Australia/NZ/Pacific - Australia - Leadership - Politics

Vyoos

follow this blog

32 followers

276 daily readers

rank of 24

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Australia/NZ/Pacific Australia Leadership Politics - Vyoos

A planet of barbarians

September 18th 2010 08:46

During a recent conversation, a friend argued that if there were lots of other sentient beings in the universe, as is commonly supposed, surely they would have visited us. We can dismiss UFO sightings, which are common but useless in that they all stop short of being verifiable. So where are they? Why haven't all these supposedly advanced civilisations answered the radio signals we have been sending into space for years?

It's a fair question. The human mind has a bit of trouble grasping the concept of infinity, but the universe is supposed to be infinite, giving rise to the argument that, with all the possible combinations of environmental factors and all the planets zipping around all the suns out there, there is an infinite number of life forms.

Oh yeah? So why haven't the more developed ones dropped by for a cup of tea and a bit of intergalactic gossip?

The answer, another friend suggested, is that we aren't developed enough. Some of us like to see ourselves as a civilised, sophisticated and technologically advanced race, but in the eyes of a truly advanced and civilised species, we are primitives. Little better than apes, and that might be optimistic. Intergalactic insect status, probably.

Hell, we still fight wars!

Say no more. Passing space ships would take a quick look at Afghanistan and some of the seedier thought waves coming out of our houses of parliament, and make a mental note to come back in 10,000 years.

If you're still not convinced, here's some recent news items from Australia which would reinforce Earth folks' ranking as slightly evolved cockroaches.

Three students on a school camp took an iron bar and used it to beat a kangaroo to death.

A group of university students established a Facebook page to promote their beliefs, which they described as "pro-rape, anti-consent''.

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said, "What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing ... ''.

Who cares what Abbott thinks the housewives of Australia need to understand? I'll tell you who doesn't care: intelligent beings from elsewhere. They've sent home a starwarp-memo:

Re Planet Earth, Spiral 7, Milky Way: Barbarians. Don't come back while A. Abbott is still around.

107

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: Australia, Human nature, Leadership, Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

No gay marriage. Forget the honeymoon

June 30th 2010 04:46

VYOOS EDITORIAL
Julia Gillard’s honeymoon period is over. For me at least.

Australia’s first female-atheist-single-redhead Prime Minister was asked during a radio talkback session this morning whether she would move to legalise same-sex marriage.

If she had answered, “No, not right now, because I have promised a federal election within a few months and I want to be allowed to focus on big-ticket issues such as health and education,” she would have had a point. Opposition leader Mad Monk Abbott, a former Catholic seminarian who has warned of the moral perils of sex before marriage, would love that issue to help him grab attention and headlines in the run-up to the election.

It would also have been an honest answer, and another first for Australian politics.

Unfortunately, honest responses have a habit of waking the masses dulled by ponderous proclamations, and Gillard, instead of treating the electorate as adults, offered just another dump-truckload of turgid political spin for the public to gag on.

“We've got very clear Labor Party policy on this and it won't be changing,'' Gillard said. “We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that it is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.'' Gillard said the Government had taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples. The stance also reflected her personal view, she said.

Spin it as you like, Prime Minister, this is not equality. You either believe gays should be treated equally, or you do not. Make up your mind. Make up your party policy’s mind.

To help you do so, please consider that a policy based on the precept that “marriage is for a man and a woman” is outdated.

It suggests a moral obligation for anyone getting married to have children. There is no such moral obligation.

It suggests a social obligation to have children. There is no such social obligation, as you would know, Prime Minister.

Probably much to Mother Nature’s sadness, there is no longer even a natural imperative to have children. The world is overcrowded as it is, full of poverty and misery in slums created by the rapacity and corruption of politicians.

Marriage is for many things. Procreation, at the heart of the “man and a woman” school of thought, is just one of them.

Most of all, however, marriage is about a statement of commitment.

Does all this reflect majority community thinking? In terms of pure numbers – something which a politician understands – probably not. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

As long as the government of the day continues to carry a policy which preaches that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, they will continue to foster community acceptance of inequality, and intolerance towards committed, loving gay couples.

Today the Prime Minister had the biggest chance yet to move towards the equality she spins, and she decided it would be politically inconvenient to take it.

This is “where we are at as a community now and I think that it is appropriate for these very sensitive issues that we are reflecting community views,'' she spun.

On that basis, that radical Abe Lincoln should have left the very sensitive issue of slavery well alone.

245

Vote