Saturday, December 28, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
On the fundamental ludicrousness of belief in the Judeo-Christian god
Friday, March 8, 2013
International Women's Day, March 8
Nicole's contribution to International Women's Day, March 8. And note that the women of Australia won the right to vote and to stand for Federal Parliament in 1902.. NZ might have been ahead of us with the vote, but not with the right to stand (which followed on the women of South Australia getting both the vote and the right to stand in 1894 - by virtue of a bloody minded amendment in the upper house by which the proposers hoped to sink both possibilities....)
However, the women of WA and of SA had the right to vote for federal parliaments from day one (January 1, 1901) of the Commonwealth of Australia, since they already had the vote in WA & SA. http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/women_and_politics/suffr4.htm
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
ARKive
I was also curious about all their links and sharing options, so I posted it to Facebook and Twitter. Though for the life of me, I cannot see the pleasure or the point of Twitter.
Grevillea subtiliflora
(A WA species, photographed at Mt Coot-tha Botanical Gardens, Brisbane, QLD)
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Male or Female?
"Do you identify as male or female?" ran the text of a survey I was asked to complete recently.
This is political correctness gone mad. I do not understand why it is, that men with artificial vaginas whose femaleness can only be maintained by swallowing handfuls of hormones, have managed to impose on society to the point where such surgically created beings are given the courtesy of being called women. When it is the case that they menstruate for thirty years, and occasionally find themselves unwittingly pregnant, I might begin to believe that being a male or a female is a matter of personal choice.
But like Germaine Greer, I see it as an instance of extraordinary male arrogance to impose the belief that such a change is sufficient to make a person female.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Duel
Yesterday, I saw "the Duel", based on a Checkhov novella. I continue to be amazed that such physically unprepossessing actors, (Andrew Scott - hunch-backed, small) are chosen to play characters who could only get by on physical beauty. As played by Scott, Laevsky is a snivelling, whinging, morally & sexually unappealing character who can only have taken in people by beauty and his sense of his own superiority to all others. So why in hell didn't they choose a physically attractive actor? A sense of superiority coupled with ugliness (of soul & body) does not take people far unless there is a real intellectual superiority, which is a proposition which was exceedingly difficult to believe here.
In the duel itself, Laevsky shoots wide and throws away the pistol, challenging Von Koren to murder him in cold blood and in full public view - a reasonably cowardly response in itself. Despite this, Von Koren tries to shoot him, but fails. In my view a great pity. We are supposed to believe in a final Laevsky, redeemed and sympathetic. Fat chance. As Scott plays him, he is thoroughly unattractive, ugly, cruel, careless, nasty piece of humanity.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Atheists convention in Melbourne
Benches & bike racks, Southbank, Melbourne
Pedestrian bridge across the Yarra, Melbourne
Walking to the convention along the Yarra
Reflections of the Polly Woodside. (Just in front of the convention centre)
I went this last weekend to the Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne. I had thought it would be a case of preaching to the converted and that it would be boring, but it seemed a good excuse to see Melbourne again and to see my friend, Eve.
In the event, we found ourselves attending the entire shebang, and while much of the argument reiterated stuff I knew, much didn't, or it elaborated on themes in less well known (to me) areas. In any case, it was liberating to hear others say what I have now for a long time believed, that the Christian (Judaic/Muslim) God and the various attendant beliefs are incompatible with science....
The standout speaker for me was Dan Dennett (philosophy, Tufts University), but others were not far behind (Sam Harries, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott,Dan Barker, A.C.Grayling... and the list is invidious).
It was an amazingly good venue, with morning/afternoon teas and lunches provided easily for 4000 people in the short time allowed for these things, and the degree of mingling forced by the numbers of people doing to these things was most enjoyable.
Us
If you have read this far, please check out this haiku,
hexapod haiku (winner under 13)
