Kangaroo culling … The Suit says

No one likes resorting to culling animals, but it’s a sad necessity when animals become overpopulated in an area that is no longer open wilderness. The Kangaroos have long had a happy existence on the defence department land near Canberra however with any situation where you have fences, there will come a time when the population of certain species becomes unsustainable.

This is a common problem in Southern Africa where game reserves have seen the paradox of saving certain species from extinction to the point where their increasing numbers become a threat. Kruger National Park for example is the size of Israel, but even by opening fences to adjoining game reserves it has become too small to sustain it’s growing elephant population. 

Kangaroo culling … The Hippy says

When I heard that the ACT was going to be culling its kangaroos, I was absolutely horrified. I might be an animal-loving hippy, but I doubt that any right-minded civic person would condone such cruelty.

So the ‘roos were first shot with tranquillising darts in the enclosures where they were trapped? So what? When the culling started, the ‘roos were freaking out and smashing themselves into the wire fences! That could not be described as “humane” and “painless”.

California’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

The Suit says: When I heard that the California Supreme Court had ruled to strike down a law against gay marriage, I felt I could see what the future will hold. These liberal judges just don’t seem to get it – they are not there to tell us, the citizens, how society should function. They are there to reflect the demands of the majority of society as a whole, for the good of society, not to pander to the liberal self-interests of a few.

Marriage was created to be between a man and a woman many millennia ago and is widespread among all cultures all over the world. Name ten cultures that have approved homosexual marriage any time in its history. You can’t get one.

As Mitt Romney said in an article for The Wall Street Journal, ‘marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates [the US] Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.’

Of course, this does not mean that homosexual couples should be denied the same basic rights to a partner’s superannuation, welfare benefits and so on. This does not invite calls to attack homosexuals for their sexual preferences, particularly since the jury is still out that homosexuality may be a genetic condition (as opposed to a lifestyle choice).

But to want to be recognised as a married couple, just like a man and a woman are in marriage, is going too far. More worrying is the fact that once homosexual marriage is comes to be regarded as normal, what’s next: polygamy is ‘normal’? Incest becomes ‘normal’? I don’t even want to think of bestiality! Establishing same-sex ‘marriage’ as a fundamental right will undermine current polygamy laws and create a new legal precedent for ‘anything goes’ forms of marriage. If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.

And finally, what’s the rush for homosexual marriages anyway? A recent survey of gay couples found that most of them have no intention of ever ‘formalising’ their relationships. It is suggested that it’s just another typical liberal, left-wing ‘cause’, pushing their own agenda and not really for the best interests of homosexual couples.

These are the things the judicial activist judges would do well to remember – the majority of society do not want to see the slippery slope of sexual behaviour descend into depraved practices such as polygamy and incest. They would do well to preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to prevent the decline of civilisation as we know it.

The Hippy says: It wasn’t so long ago that interracial marriages in America were all but illegal and mixed couples who tied the knot would suffer abuse, ostracism and in some extreme cases death.

The doomsday scenarios put with allowing same-sex marriages, like ‘what’s next incest or bigamy’ would have been used to justify the racist attitudes against mixed marriages – the years have shown how much of a foolish supposition that was, and the end of the world didn’t occur because black and white people joined together in a loving matrimony.

The reasons people get married today are not the same as they were. In the past marriage was seen as a way to enter into a carnal relationship with God’s (or society’s) blessing and to ensure a couple remained together in the interests of their family.

Today marriage is more about a symbolic personal commitment to each other. Whether people get married or embark on a defacto relationship, they are accepted as a couple and can start a family without any repercussions. This is why allowing same-sex couples to get married will not lead to the undermining of the institution of marriage.

Another hole in the argument of same-sex marriage leading to an endorsement of incest, polygamy and bestiality is a stupid one in that in most jurisdictions homosexuality is not illegal, unlike the other three – so there is no question of them being officially recognised in the form of holy wedlock.

Allowing a loving same-sex couple to express their commitment through marriage should be celebrated rather than spurned. With all the ills in the world we should be endorsing any move to promote love. If you don’t like the concept of same-sex marriage, look away – it won’t change your life, but allowing it will make a beautiful difference to so many others.

Luxury car tax increase

The Suit says: I almost choked on my eggs Benedict when I read about the Rudd Government’s decision to raise the tax on luxury cars from 25 to 33 per cent.

The reasoning, by Treasurer Wayne Swan, is to slow demand on our insatiable appetite for fine quality, safe, low-polluting motor vehicles, to help ease inflation. This idea is a casserole of arse.

My reasoning for this attitude is that Mr Swan himself justified the tax by saying, according to The Australian, that an increase in tax on luxury cars was fair as people who bought them could afford it.

“We don’t think it is unreasonable for people who have done well in recent years from government decisions in terms of top-end tax cuts, to just pay a little more,” Mr Swan said of the tax which kicks on for new cars priced from $57,000. “We think it is only fair that people who can afford these cars make a small contribution in that savings effort.”

So, on one hand he’s saying the tax will slow demand on luxury cars while saying that the rich can afford the cars. Please explain where the slowing demand part of this folly comes in. All this is about is screwing people for a few more dollars of the money they earned by working hard and employing people.

In the end it will only add a couple of thousand dollars to a $100,000 car, which most of us will wear or compensate for by not including one of the many options such cars have – I for example really don’t need the under-car flame thrower to fight of carjackers and charity collectors at intersections.

The Hippy says:

When I heard about Treasurer Swan’s plans to increase the tax on prestige cars worth over $75,000 from 25% to 33%, my first thought was, What is he going to do with the money to be gained from this tax increase?

So far, there has been no indication on what he plans to do with the extra revenue. However, I have a suggestion or two.

First, since motor vehicles are one of the biggest pollutants in the world today, with the 8% increase Swan could start ploughing in more money for tree-planting, especially replacing those trees that have been cut down to build motorways and other road thoroughfares. You don’t need to be a scientist to know that trees are essential for our survival. We learnt that in primary school.

Of course, some rich people, like Malcolm Turnbull who is said to have a personal wealth of some $150 million, are going to cry and moan about having to pay a couple of thousand dollars extra if they want to buy a fancy schmancy car over $75,000.

My heart bleeds for them.

Although I suggested planting trees to make up for the thousands felled by the building of highways and roads, I also suggest the Federal Government to start working hand in hand with the state governments and build better modes of public transport, thereby reducing the need for so many private vehicles on the roads all at once. Ultimately this long-term infrastructure would benefit the environment rather than allowing more private vehicles on the road. If our public transport system was up to scratch and world class, more people would leave their cars at home and feel better for helping preserve Mother Nature.

Finally, rich people who buy ostentatious things like cars worth over $75,000 need to stop thinking that money and expensive toys will buy them happiness. It doesn’t. Where there is a spiritual void, rich people always try to fill in that void by making more money, buying more things, building bigger things. The things that make people happy are always the selfless acts, like actually giving away their money to help the poor and needy without expecting anything in return.

On a final note, I leave you with these two quotes, and I hope that the rich people moaning about their pollutant-ridden vehicles and empty lives take heed:

Only when the last tree is dead,
the last fish is caught,
and the last river is poisoned,
will they find they can’t eat money.

– Cree Indian saying

The pursuit of money is in some ways a very shallow thing and it won’t bring happiness unless your mind is prepared to use that money in ways that expand it and satisfy it. So, to me an interest in science and literature and the arts, is all part of just being a full human being, and of course you’ve got to make some money as well, but our education system it seems to me, should be producing fully rounded human beings who can say, ‘I’ve lead a really satisfying life. I’ve had all the tools I need to be able to lead a great life,’ rather than just, ‘I made some money.’

– Tim Flannery

Do you agree with The Hippy or The Suit? What’s your take on the luxury car tax increase?