DesDownunder

I did watch the full competition, including the performances at the end. I'm glad i didn't have to judge who was best in shoe. Oh, here is the link to the full show.

I agree, the improvement at 15 is stunning. Wonderful!

Yes, we are fortunate that Australia instituted anti-discrimination laws before marriage equality was sought. However, there is an undeniable attitude that having been granted a degree of protection by those anti-discrimination laws, we shouldn't need to have access to secular marriage contracts. Recognition of de facto relationships should be enough. This attitude denies equality for some members of the population and must not be allowed. It's not as if we are seeking to replace marriage, we simply want the same opportunity to choose marriage as everyone else has. The current argument against marriage equality maintains that, "there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed first." What's worse is that this argument is stated by some LGBTQ people as well as some straight allies and of course, the ant-gay brigade. I'm not saying that other things aren't important, but damn it, we are dealing with basic requirements for a democracy that protects minorities from the will of the majority when it adopts mob rule as being good enough. It isn't! Granting everyone the right to marry, to choose marriage or not, is as important and as basic as freedom for and from religion. Calling marriage for LGBTQ people by another name is nothing short of discrimination; intolerable, abhorrent and an abnegation of their human rights. It is a human rights issue. We suffer from not having a Bill of Rights.

Thanks Nigel. For those who can see it, here is our federal opposition leader addressing "thousands" at a Melbourne rally in support of marriage equality. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/thousands-rally-for-samesex-marriage-20150815-gizr8a.html

Apart from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution providing, ..."for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." it is the Declaration of Independence which prioritises, "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, more recent and I would maintain, more relevant, is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in its preamble, "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." I urge anyone looking to investigate our human priorities to consult the UN Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, the first Ten Articles of that document. Graeme, I agree that I described the objective, but such an objective must form the basis from which we administer, legislate and otherwise consider the welfare of humanity's day to day existence. The Articles of the UN declaration do not ignore the practical objectives of our aims, but demand the basis for their possibility. In the desire to set priority we often forget that we already have these excellent guides to assist us in attending to the needs of the here and now. It is obvious that there are many transgressions to the realisations of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but chief among the aims are the empowerment of women, and anti-discrimination against minorities, including marriage equality. It is the latter which should take no more than a short vote in parliament to ratify what is a basic human right. Therein is the centre of the discussion, the importance of human rights equality being paramount in the conduct and laws of our societies.

Exactly, Cole. It is time to recognise that we don't need religious connection to be happy or moral.

To all those who think that there are other matters of more concern than marriage equality, I submit that nothing is more important, more basic, than recognising the human right of everyone having the opportunity to pursue a relationship that promises happiness in our secular democracy. It must do so with freedom of expression, unhindered, uninhibited, by the beliefs of others. The freedom to pursue happiness is only possible if we respect each other’s autonomy, our personal independence, to live without being the means to another person's ends without our voluntary consent. That is slavery. To be able to choose our own, individual, marriage status, and have it lawfully recognised, is paramount to our society's acceptance of human rights equality. It must be the very basis of our law. It enables the happiness and goodness we would pursue for our relationships in a culture striving to recognise affection, compassion and love as the foundation for our evolving, continuing, humanity.

Holmes was never happier than when inspecting Watson with his magnifying glass.

Want a great day? Watch the video first thing, when you wake up, and you'll have a smile on your face for the rest of the day.

Nick, I'm pleased to here that Classic Shell works with Win 10, but I'll wait a while before I switch from my present Win 7.

Lug, your latest posts are terrific.

Wow!. That is one of those things that makes me happy that I lived long enough to see it. I'm certain Gene Kelly would have loved it. The choreography is so good, so well danced that the sheer physicality combines with the music and never degenerates into just being gymnastics. Truly the art of dance is inspiring when it's this excellent. https://www.facebook.com/cibulkamarek/videos/719874921363516/?fallback=1

Bruin, Camy: Wink, Wink. My own ability to write more is hampered by trying to adjust to the slings and arrows of outrageous aging. How easily the muse wanders into the seas of storms, where the greatest of thoughts wave frantically as they drown. But I refuse to sink even though I never learned to swim. A beach of sunlit sandcastles awaits our dreams of stories as yet, untold.

My opinion is shaped by the Hitchens' video above, although I do consider Self a bit of a twat.

My thoughts and best wishes are with you Colin.

For those who want another opinion by someone who wrote about George Orwell, here is the late Christopher Hitchens lecture on "Why Orwell Matters."

Bruin is right, but I can't stop myself from wondering if she was trying to "fit" a personal toy which just happened to be the same outlandish size as her boyfriend. I guess we'll never know. As moma says in Gone wth the Wind, "It just ain't fittin'."

Thanks for that video, Larkin. It confirms what I see, not only in America, but all around the world.

As I reported in my blog, we have adopted a 4 year old cat....with an attitude from hell. He's only nice to us when he wants to be fed. He'll stare us down if we are sitting in the chair that he wants to sleep on. If his plate is empty he will bite our ankles until we fill up all three of his plates. We've had him checked by the vet and spent a small fortune from our pension on toys, flea medicine and laxatives. We think that he was taken from his mother at too early an age, and we know that the previous owner used to put him in a kennel when she went on vacation. Despite all of the problems, we would never abandon him, and now after a year and a half he is showing signs of affection to his staff (that's us). We have made arrangements with our neighbour in case anything should happen to us, and she will look after him with love. The vet told him that he's a very lucky cat.

As I said above, "it is a simple matter of survival." This means that if the foetus can survive outside the womb, then the state has an interest in protecting the baby as if it were delivered at full term. This is reflected in laws which permit abortion up to around the 22 week from conception. (This period may vary depending on the jurisdiction.) The important thing here is that lawmakers do not infringe on the woman's right to decide the termination of her pregnancy in that period before the foetus can survive outside the womb. If your religion or ethics conflict with this arbitrary demarcation then that becomes a point of discussion, but the religious arguments must not be used as a basis for determining the time frame for the abortion in secular law. The advances being made in medical assistance to sustain life outside the womb, and this would include any future ability to transplant the foetus from one woman to another, with the woman's permission of course, then those 22 weeks may well shrink. The bio-ethics of fertilisation of an egg outside of the womb is an ongoing discussion which prompts many questions, including cloning, and artificial womb environments. My original concern is with males telling a woman what she should, or should not, do with her body. I submit that men do not have the right to order a woman to carry a foetus that cannot survive outside the womb. This would validate contraception, the morning after pill as well as medical intervention to achieve an abortion prior to that 22nd week. However, this is a matter for rational discussion, and in particular, in concert with medical advances in sustaining life outside the womb. Need I add that I'm so happy that my husband and I have failed to impregnate each other, but it wasn't from lack of trying.

Strong Opinion In our most primitive human state of development our ancestors would indeed have assumed 'anything goes', or at least given the appearance of adopting an 'anything goes' attitude. Yet, we must also acknowledge from our studies of other species that concern and empathy for other forms of life, does indeed exist. This is evident not only in our near cousins, but also in distant relatives of the biological evolution of all life as per Darwin. Please note that this is not a religious conversation, and the morality involved in abortion issues does not need to be derived from religion; it is a simple matter of survival. However, primates, and humans in particular, have constructed cultures that involve moral attitudes, and by extension, societal decisions about abortion. Religious influence must remain a personal option. What is acceptable in any given society is guided by the needs of the individual within that society if, the society subscribes to the notion of individual freedom. There can be no argument that birth is as common as death, but if we have a personal autonomy over our personal lives (and our personal deaths) then choosing to continue a pregnancy is the prerogative of the woman. Furthermore, the society cannot and does not have a right which overrides the individual human rights of any individual; in this case, of the woman to continue or abort her pregnancy. To those who argue that the race might die out if the decision to abort is left to the individual woman, I have to point out the obvious answer that is most unlikely, given the common desire to have a child. Even more to the point is the idea that women are the vehicle for a man to become a father, and which the woman has no right to object. That is precisely the point, that the woman has the sole right to not be used as a means to a man's desire. Forcing a woman to term or to terminate a pregnancy is nothing more than rape, post insemination though it may be. No society has any right to insist that a woman or a man should participate in procreation. The termination of a pregnancy is likewise not the province of the society except to provide the woman with a safe environment for such termination. On an overpopulated planet there is a case for limiting birth, and that we do with our pets, but that is a different question. If there is truth in the self evidence of individual human rights, it must then be extended to a woman's right to conceive and abort if she so desires. Religious arguments opposed to abortion are a matter for religions, not for the state. .

That's what I thought too, Cole.

I can't help but wonder if the Republicans would even consider allowing this kind of education in their schools? Would they consider it to be an evolution or a creationist class?

Matt Baume helps illuminate the situation. Happy Pride

I remember the advertisement wording for the movie, Advise and Consent:: "Blows the lid off the capitol"