Millions and millions

Millions and millions of species.
And the Christian god favours the one
whose eyesight is surpassed by the eagle
whose speed is bettered by the cheetah
and whose nose cannot compare with his dog's.

And those new viruses
evolving to survive our antibiotics?
Why does this god not love and favour
his latest creations?


It seems to me that it is time for atheists to get political. Clearly, the Tony Abbotts of this world find it impossible to believe that their god could render his favoured species, the only species with a soul, extinct. For them, the thesis of man-made climate change is not believable. Yet all these characters who refuse to accept the science of climate change are happy to accept the science which makes medical breakthroughs possible or allows them to turn on a light.


Angophora costata, Palm Beach, Sydney.

And what of trees? Why animals rather than plants? Surely 400 year-old living organisms are worth a thought.

Trevelyan: Whigs & Tories

Casuarinas on Patonga Creek

I've been reading 'The Stuarts' by Trevelyan. It has the usual hagiography of Charles I, which I am not prepared to buy. But for the first time, I feel that the Tory/Whig difference started to make sense.

Churchill tries to tell the history of the English 'constitution' and political arrangements in his "History of the English Speaking Peoples", but despite his overriding interest in political arrangements and in his family, he makes fails to explain these or why the English made the peace they made after Marlborough's resounding victories, whereas, it all seems to make sense in Trevelyan.

And as for Charles I, I'll take Geoffrey Robertson (The Tyrannicide Brief) over the two authors above. (But given the English ended up with the Stuart monarchs, Charles I as a saint was bound to prevail as the official viewpoint.)