My choice for PM

Poll

Straw poll of todays customers, currently running at 90% "Labour deserves to lose" vs 10% " Kevin Rudd makes me sick" will keep you updated

Ruddy gillard

To turn to an arrogant foul mouthed prima donna who had conspired enthusiastically with the Murdoch press for 3 years to destabilise the government is an act of criminal stupidity. Labour  deserves to lose, unfortunately, the Liberals don't deserve to win.

Fifteenth wedding anniversary selfie

And baby Charlotte

Dear Sir, (Letter to The Age)

When the American freethinker Robert Ingersoll was abused yet again by a group of bigoted christians, angry at his criticism of the bible, he responded by saying that arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse, that there is no logic in slander…should it turn out that I am the worst man in the world, he said, the story of the flood will remain just as improbable as before…So when your writer Barney Zwartz begins his review of Richard Dawkins latest book by characterising Dawkins as loud, opinionated, supercilious, and someone who shouts down other views, we can see precisely where Mr Zwartz is coming from. I wonder if Mr Zwartz has even met Mr Dawkins.

Mr Dawkins problem is that you cannot reason someone out of a position that he did not reason himself into. The God Delusion, Mr Dawkins latest book, is a tightly argued case for the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that god exists, that the scientific proofs quoted in holy books are nonsense, that the moral lessons of religion are often, but not exclusively evil, and that the history of religious practise is littered with acts of almost unimaginable savagery. Mr Zwartz counters these arguments by suggesting that Mr Dawkins is supercilious. Enough said. Or is it ? Surely we should expect better from someone who is a religious affairs editor ? If Dawkins puts forward page after page of facts to disprove the supposed existence of god, surely a religious affairs editor would respond with just one scientific fact proving gods existence – but I forgot, Dawkins is opinionated. When Dawkins describes the catalogue of atrocities committed by god in the bible, surely a religious affairs editor worth his salt would refute these calumnies, but dear me , Dawkins is loud. Religious practises today come in for whole chapters of criticism in Dawkins book, and one can imagine religious affairs editors all over the world leaping to a spirited defence of catholic condom policies in AIDS ravaged Africa, but no, Mr Zwartz points out that Dawkins is too clever.

Ian Plimer wrote an excellent book “Telling lies for god” and it does seem that Mr Zwartz has adopted this slogan as his personal credo. Mr Dawkins does not say that prejudice, violence, hypocrisy and exploitation would be eliminated if we eliminated religion. He does say that religious prejudice, religious hypocrisy, religious violence and religious exploitation would be eliminated if we eliminated religion, and this is obviously true. Mr Zwartz’s approach is not new by the way, Martin Luther said “What harm would it do if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and the christian church”. When Mr Dawkins discounts the philosophical arguments for the existence of god as vacuous, I would be pleased to be given a counter argument, not an assertion that Mr Dawkins is wrong, without furnishing any evidence. But then I suppose if you are a religious affairs editor, you can get away with just calling the critic inept, it saves so much time.

Unfortunately, instead of ‘sticking to the knitting’ and relying on bigotry and character assassination, Mr Zwartz embarrasses both himself and the reader by suggesting that Dawkin’s criticism of cultism would be akin to a non scientist like Mr Zwartz dismissing Newtonian physics. I presume that Mr Dawkins would point out that Newtonian physics has not been disproved, but rendered a special, but valid case, by other subsequent thoeries. He would also no doubt welcome Mr Zwartz’s contribution, providing that any refutation was based on fact. We can imagine that he would be less enthusiastic if Mr Zwartz dismissed Newtonian physics on the grounds that Sir Isaac was loud, opinionated and supercilious.

Temora

Went to Temora as usual for the RAA easter show. Aren't ultralights getting sophisticated ?

Fairy tales

I used to be an atheist, for no better reason than the fact that stories of talking snakes, or men flying through the air on horses with wings always struck me as rather silly. These ideas seemed silly to me when I was 6 years old, and they still seem silly now. So what ? Many people have silly ideas. My next door neighbour thinks his dog is well behaved. The fellow across the road thinks that Collingwood is a great football team. Tony Abbott thinks the pope is infallible. So long as these sad individuals keep their obviously ludicrous ideas to themselves, who could possibly object ? The problem occurs when somebody who is suffering from a delusion not only rejoices in it, but insists that you share that delusion, whether you like it or not.

In the middle ages the catholic church was pretty keen on catholicism. So keen in fact, that when anyone make the mistake of not being catholic, the church felt that its interpretation of a 1500 year old silly idea, entitled it to murder them. That is not to say that the catholics weren't just regular fellows who enjoyed a bit of fun like the rest of us, so sometimes they indulged in a bit of playful racking , or recreational thumb screwing before the burning. Unfortunately, some enlightened spoil sports wrecked the party. They suggested that perhaps it was a bad idea for the church to force its religious views on to those who did not share its faith. The church took issue with this ridiculous suggestion, and launched a series of religious wars on the world, which killed millions.

A good deal later, some of the participants tired of this particular game, especially when it appeared that clerical superannuation strategies might be compromised, so an uneasy compromise was adopted. It remained fair game to hurl vatican sponsored anathemas at offending heretics, but it was reluctantly agreed not to garotte them any more. In return catholics were free to apply their own ideas to themselves, for example, not to eat meat on Thursdays, to say sorry in a confessional for things they did yesterday and intended to do again tomorrow, and to plan their family by sitting with their legs crossed, and refraining from sex for 70% of each month (Unless they found themselves seduced by one of those shamelessly provocative 7 year old choirboys)

So far so good. The problem is that the religious in general, and the islamocatholics in particular were never all that enthusiastic about  aspects of the compromise which formed the foundation of our western, liberal , secular society in the first place. They certainly agreed whole heartedly with the clauses which guaranteed themselves religious freedom, but they were never really happy about the idea of your religious freedom.

Put yourself in their place. A magic talking snake specifically forbids them to masturbate, yet on a daily basis they are confronted with doctors who stand up in public and describe the practise as normal and healthy. A 2000 year old jewish zombie instructs them to nibble on his leg, and amoral scientists suggest that things which look like biscuits, and smell like biscuits, and taste like biscuits usually turn out to be biscuits. Even the fashionably embroidered dresses which their ex-fuhrer wears have attracted ridicule (Not to mention his fab little red shoes), and to date not a single one of these critics have been executed. Not one.

So it is hardly surprising to learn that religious extremists have decided to resort to that most foul and degraded of stratagems – politics, to impose their cultist imperatives on people who do not share their regard for magic wine and flying carpets, or who have not even taken the trouble to learn that seraphim outrank ophanim.

I heard a newly elected member of the Tasmanian government comment that his conscience as a christian would not allow him to vote in favour of euthanasia. So an elderly person wracked with pain and facing an imminent and painful death has to have his suffering prolonged because a member of an Australian state parliament feels comfortable about imposing his religious values on somebody who may not share his faith.

When was the last time you heard a pope say “My religion forbids divorce, but I would not dream of imposing my views on non catholics” ? Public support for gay marriage in Australia currently runs at about 65% in favour according to some public opinion polls. Parliaments around Australia have defeated legalisation designed to establish marriage equality as a consequence of an hysterical campaign launched by religious groups. It will harm society they allege. Well, if society is going to be harmed, surely that fact would be pointed out by sociologists, or welfare workers or doctors. Not by a coalition of catholics, muslims and mormons.

This is why I am no longer an atheist. I am now an anti-theist.

If it acceptable for a group of supernaturalists to use our political system to impose their magically inspired encyclicals and fatwas, on individuals who consider their underlying values laughable, why shouldn't normal people in turn, impose their views on religions ? Ban the bible and koran as examples of hate speech. Stop job advertisements for the next pope containing the words 'men only'. Encourage sermons on history and science, but only if they contain reference to evidence. Give equal time in the pulpit to the theory of evolution. Lock up genital mutilators. Apply the same taxation laws to cults that apply to every other single person in Australia. Have a proper enquiry in to paedophiles, not a politically motivated attempt to appeal to a cultist constuency by being seen to try and spread the blame. If somebody suggests that a recently fertilised human egg contains a soul, hand them  a microscope and ask them to point it out.  As Delos Mckown said “The invisible and the non existent look very much alike”

Not fair ? Well, when Mother Theresa called for contraception to be banned in Ireland, were you one of those people bowled over by the rush of catholics demanding freedom of conscience for non catholics ? I bet you had only just picked yourself up off the ground and dusted yourself off, when a horde of muslims calling for freedom of speech for Salman Rushdie sat you back on your bum again.

When an American legislator recently said that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, I think he let the cat out of the bag.

Of course , I don't really want to ban anything, I just want to enjoy the same freedoms which religions claim for themselves. Perhaps we could appeal to religions sense of fairness. Unfortunately asking paedophiles and suicide bombers to behave fairly is like sending the Belgrave under 12's out to face Lillee and Thomson. It will always end in tears.  

Soon to commit aviation

Chrissie

Cecile's christmas present to me.

My christmas present to Cecile

Charlotte Rose Marshall

Usual

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'

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. 

More Thruster pics !

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.  

Abbott History

More 'plane porn

A 'plane is born

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

Those were the days !