Allan Takes Aim Blog

Archive for June 2013

My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:

Marriage is a universal culture. Same sex marriage is not

With the word gay having been hijacked by the LGBT community, the phrase ‘I’m having a gay old time,’ is forcing heterosexuals to defend their sexuality. Indeed the time seems to be coming when it will be politically incorrect for people to claim they are heterosexual.

Frankly, I don’t care what someone’s sexuality is but as a lover of words, I object to gay, a perfectly good word, being dumped from the dictionary to meet the demands of the LGBT community. From this I can only deduce that no longer can heterosexuals claim to be gay a situation that to me suggests discrimination.  And isn’t that what started the argument?

That said and much as I think the LGBT community should have the same rights as everyone else, I admit to being totally confused as to why they should invoke marriage as a right. Marriage is a rite but not a right. Marriage is merely the title of a legal contract that has been used for eons to describe the relationship between a man and a woman that may, or may not, have the capacity to produce children. At the same time the contract also makes them responsible for such children and the protection of their legal rights.

Speaking as one half of a marriage of over fifty years with one surviving married child, it seems to me that giving members of the LGBT community the ‘right’ to use marriage as the title of their contractual relationship shows a lack of common sense.

A signed legal contract that binds two men or two women in a relationship should entitle them to the same social benefits, including the possibility of adopting children. As for the LGBT community, it does them no credit to wail continually in the media, like people crying wolf, about the unjustness of not being able to marry.

Let me add that I have good friends, not wolf criers, in the LCBT community whom I wish could marry and have children. Unfortunately for the packs of wolf criers, they do not want to marry but would be happy to have a contract with a different title.

And spare me those people, high level politicians in particular, such as British PM David Cameron, Australian PM Kevin Rudd and U.S President Barack Obama, all of whom recently saw the light about gay marriage equality after a lifetime opposing it. Not that I think such conversions aren’t genuine but in some cases I think the conversion owes more to political expediency than truth.

The same thing also happens in some cases when parents, suddenly confronted by a son or daughter preparing to take up a permanent relationship with a same sex partner, show how much they love them by publicly becoming converted to the idea.

While I respect their conversion and the opinion of many highly intelligent supporters of gay marriage, I have yet to read an opinion from any of them that would lead me to support the idea. That apart only fourteen countries in the world have adopted the proposition of same sex marriage which still leaves more than 200 countries that don’t. Even in the millenniums to come I doubt universal agreement on this issue will ever be achieved.

But let me disabuse you also of any idea that my opposition to marriage has a religious basis. It doesn’t. My opposition comes from comparing same sex marriage with my own. In the months before my wife gave birth, I experienced emotions and thoughts that can never be experienced by same sex couples.

Such thoughts and emotions apply particularly when danger occurs to mother or baby as it frequently does, during pregnancy. At such times, the non-sexual intimacy between the potential mother and father that provides support for the mother, is often necessary? Clearly in same sex unions that cannot happen.

Finally, same sex couples who say they want to get married because of love have no idea of what marriage is only because marriage takes more than love to make it work

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the published page.


Posted on: 28 June 2013

My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:

Fusion energy is the real climate changer

The following article is addressed to young people who, claim climate change alarmists, are very worried about the future of the planet.  The only reply I can give to that is: when I was a young man one of my main worries was the disappearance of young women from my usual haunts. So if the young today are worried about the planet’s future I’d like to know from them where they get the information that worries them, from other than that put out by alarmists.

Another question: when the alarmists talk about the young what do they mean by young? Do they mean 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 0r 26 or is young only in comparison to themselves? That apart, what do the alarmists mean when they say the science of climate change is settled? Does it mean that no further examination of their proposition is needed?

I can only say that these people are strange scientists; science is never settled. Indeed, if over the ages people had taken the view that science could be settled, some of the greatest innovations in the world today would have some of the world’s greatest legendary engineering, medical, astronomical and myriad other scientists – think Copernicus, Galileo, Newton – gasping in amazement.

That these scientists became legends is due to the fact that like all great scientists, they were always sceptical about claims from alchemists and other so called scientists that they had discovered the elixir of life or how to transmute base metals into gold.

Not a physicist, or engineer or scientist but just an ‘ordinary (whatever that means) member of the community it is unlikely that at my late stage in life, and much as I am a sceptic it is unlikely that I will invent or discover something that will put me into the legendary category.

But I have made it my business to read as much history as I can about how the weather has changed over millenniums – apart from personal experience of variable weather over my lifetime. From my reading I have come to the conclusion that mother-nature has always determined, and still does, without recourse to advice from the IPCC or the Australian Climate Commission, when and climate change will occur.

I have concluded also that climate change has been a constant in the life of planet earth, and that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has had little to do with it.

But the strangest thing of all is that the very people who see themselves as being the ‘experts’ at the summit of climate change science have done little else except promote the cure of AGW as a range of equipment that will produce the very thing they say they want to cure. If they wanted to walk in the footsteps of the legendary scientists, they would be spending their efforts bringing to fruition as soon as possible, commercial nuclear fusion plants that will generate clean and limitless power not only in Australia but across the world.

Like many others, however, I suspect many of them are so ambitious to be seen as saviours of the planet that they put their own overweening ambitions before the saving of the planet and its various communities.

The problem of course is as usual, that some of the IPCC scientists and Climate Change Commission suckle on the money teats of various Government funding bodies because their vanity will not allow them to be seen as less than best.

But the strangest thing to me is the absence of any mainstream media reports about how the Particle Physicists at the ANU are helping fusion stride towards being one of the main cures for global warming. Rarely, indeed, are they ever interviewed.

On the other hand economists and non-scientists members of green and environmental groups are often interviewed with the latter talking about the danger of nuclear energy. They are perpetrating a fraud, because the dangerous nuclear energy is fission not fusion- let me say it again: FUSION!

Their alternative argument is that fusion will not be available until the year 2100 – if ever. I shall be polite and say Balderdash. Clearly they do not keep up with fusion development or they would never say fusion energy is nothing but a dream.

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at the bottom right of the published page.



My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:


An (Un)believable prime minister

You’ll note I’ve used lower case letters in the words prime minister. I have done that to show I no longer believe that, because of their previous actions in government, either of the candidates for the position deserve to hold the position of Australia’s most senior politician.

Some people may disagree with me but it is my belief, that not only have both of them brought the position of Prime Minister into disrepute but that they also have done the same to  federal government MPs and federal parliamentarians as a whole.

Since Kevin Rudd’s reign as Prime Minister was extinguished in 2010 by a cabal of spineless politicians who were instrumental in replacing him with Julia Gillard, the Labor Government has lived on borrowed time something that showed clearly at the 2010 election when it couldn’t get a majority.

There’s no doubt Gillard was also a partner in the cabal led by Bill Shorten, albeit a silent partner, that removed Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. But what does that say about the other partners in the cabal. I think the behaviour of these people puts all government members in an unfavourable light, a character image that some do not deserve.

It was inevitable that Rudd a man of ambition who has cast himself in a messianic role, would ever accept that Giilard was better than him and set out to prove it. The result, following the election of 2010 Gillard had to fight a battle to demonstrate she possessed the right qualities to be Prime Minister and love her or hate her she delivered.

Naturally she made mistakes but making mistakes and recovering from them is what makes a person strong. However it is said that a chan is only as strong as its weakest link. That this is true can be seen by the fact that Bill Shorten suddenly, or so it seemed, continued to support Julia Gillard until push came to shove when, as he did with Rudd, showed himself  a Judas Iscariot.

Not that he was alone. Many other MPs showed themselves to be in the same category. And so on the last two days before the current parliament and just over two months to the next election, Shorten and his troop of fellow Iscariots mounted a challenge to unseat her. But even if he manages to do that, there’s no guarantee Rudd will become Prime Minister.

That this might not happen is because Labor only managed to form a minority government based on an agreement the Independents had with Julia that they would support her, and only her, as Prime Minister. So if Rudd wins the ballot, will they support him?

If you’ve drawn the conclusion from what I’ve written that I am not a Rudd supporter or Gillard supporter but a supporter of Tony Abbot, you would be wrong. None of them impress me. On the other hand the messages from Rudd and Gillard as they spoke to the media before the leadership vote were not so much about policy and what they could for voters, they were, in essence, messages of hate directed at Tony Abbott.

With that in mind following and now that Rudd expects to be Prime Minister, after the next election Australians could again be faced with a government that isn’t supported by the majority of Australian voters and a government led by a man who not only is not to be trusted but also has lied his way to power?

My final comment however, is that I firmly believe that come election time, Australians will show they are much wiser than the politicians think.

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS them or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.

My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:

Clearly the time has come for new political parties

Recently any mention of ‘federal politics’ in relation to Australia, made me to fall into deep ennui and caused Boadicea, my consort, to worry. That said I won’t be surprised if other Australians are also suffering ennui, including some parliamentarians.

After posting my last blog, I hoped that during the next few days, which are also the last few sitting days of the current parliament, I hoped I might hear something that would make my ennui disappear and restore my optimism about politics and federal parliament.  What added to my hope was the announcement that Kevin Rudd was leaving for China on Thursday afternoon.

To some degree the announcement lulled me into the belief (later proved wrong) that the end of the current political saga was in sight. No such luck. No sooner had the thought entered my mind than fresh reports on the saga surfaced. Unfortunately, fresh is the wrong word as the news was not new but simply a rehash of old reports. And so my ennui returned, stronger and deeper than ever.

But there’s one thing that parliaments and politicians do well: spring surprises. One such surprise came yesterday when Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, one of the political props that enabled Labor to form a minority government, made the surprise announcement that he would not be contesting the next election.

On hearing the announcement it seemed to me the ‘expert’ pundits who throng Canberra, and whose opinions daily flood the media as news, should have been tossing their crystal balls into the nearest dustbin. In a sense Mr Oakeshott had scooped them. Not one of them had even hinted this was likely to happen particularly as it would have an effect on what might happen at the next election.

However, I don’t think Mr Oakeshott’s announcement precipitated Independent MP Tony Windsor, also a prop of the Labor’s minority government, into scooping the political ‘experts’ although the Oakeshott and Windsor have given heart to many people who want Labor to lose the next election. As for the ‘experts’ who had not tossed away their crystal ball, perhaps the two announcements will now make them change their minds. Experts apart however, the most important opinion of all is that of the general population

While Oakeshott and Windsor might not like being described as props for Labor, without their support Labor could not have become a minority government. Indeed government could have become a rabble because the Liberal/National Coalition could not form government. To some degree, their support of Labor ensured anarchy did not come to Australia though some might argue this is not the case.

Yet I must say I was extremely disappointed by some of Mr Windsor’s remarks when being interviewed this morning on ABC Radio by his indulging in a brief diatribe against Mr Abbott. This confirms the view adopted by many people following the heated misogyny and misandry debate that political behaviour has degenerated to such an extent they now wonder why they bother to vote.

That said: what lies ahead? Australia will have to wait until after 14th September, to find out. Will they opt for change and give government to the Liberal/National Coalition. If they do, what changes will they want made by a Liberal/National Government? These changes could prove interesting.

As I write this blog, ABC Radio has just announced that a petition is now being circulated among Labor Members of Parliament about a ballot to challenge Prime Minister Gillard with a view to replacing her with Kevin Rudd. Apparently the result of the petition and ballot, if any, will be known tomorrow morning.

Earlier I used the word rabble to describe the goings on in parliament and also used the word anarchy. I can only add that such goings on are really not much different to what has recently taken place in birthplace of Democracy. Have the people benefitted?

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.


My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:


From political pantomime to political tragedy?

When you have a government in which everyone thinks they are more capable of leading the nation than the person they elected as Leader, then you have a parliament in trouble. At the moment it seems Australia’s Labor Government fits this description.

Unfortunately to most people, Plato, a philosopher in Classical Greece 2,400 years ago, who  was also a mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world, is unknown. But clearly he was a man before his time as evidenced by his saying: “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

That this saying describes what took place in Australia when apathetic voters entrusted Government of the nation to two consecutive and inadequate Labor Governments although it must be said say the same thing happened under non Labor Governments.

Contrary to received political wisdom, the apathy does not lie entirely with young voters. It can also be sheeted home to older voters because for many of them voting has become a matter of habit rather than thought. Even those who don’t vote out of habit, only vote for policies they feel will affect them. And, having heard it all before, few believe the hyperbole dished up by politicians that the policies they promote as secure them and the future for generations yet to come. What they are promoting is their own security.

The fact is that because most have heard it all before they know that while some politicians may well be interested in the future many have become strong believers in the saying tomorrow never comes and in any case their future will be considerably shorter than that of most politicians. I say so as an older voter cynical about politics and politicians.

My cynicism has increased as the finale of the current political pantomime approaches. On reflection however, no longer is it a political pantomime but more a political tragedy that we ourselves, the young, the tween ages and the older ages created by handing not just our future but our present to a handful of selfish  and untrustworthy politicians.

As this is an opinion site I won’t waste readers’ time by reiterating the same arguments that are being made ad nauseum on radio, television, newspapers and in the inappropriately named ‘social media’ which attracts some current politicians like moths to a flame about what is happening in Parliament.

In common with those who wannabe political moths, the latter are seduced by the thought that with as few as 140 words and spaces they can present irresistible arguments that will not be consumed in the searing flame of public opinion but guarantee their place in the next federal parliament. Unfortunately, some will be successful.

However, as the fight for roles in Federal Parliament heats up, and if Tony Abbott, the third actor wins the star role following the public auditions of 14th September (some people might label that a political tragedy), what will the future be for Juila Gillard and Kevin Rudd?

While they won’t play roles in government, the Julia and Kev sideshow could keep voters entertained for some time.

A final comment. Voters will have much to think about between now and 14th September. If Julia Gillard leads Labor to the election and Kevin Rudd remains – perhaps he could be Shadow Minister for Destabilisation – they must weigh up carefully who to vote for. In light of the recent past if they make the wrong decision, Australia could become a country where Democracy has been captured by politicians for their own use.

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.


My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:

Australia readies for new political pantomime

Australians elect 150 people to represent them in the House of Representatives, one of its two Houses of Parliament. The other house, the Senate, has 76 Members. But today it’s the former that’s of interest because on Saturday 14th September, voters will be called on to elect these 150 representatives.

Failure to vote can lead to a fine. However despite being called compulsory voters don’t have to vote, the only thing that‘s compulsory is their need to get their name ticked off the electoral roll as having received ballot papers. If they then don’t vote they still have complied with the rules

That said, in the case of the next election if every voter gets their name ticked off the electoral roll then decide not to vote there, would be no House of Representatives, an unlikely outcome I admit, but because it is theoretically possible, it’s not an outcome that can be dismissed.

If the latter happened what a finale that would be to the pantomime called parliament which, if the voice of the voters over the past three years is to be believed, is what they think of the performance of the House of Representatives over the past three years.

The panto opened following the last election with a significant political event, the first time a female, Labor MP Julia Gillard, became Prime Minister of Australia. Unfortunately, the significant political event became the start of the worst political pantomime in the history of Australian Governments to which, sad to say a great many politicians contributed.

Because the number of seats held by the major parties, Labor and Liberal, couldn’t govern in their own right, the script for the pantomime was written when pragmatism came before principle on the question of who would become Prime Minister. The Greens a minor party anxious for power and Independent MPs cast in their lot with Julia Gillard so that she could form a minority Government as opposed to supporting the Liberal/National Coalition led by Liberal MP Tony Abbott., whom they disliked intensely.

However, as the months slipped past the Greens and Independents delighted in exercising their power over Julia Gillard to whom they had given support. They had forgotten the saying ‘uneasy lies the head that wears the crown’ applies equally to Prime Ministers who gain status by what most people consider foul means, which was the case with Julia Gillard and in doing so virtually sealed their own political fate.

Indeed the whole term of this Government has been mired in controversy with broken promises, reversal of policy, new taxes and much more, leading to voters to no longer trust her or Labor. That they don’t trust her isn’t surprising when one considers how she first became PM. This was achieved when Labor power brokers, as if replaying an act of regicide in mediaeval times proverbially stabbed Labor PM Kevin Rudd in the back and replaced him with Julia.

In reviewing the Panto, for a brief period of time, two performers, M&M – Misandry and Misogyny – the identical malicious twins, became stars. Hopefully their time has passed, never to be revived. Unfortunately, Julia’s poor performance has led to a clamour from some MPs for her replacement with Rudd, who initially was thought to be politically dead but has stayed very much politically alive and able to talk, much to the daily discomfiture of Julia Gillard and Labor.

Continuing the review, while many people think the Gonski Plan for education is good, only a minority of State and Territory Governments which have responsibility for their own education programs have, as yet, signed on to implement it. On the other hand the new Disability Care policy has been accepted though many in the disabled community remain sceptical about its likely success while many people also have doubts about the Government’s NBN policy.

At the same time, many voters are still bitter about the introduction of the Carbon Tax that Julia Gillard said would never be introduced. But credit where it’s due. Over five hundred pieces of legislation were passed by the Government although over ninety per cent was passed with the support of the Opposition.

Finally, however, it seems to me Kevin Rudd’s protestations that he does not want to become PM is given the lie – ‘accidentally,’ – no doubt,  by his protestations general opinion of all the political ‘experts,’ is that Labor will lose the election in September. That being the case I think voters would rather have a majority Government than again sit through a poor the political panto for another three years.

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.






My latest blog is always available at: To make direct contact e-mail me at:

Is the National Broadcaster still Your ABC ?

It seems to me after forty four years of listening to the ABC for up to date news and opinions about issues facing the community in which I lived, of which 39 years have been spent in Canberra., that the ABC is denying the right of people whose opinion seems to be at odds with some in the ABC, to make their views known. In a sense the ABC seems to have stopped being Your ABC and has become the property of ABC staff making it: ‘Their ABC.’

This comment is made because of what seems to me the ABC’s abuse of its role as the community broadcaster following the Community Forum in Canberra held Monday evening 17 June held in the Playhouse Theatre, Canberra Theatre Centre to find out community views on the Australian Climate Commission’s report on global warming and climate change.

On Tuesday 18th June, Sarah Clarke the ABC’s national environment and science correspondent reported the Forum on both ABC radio and television but the only people interviewed were alarmist global warmers with their dire climate change predictions. Alternative views were nowhere to be heard.

I make this comment because this is the pattern the ABC seems to be adopting on the subject of climate change thus it came as no surprise when on Tuesday, Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University Canberra and Member of the Commission was interviewed.

That apart, the ABC’s continued reporting in this manner reminds me of Goebbels who said the best way to get people to adopt your views is by telling them long enough and often enough what they are. This is the best way to describe the ABC’s reporting of global warming and climate change and better described as not so much informing the community but brainwashing the community.

The community at large would not be aware that among the people at odds with the Commission and its members, are scientists, engineers, economists, academics who make or have made their living by using their intelligence to make the world a better place. Yes, they are sceptical of the information the Climate Commission uses to substantiate its views. But aren’t true scientists sceptics? Indeed, over the centuries had there been no sceptics the world today would be in the parlous state predicted by the alarmists.

As parents and grandparents these people are as concerned about the future of the planet as Members of the Commission.  I am one of those parents but not, unfortunately, a grandparent, scientist, engineer or economist. Apart from disabled, the only other appellation I can add to my name apart from an Australian honour, is Australian Tourism Research Institute Fellow Rtd, an industry that would be seriously affected if the alarmist predictions of the Commission and, I must add, the predictions of the Inter – Governmental Panel on Climate change came true.

It is unfortunate that the ABC, with its capacity to provide the community at large with information about the differing arguments about global warming and climate change seems to have adopted the paternal position: we know best. The ABC, it seems to me, has to some extent lost its role as broadcaster and source of information for the public. Indeed, at times it is almost indistinguishable from commercial radio and television. Worse, many of its staff exhibit clear signs of supporting the philosophy of a particular party.

A final comment. The ABC should stop being the cathedral of environmentalism from whose pulpit sermons about the effects of global warming and climate change are regularly delivered and return to being ‘Your ABC.’

Comment welcome.

If you would like to receive these Articles automatically you can RSS it or become a follower by using the ‘follow’ connection at bottom right of the published page.


  • This site was... how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I've found something that helped me. Thanks a lot!
  • sua tarefa: I blog often and I truly thank you for your content. This article has really peaked my interest. I will bookmark your blog and keep checking for new
  • ZAP Stun Gun: I love it when people come together and share views. Great site, continue the good work!
%d bloggers like this: