice, but rather a noble concern for linguistic purity. I myself have noticed for example, that the word 'mouse' which is an omnivorous rodent, is being used by some to describe a computer related device. The word 'awful' means not unnaturally full of awe, or inspiring, yet people who should know better often use it to mean 'something bad'. Mr Mangan presumably supports the governments decision to limit by legislation the use of the word marriage to heterosexual unions, so perhaps we should be lobbying the politicians to make it similarly illegal to use word like 'manufacture' (from the Latin 'to produce by hand) to describe the actions of machines. How about substantial fines and possible imprisonment for improper, or definitionally ambiguous use of nouns ? I am sure Mr Mangan would approve. On the subject of definitions however, I have one small quibble with Mr Mangan. After all the definition of 'voter' in this country was clear and precise, 'a male person over the age of twenty-one' Some good people, while acknowledging the accuracy of this definition, held it nonetheless to be immoral, so guess what ? - they changed the definition. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Mangan probably still hasn't reconciled himself to that act of linguistic vandalism.


Dear Sir

For centuries, biblically mandated slavery was the bedrock of society. For centuries, discrimination against women was obligatory. For centuries, clerically approved anti semetism was the norm. Who today would use the past ubiquity of these abhorrent practises to argue for their retention, or re-introduction ?

I personally would be embarrassed to argue, as your correspondent Mr Keogh presumably does, that a Kardashian marriage of a few weeks merits society's approval, whereas a twenty year long same sex relationship somehow does not. Same sex couples do not want special rights, or more rights - they simply want the same rights as everybody else. I don't think that two women getting married in Daylesford will destroy my marriage - but I could be wrong, I'll keep you posted !

Mr Keogh did however get one thing right, legalising same sex marriage would promote the idea that it is a normal and acceptable choice. Good !


Saturday, February 4, 2012

Tony

"The French Enlightenment ended up concluding that all standards and all judgments are essentially arbitrary "
"The values of the New Testament have turned out to be more profound than those of the French Revolution"
"The Enlightenment, with its rejection of tradition and authority, has had more influence on intellectual fashion"
"The legacy of the permissive society – broken families, mental illness and entrenched welfare dependency – suggests that the old social taboos might have had some point"
"In Australia as elsewhere, one of the great totems of liberation from authority has been abortion on demand. Spurred by film of 12 week old unborn babies being dismembered, some women's activists have started to question the abortion culture. Abortion may not be the precise moral equivalent of infanticide..."
"Since 1996, contrary to political correctness, the Australian Parliament has overturned right-to-kill laws and (almost) banned gay marriage".
" Perhaps a political constituency may even be starting to emerge to ban abortions after 20 weeks..."
"An intellectual justification for traditional moral values is easy enough to rediscover. What’s much harder, in the absence of religious faith, is the motivation to adhere to them"
-Tony Abbott

Even the late Kenneth Clarke, in his magisterial defence of the catholic church, which he misleadingly called ‘Civilisation’, admitted that ‘The Enlightenment’ pushed European civilisation some way up the hill. As a consequence of its philosophy, we were no longer supposed to burn witches, or imprison and torture members of minority groups or those with opinions contrary to the establishment.
At a time when Popes and Kings used their direct line to god to justify their perpetration of almost unbelievable atrocities, and their retention of unquestioned political power, the philosophers of the Enlightenment fought for toleration and justice. Lord Clark summed the situation up by saying “When you ask the question does it work?…instead of, is it god’s will ? you get a new set of answers” These philosophers and scientists revealed the christian religion to be the work of a handful of well-meaning Jews, replete with the mistakes and inconsistencies one would expect from an ignorant, pre scientific people. Luther showed that the church interpreted and re-interpreted holy writ for its own convenience and profit. The authority of the church was not stripped by societies reaction to its paedophile heirachy, but by its adherence to an unfeeling and inhumane set of values anchored in patent nonsense. As we witness the squirming, uncomfortable attempts by the religious authorities to reconcile scientific facts with revealed truth it is easy to understand why the link between political power and the church was broken by the Enlightenment. Lord Clark also recognised that practical changes in society, such as those which lead to an increase in material welfare, or efficiency, may come about even under a reprehensible, totalitarian regime. After all, we all know what it takes to make the trains run on time.
Nobody would venture to suggest that the evolved, liberal, democratic society of the West today, is perfect. We may, however, agree with Churchill, that it is the worst system, except for all the others. As a direct consequence of the Enlightenment, we enjoy a freedom which would have been almost unthinkable in any earlier age.
We have been able to combine social cohesiveness with the exercise of individual freedom, and have achieved the ideal sought in the Roman dictum “We submit that we may be free”
If you want to get an idea of what it was like to live in pre-Enlightenment catholic Europe, with a pervasive and cruel religion imposed by a corrupt and venal establishment, you can do no better than to consider the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. A pre-Enlightenment leader observing Afghanis being murdered as a punishment for breaching some arcane religious teaching, would probably conclude that the punishment was necessary and appropriate and a quite reasonable response by the state, as well as being scripturally sound. Some echoes of this view have, of course existed until quite recently, even in the West. Until the time that the Italian state claimed the rump of the papal possessions, the catholic church ran an extremely efficient secret police, and citizens were encouraged to report on any of their neighbours who had failed to attend mass, or who had uttered unpious statements. The union of the Fascists and the catholic church in Spain existed to repudiate the ideals of the Enlightenment.
So if this movement can be counted as one of the shining achievements of humanity, and its values and concerns have been celebrated as the basis of our society, what sort of person would set himself to criticise its ideals ?
The sort of person for whom a deep seated, unquestioning religious commitment is the paramount fact of his existence. The sort of person who thinks that the fact that the Archangel Gabriel smote the Samsonites, or some such thing, gives him the right to impose his personal religious values on other people. The sort of person who lauds a comforting attachment to the familiar, but fails to notice that the familiar has often been sexism, violence, corruption, arbitrary rule and institutionalised racism. The sort of person who decries the number of abortions in Australia, and the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, but who vehemently opposes the United Nations suggestion that all children, regardless of upbringing, are entitled to some form of sex education, and who grows apoplectic at the idea of condom vending machines in high schools. The sort of person who thinks that forcing terminally ill people to suffer appalling and prolonged agonies is good for them . The sort of person who thinks that discriminating against homosexual people is not only necessary and desirable, but is to be celebrated . The sort of person who expresses admiration for an anti women, anti gay, anti freedom pontiff who would not recognise compassion if he tripped over it. I was amused to note by the way, that the present infallible incumbent of the vatican, recently commented that imprisoning Galileo for suggesting that the earth revolved about the sun, and not the other way around, was “rational and just”
The sort of person in short, who would be better off with a career in the church, rather than in politics. Some time ago, Mr Abbott was at pains to draw a distinction between the Enlightenment, as it was practised in Scotland and England, and the Enlightenment as it operated in France. He forgot to mention that Britain was the only major European country not to experience the Inquisition. Perhaps this might have had something to do with the historical reaction to a system which could punish non-attendance at Mass by cutting off your nose and ears ! (Don't get any ideas Tony)
I suppose to be consistent in our admiration for the Enlightenment, we should follow Voltaire’s supposed dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, however another of Voltaire’s sayings seems more appropriate in this case “Ecrasez l’infame ! “

Hairy leg milonga

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Yet more thoughts

Thank God for the clergy
If it hadn't been for an enthusiastic cabal of catholic, muslim and mormon clergymen, I would have remained unaware of the threat posed by same sex marriage to the very fabric of our society. I had naively thought that by allowing same sex marriage, all we were doing was giving to same sex couples the same rights, privileges and recognition which the rest of us have always enjoyed, but apparently this is not the case. Our society is based exclusively upon an indissoluble union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of begetting children in fact. Any other combination would spell disaster for us all. One has to admire the scrupulous honesty of these clergymen, who have time and again confirmed their dedication to fairness, and their determination not to attempt to force their scripturally based values on people who do not share their faith. On the contrary, their scientific and philosophical researches have always been the basis for their recommendations, and the fact that these unbiased studies have accorded in every detail with the teachings of their various cults is merely the most amazing coincidence.
I should pause at this stage to pay tribute to the anglican archbishop of Sydney, for his contribution to this discourse, and whilst I suspect that some purists may struggle a little with the presence of 'anglican' in his title , I should point out that at least he hasn't advocated the adoption of sharia law for Australia. Yet.
A couple of ladies live just down the road from me in Daylesford, and they have been together for eighteen years. I haven't asked them yet, but I am sure that even they would be impressed by the clergymen's assertion that a Kardishan marriage has greater value for society than their relationship.
Now the clergymen have been at pains to point out that marriage is a religious institution, and I am sure that they are right, although I do remember from history books the phrase “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion” which suggests that Caesar himself must have been married. Of course, he died in 44 B.C.E., approximately 77 years before the invention of christianity, 625 years before the invention of islam, and 1875 years before the invention of mormonism, which leads one to wonder what the pagans have to say on the subject.
Now the clergymen have also confirmed that only marriage can secure the future of our society, by being the only institution which can produce children. I better let my brother know, because he and his girlfriend appear to have produced a couple of ankle biters without actually getting married. I think he must represent one of those threats to our country against which we have been so so appositely warned .(Better not mention my divorce)
One of the things which I admire most about the clergymens intervention, is their consistency. I was impressed when they correctly suggested that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1960's would mean ruin for us all, and how they accurately predicted societal collapse in countries like Canada and Spain and the Netherlands who embraced same sex marriage. They are infallible !
I was equally impressed the other day, when one of the clergymen announced on television that he would not like to see a society in which the institution of marriage was degraded by allowing same sex couples to participate in it. Well, inspired by his forthright example, I thought to myself, I wouldn't like to see a society in which it was possible to flagrantly and lawfully discriminate against women. After all, we have laws to prevent that sort of thing don't we ? Well it turns out that we do, but surprisingly, one group is exempt from these laws, and I bet you can't guess who it is - the clergymen of course !
Surely, it can't be evil, immoral and wrong to discriminate against women, unless you are a catholic, in which case it is AOK. If you want to offer somebody a job in Australia , the position must be open to all people, unless you are a muslim or a mormon, in which case 'penis equipped only' is perfectly legal.
The most exciting thing about the same sex marriage debate, is the fact that we must all be grateful to the clergymen for having so rigorously established the precedent that religious groups have the right to influence society, even those parts of society who do not share their superstitions. Without the decisive contribution of these men of faith, I might still have been labouring under the misapprehension that in a secular society, religions' freedoms were guaranteed by their independence from the state, and that the states impartiality was guaranteed by its independence from religion, and in turn, freedom of religion implied freedom from religion. But apparently I am mistaken.
So, I would like to make a couple of humble contributions to the same sex marriage debate.
Firstly, following up the clergymen's philosophical insight, I think that anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech laws must now be uniformly applied, without regard to the race, or sex or religion of those involved. This would simply mean that religions could have all the priests, rabbis, imams, preachers and popes that they want, but only on the condition that those positions are made available to women, as are all other positions of employment under Australian law. Likewise the bible and koran would have to be drastically censored to remove hate speech elements, and exhortations to murder and violence. The book of mormon would also have to be censored, of course, but in this case with the added motivation of establishing some heretofore absent literary merit.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Trade Practises Act must be also be fully and fairly applied. If I manufactured a dish washing liquid, and claimed on the packet that it was biodegradable, then it had better be biodegradable, or I would leave myself open to prosecution. Similarly, if you claim that something that looks like a biscuit, and smells like a biscuit, and tastes like a biscuit, is actually part of somebody's leg, then you had better be able to prove it. I am sure that no self respecting clergyman would suggest that their deity is incapable of satisfying the same standards of proof one would apply to a dish washing liquid.
Is'nt it wonderful to think that these long overdue reforms could be applied as a consequence of a group of clergymen coming together to teach us that there is no practical difference between society and religion, and that each has the right to impose its wishes on the other.

Further thoughts

No need to Frac off.
Have you ever seen the hills around Queenstown in Tasmania ? They are bare, blasted, sterile walls of rock, devoid of topsoil and inhospitable to all vegetation. The hills and valleys of the region were once thickly forested, and home to an enormous variety of flora and fauna. The present condition of the area is a legacy of the mining industry. A lethal cloud of poisonous gases was created as a by- product of ore processing, which, when released in to the atmosphere , descended on to the surrounding hills and killed everything it enveloped. The Mount Lyell Mining Company, amongst others is responsible for this environmental catastrophe, but who do you think will ultimately be responsible for cleaning up the mess ? You and me in fact, not the shareholders or employees of the mining companies, who, for the best part of a century, took their profits and wages home, with little regard for the environmental consequences of their actions.
How is this relevant to the current debate about the coal seam gas industry ? Well, I think that it highlights the fact that private industry can be supremely good at generating profits, but can also be supremely good at avoiding responsibility for the non financial, non quantifiable effects of their activities (the carbon tax argument)
Opponents of the coal seam gas industry point out that the worst case scenarios of massive water table pollution, caused by fraccing could destroy farming, endanger communities, and potentially cost billions of dollars to rectify. The amounts of money in question may in fact exceed the capitalisation of miners and insurance companies alike. Who then would repair the damage? You already know the answer – the taxpayer!
Perhaps the question is an academic one, after all the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association tells us that fraccing is perfectly safe – check out their website, We want CSG, yay !
But what if it isn't safe ? What if our worst fears are realised ? I suppose that the companies involved could fail, the shareholders could lose their investment, and the employees could lose their jobs, but all of this would be of cold comfort if we taxpayers ended up paying for the clean up. Modern approval processes implicate us in a companies decision making “ Yes its all gone pear shaped, but the government gave us permission, so its really their fault !” And don't forget that we have a queue forming of conservatives like O'Farrell, Bligh and Bailieu desperate to grant that permission for anybody to mine anything, anywhere, anyhow.
There is perhaps a way forward, however, which could be the key to rational development in this area. Don't forget by the way that fraccing is perfectly safe. Companies in Australia are generally formed under rules which limit the liability of the shareholders of that company. If you invest a few dollars in a company which makes some mistakes and goes belly up, the most you could lose would be your investment. Your liability for any losses incurred by the company is limited to your stake in it. But what if in this specific case they were not ? What if the CSG Industry were required to operate in conditions of unlimited liability ? How about we say that the shareholders and employees will be held financially responsible for any and all costs associated with negative environmental impacts. Don't forget as you consider this idea, that fraccing is perfectly safe !
As a shareholder, what could be the worse thing that would happen ? Well if the clean up costs exceeded the value of the company, the government would be entitled to seize your other assets, your cash, your super, your house – but don't forget fraccing is perfectly safe. I suppose that if the clean up costs exceeded the cost of the total shareholder and employees assets, which they well might, then shareholders and employees would be reduced to a near slave like future existence, unprotected by any bankruptcy laws, and with their income garnisheed in perpetuity. Of course I am certain that this would have no impact on investment decisions, after all fraccing is perfectly safe.
One of the exciting effects of this policy would be to limit taxpayers exposure to potentially enormous costs, and since at least one Australian political party has as its raison d'etre the minimisation of personal taxation, particularly for millionaires, I am sure this proposal will meet with their ardent approval. There is another thing I am certain of, and that is that mining companies will be falling over one another to sign up for an unlimited liability opportunity to indulge in fraccing, which as we know, is perfectly safe. The true integrity of these operators will be demonstrated when they they enthusiastically, embrace on a personal basis, the risks to which they are currently exposing farmers, landholders and the community.
One coincidental side effect of my researches into CSG is the amazing revelation that a rich, exploitable reserve of CSG may in fact exist under Mr Baillieu's Brighton home. Luckily, in this enlightened State I don't need his permission to enter his property, and start digging up his garden, in fact, I don't even have to tell him I'm coming, so I'll be there tomorrow with my drill rig, and lets get fraccing (which is perfectly safe)

The thoughts of Chairman Dave



Blogging is contagious. Or addictive. Or something.

Qantas !
Yes, I admit it, I am a Dinosaur. For some people, the word denotes failure, after all the Dinosaurs are extinct, and we are not. I feel it necessary however, to point out that whereas Homo Sapiens might be regarded as a dominant world species for between one hundred thousand and two hundred thousand years, Dinosaurs were the dominant world species for approximately one hundred and thirty million years ! We could do with that sort of failure ourselves.
In fact I am so antediluvian, that I actually think we would be better off as a nation if Qantas didn't call Kuala Lumpur home, and flew occasionally with Australian pilots in machines maintained by Australian engineers. Now I appreciate that the argument that the present Qantas board is an unusually egregious example of incompetence, dishonesty and untrammelled self interest, would be difficult for anybody to refute, and that the Qantas unions are more short-sighted than Mr Magoo is clear to everybody, but surely it is obvious that the real blame for the current debacle lies elsewhere. Imagine privatising an industry which had for years grown up behind a network of regulation and protection. Imagine further saying to this newly 'liberated' identity, go out and compete with people who do not have your pay scales, or safety standards, or maintenance culture, and who are often protected by their own governments as you used to be, Oh and by the way if you sink, it will be your fault ! The guilty men are not called Seamus or Shaun or Dermot or whatever (I can't actually remember the name, but I can't get the accent out of my mind) , they are called Bob, Paul and John. If I was given the option of on the one hand having an Australian Qantas while paying a few extra dollars for my airfares, or on the other hand enjoying supercheap tickets from the various Kamikaze-Air rustbuckets on offer, I would choose Qantas every time.
See what I mean about being a Dinosaur? My contrariness extends to wondering (in private of course) whether Steve Jobs is quite the irreproachable candidate for sainthood that is plastered over the world's media. Here is a man who cleverly marketed the iPlonk, which we could all live without, while at the same time making himself immensely wealthy by effectively moving tens of thousands of American jobs into cheap labour, and for the most part, undemocratic Asian nations. But perhaps the hype emanates from the Apple marketing department, and is motivated by the imminent release of the iPlonk2, who knows?
Of course, looking at the specifics of a company like Qantas, or the failures of One Steel, or Telstra, or Ford, shouldn't blind us to the big picture. Keynes was fond of pointing out that the passionate rants and posturings of politicians, could often be traced back to the once fashionable theories of some now defunct economist. The present paradigm, embraced with embarrassing fervour by both of our major political parties, is that reform is good. A combination of free trade, privatisation and deregulation is good for us all, particularly if the dish can be served up, seasoned with a dash of social conservatism. The real argument at a federal level is about who can be trusted to most efficiently apply the policies of Margaret Thatcher to the Australian economy.
Am I alone in not liking this trend ?. Deregulation is like beer, a little is socially lubricating, and releases one from sometimes unworthy inhibitions, but too much makes you vomit, and leaves you with a headache the next day. Any economist will tell you that in a free trade relationship, wages in trading countries will equilibrate over time. Well, there are one thousand million Chinese, and twenty million of us – hands up anybody who things that their wages will tend towards ours, rather than the other way round. But, an economist will remonstrate, the doctrine of comparative advantage means that we will be able to take advantage of our respective skills and abilities , and by specialising, we will jointly maximise our benefits. It is a pity to see such an attractive theory aground on the rocks of reality. Ok, our manufacturing industry is in the throes of collapse, but thats no bad thing, after all it will free up resources which can be deployed in other sectors. Like farming for example, although the carrots I just bought from our local megamart were grown in China, and the only orange juice available was reconstituted from prime Chilean oranges, while the plantations of the Riverina are knee deep in rotting fruit. Well perhaps farming was a bad example, but what about insurance ? Thats a growth area after all, but it turns out that the European companies who own our insurance sector are, rather unsportingly keeping the profits they make out of us while scrambling to outsource as much of their Australian businesses as possible. Maybe financial services would be a better sector in which to invest all that liberated capital, but it turns out that banks make insurance companies look like amateurs when it comes to minimising Australian employment. How about telecommunications ? Has anybody tried ringing Telstra recently ? I've got a great idea, why don't we fall back on the mining sector ! Alas it turns out that this capital intensive, non- renewable industry is mainly owned by the foreigners to whom we flogged the mineral rights, and it uses its overseas made machinery, to dig up our dirt, and transport it offshore for processing on foreign flagged ships, while at the same time so distorting our balance of payments, that for every job it creates in mining it destroys two in tourism.
How on earth did this happen to us ? Like everybody else, I am never reluctant to blame our politicians, and looking at the present squabbling bunch, holding them criminally responsible seems both beyond criticism and fun at the same time. However, even I have to admit that it must be something more than the toxic atmosphere of the Parliament which seems to turn seemingly sensible people in to raving right wing wierdos the minute they enter its doors.
Unfortunately, the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. I feel a little guilty, juxtaposing the following anecdotes, but they do seem to me to strike at the heart of our problem.
I was working in a caravan park in Tasmania, when the Gillard government made the decision to supplement income tax contributions to help pay for the Queensland flood disaster. At morning tea, one of my fellow workers was apoplectic with rage at this modest impost. “It is a disgrace, it is socialism (Julia Gillard=socialist is she kidding ?) it is threatening our whole way of life” “Hang on” I said “ The extra money wouldn't buy us two cappuccinos a week. After the nations most expensive natural catastrophe, this seems quite modest to me” “Don't be ridiculous” she replied, “This is all part of a plot to rob us of our freedom” Now my interlocutor was not some American inspired Katter-clone wacko, but a sensible, down to earth, hard working Taswegian. I suggested that if Tasmania had suffered to the extent that Queensland had, she would be pleased to have their assistance. She looked at me and said “If that happened here we would look after ourselves”
In the wake of the financial meltdown and debt crisis in Europe, the right wing French government recently announced a small increase in income tax, to be borne by the richest French taxpayers. A French TV channel did a vox pop exercise in Paris asking passers by for their reaction to the tax increase. A lady who admitted to being amongst those slugged said “France is in trouble, and we must help her. Nobody likes paying extra tax, and I hope that the increase will be removed as soon as possible, but in the meantime, we must all make a contribution”
Is it facile to draw conclusions from these disparate reactions ? I don't think so, because although capitalism has been defined as 'An organised selfishness' it seems to me that in this country we are setting new records for self interest, and our unprincipled politicians are merely falling over one another to cater to our insatiable national greed.
Winston Churchill once observed of neutral countries who made concessions to the fascists, that each hopes that if they feed the crocodile, it will eat them last. We are like that. We don't care if the farmer down the road goes bust, think of the cheap mangoes ! If our neighbour loses his job in the clothing factory, we console ourselves by buying only the cheapest shirts from China. If the manufacturing sector disappears, and my job doesn't, then I can afford not one, but two iPlonks. Wonderful !
I don't really have to look back to dinosaurian antiquity for a model which I feel might be more appropriate for Australia today, the policies of the last Menzies Government would do me, but alas they would be far too left wing for todays Labour Party to stomach.



The whole trip