Is There a God ?


Wow, that’s a bloody enormous and utterly silly question.

(Thought I’d tackle a really small subject today !!!).

Why the argument?  What’s the point?

Creationists versus worm-fooders!

This has been discussed and debated since time immemorial, or in other words, since God was a boy !!! Or wasn’t.    I can totally understand why some people believe in ‘God’ (whatever that is), and I can totally understand why some people don’t.  I don’t have an issue with either angle.

I know what I believe in (and don’t), and that’s enough.

Some people say, “There IS a God – I believe in him”.

Others say (contemptuously), “There’s no God; no such thing.”

Fine.  To both parties, I say, “Prove it!”


“Go on – prove it”.

“But I can’t”, they both stammer in unicen.

In fact that’s not quite right.  The first says something about having “faith”, which means that proof is unnecessary.  That’s the whole idea of faith… it’s belief… it’s not saying that you know something absolutely.

The second says that he doesn’t have to prove that there isn’t a God – he isn’t responsible for proving that something IS NOT.  He goes on to say that the onus of proof is upon the believer and not the non-believer.

He continues that it’s inane to be expected to prove the non-existence of a phenomena.  (He’s pretty bolshie, and his face is getting redder and redder as he speaks).

No, it isn’t.  The onus is not upon the believer any more or less than on the non-believer.

The onus of “proof” is a moot point – it cannot be proven for or against.  Any discussion is acadaemic.

That’s how absurd the entire debate is.  It is unprovable in either direction.

It’s pointless.  The argument is a waste of time.  “Aha”, you say, “But is there such a thing as time”….

Oh Lord !!!

Recently I’ve been reading David Lodge, although it’s “not the sort of thing I’d usually read”… I’m really enjoying his writing…  very dry humour, and super intelligent writing.

Just finished his novel Paradise News based in Hawaii.

This quote is from the last page, and although there are lots of Lodge’s own writing well worth quoting, here he is quoting someone else, the Basque existentialist philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno, from The Tragic Sense of Life….

“In the most secret recess of the spirit of the man who believes that death will put an end to his personal consciousness, and even to his memory forever, in that inner recess even without his knowing it perhaps, a shadow hovers, a vague shadow lurks, a shadow of a shadow of uncertainty, and while he tells himself: ‘There is nothing for it but to live this passing life, for there is no other!’ at the same time he hears, in this most secret recess, his own doubt murmur: ‘Who knows?’… He is not sure he hears aright, but he hears.  Likewise, in some recess of the soul of the true believer who has faith in the future life, a muffled voice, the voice of uncertainty, murmurs in his spirit’s ear: ‘Who knows?’…  Perhaps these voices are no louder than the buzzing of mosquitoes when the wind roars through the trees in the woods; we scarcely make out the humming, and yet mingled with the roar of the storm, it can be heard.  How, without this uncertainty, could we ever live?”

When Phillip Nitschke, AKA “Dr Death” – The Australian Physician and author, whose research is in the field of Euthanasia Medicine and painless death – was interviewed on Australian TV, he said (I’m paraphrasing) that he did not believe in a soul, or spirit, or an afterlife.  His rationale was that he is a scientist… in other words, how could he believe in something which was not scientifically proven or provable.  He immediately followed this answer by saying that he had, however, had inexplicable experiences in his work that he was unable to rationalise.  He did not go into what those experiences were.

I too have had “inexplicable” experiences, which I do not TRY to rationalise… I know that they come from a place that I cannot pin down in rational terms… this does not make them any less “real”.

So yeah, who knows… not I, that IS certain.

Rooshkie. x.


“100% of the shots you don’t take don’t go in.” Wayne Gretzky.


Thanks to creativecommonstockphotos & Dreamstime Stock Photo – I realise that neither of these teams are The Rangers, but I couldn’t get a Free Download of them… Sorry.

Why does this resonate?  First, I got it from a website by an amazing German woman who changed her life…… because of it.

Also – I love the words;  the order of them.

ALL of the things you don’t go for, YOU DON’T GET !!!

It’s so simplistic, but also kind of clever.

Also – it’s Wayne Gretsky !!

When I was visiting New York, in the 90’s, a friend who lives there took me to a Rangers (Ice Hockey) game at Madison Square Garden.  He also bought me a Rangers jersey (Bless him).

I wore it at the game, and then we went back to the Four Seasons, where I was staying, for a drink. (I really can’t help pointing out that the Four Seasons New York is where Edina and Patsy went to see the door handle that Eddie wanted for her renovated kitchen, in the Ab Fab episode, aptly named “Door Handle”).  It’s a glorious, decadent hotel.  I too spent many a fabulous minutes messing with the electric curtains, from the extreme comfort of my enormous bed.

Now, the hockey game itself was a bit of a blur – the experience was so amazingly overwhelming.  I’d never seen an ice hockey game before… let alone A RANGERS GAME, IN A PRIVATE BOX, AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, IN NEW YORK CITY, WITH THOUSANDS OF SCREAMING NEW YORKERS.

So I was having a ball (or should that be having a puck !!), but not really aware of any of the details of the game, to the point where, not only did I not really know what was going on score wise, but I really didn’t know who any of the players were.  There was just so much going on that I wasn’t taking it all in, my brain was full.

My idea of “watching sport” is basically just socialising… I’m not a great watcher of sport (yawn stretch zzzzzzzzz), but sport with champagne and catering, I can do.  So the “sport” takes a back seat, and the champagne takes the front seat.

As I walked into the Four Seasons bar, still wearing my Rangers jersey, a New York local stopped me and said,

“Hey, did Gretsky score?”.

I just looked utterly blank, and stuttered something clever like, “Um… er… um”.

I didn’t even know who “Gretsky” was.

I found out pretty quickly when I recounted this question to my New Yorker mate.

He said, “Wayne Gretsky is generally considered to be the greatest ice hockey player ever – and what’s more, you just saw him play.”

He didn’t need to add IN A PRIVATE BOX, AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, IN NEW YORK CITY, WITH THOUSANDS OF SCREAMING NEW YORKERS… the immensity of my lucky-ness had sunk in.

So when I discovered this quote, from the amazing German woman, it suddenly brought this whole experience flooding back.

Of course Wayne is right – if you don’t go for “it” or aim for “it”, (whatever it is you want), then you almost certainly won’t get it.   You might go for it and still not get it, but at least your chances are a heck of a lot better !!!

Rooshkie. x.

Add Bill Phil


Igor Terekhov 

AKA Addendum to Billionaire Philanthropist:

I reckon that some people reckon (yes, it was deliberate) that you can’t possibly join the dots from Person A – who buys a Three Thousand Dollar handbag, to Person B – a child dying of preventable disease in a “developing” nation.

But I think you can.

I do join those dots.

I see what I deem attribution.  That the condition of Person B is DIRECTLY attributable to the condition of Person A.   Of course, please don’t take me literally, I’m not talking about two people here, they are representative.

Let’s take a hypothetical.

Let’s say that Person A is a woman (yes, a man can buy a handbag… if he wants… a man-bag to go with his moobs.).  Person A is “wealthy”… Person A is so wealthy that she can, without a moments thought or hesitation buy herself a $3k handbag, or even several if she likes.

I’m only using the handbag as an analogy… it could be anything that is stupidly priced for a stupid thing.  I mean, does this handbag do things that other handbags don’t ?  No.  It’s just a bag, for carrying around stuff.

Or is it ?  Actually it’s not.  It’s a handbag slash status symbol.  It’s “branded”, and it’s a swanky, expensive brand.  Why ?  So that it can be recognised as a status symbol… so that it can say silently, that it’s owner is well off.

Now, perhaps she worked hard for that money (so hard for it honey), perhaps her partner did, perhaps her parents did.  Or perhaps she lied, cheated, exploited, avoided slash evaded tax, and so forth.   If you think that this modus operandi does not have a knock on effect that travels down the social scale and throughout the world, then you’re living in a box.

So she’s entitled (good word that) to spend it as she wills.  That’s true, of course.  Let’s take it as read that Person A doesn’t give any money to any charity.  Person A also feels “offended” when she sees a homeless person outside the exclusive (good word that) stores that she wants to shop in.

However, the ONUS of responsibility for how we spend; for what we value, is ON US.

So let’s say Person A makes a different choice.  She still wants a “nice” handbag.  OK, great.  Not something I understand, but it takes all kinds to make a world, I guess.  So Person A CHOOSES to buy a handbag that costs say $1,000 – that’s still a pretty pricey receptacle, the only purpose of which is to carry shit around – and then she CHOOSES to give $2,000 to the charity of her choice.

It might be an international Aid Agency, a medical charity working with preventable diseases in children living in “developing nations”, or an anti animal cruelty charity, or it might be a shelter for homeless people.

Whatever she wants is fine.  It’s her CHOICE.  And then every time she thinks about spending silly money on silly things for herself, she makes a different CHOICE.

The point is she CHOSE to help other people who have not had the opportunities she’s had, or in the case where she’s been less than ethical – maybe she’s trying to salve her conscience.  OK, so I wouldn’t agree with the scenario bereft of morals in the first place, however, she appears to have located her conscience… which is a start I suppose.

This is just one hypothetical example of how Person A’s choices CAN affect Person B….

Extrapolate that out the wide world over and we could be living in a VERY different world.

Rooshkie.  x.


Of course, one can’t possibly crap on about Handbags without referencing Oscar Wilde’s ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’… can one…

‘To be born, or at any rate bred, in a handbag, whether it has handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution.’

Billionaire AND Philanthropist. Huh?


To have money to burn

© Andrey Andreev | Dreamstime Stock Photos

For a person to spend 30 years perpetuating a system which creates fiscal inequity and then at 50 go all “philanthropy” gives me a problem.  To suddenly decide that “I want to help the poor starving kiddies in Bongo Bongo land”, when one has spent the lion’s share of one’s career working within the very system that distorts and delineates fiscal worth and reward, has got to be the arc of hypocrisy.

I find it a bit sick making.  With people for whom “compassion” is not something they’re terribly familiar with, “charity” (not a word I like) is often just another extension of their egos, in the same way that amassing disproportionate wealth is.  It’s more like “Look at me giving money and clothing and raising money for those poor exploited women / kiddies in “Insert third world nation name”… I MUST be a “good person”… I am a “Philanthropist” – new word everyone seems to like.

I saw an interview on TV with Bill Gates… in which he was described in the super – the text under his image – as “BILL GATES, BILLIONAIRE PHILANTHROPIST”.  I hope, dear Lord I hope that that was done without his input / consent.  To describe yourself as a “Billionaire Philanthropist” must be the zenith of ego, and the deepest chasm of spiritual poverty.

To be honest, my attitude is that if you have, through sheer fucking luck, opportunity, and being able to “fit in” with the way the “system” works and rewards what we call “hard work” (soul-destroying, line-toeing, sycophantic-bum-crawling, back-stabbing dishonesty, & toadyism), and you have amassed “disproportionate” wealth, then it is your DUTY to help those in need.  DUTY.

I’m tired of the dog-eat-dog, every man (what about the women I scream in mock hysteria) for himself kind of world… it isn’t my world, and it isn’t one that I can be “successful” in.

Gosh, why is “successful” in inverted commas – what are you getting at Rooshkie ?   I guess my point is… define success ?!  Is it riches ?  That’s what most people I know seem to think.  Riches or status.  That’s all.  Nothing else.  Nothing else rates.

Honesty, decency, ethics, kindness, caring, compassion, genuine goodness of idea, intention and action… do not rate on the “success” scale.  They are as nothing.  In fact they are treated with a particular kind of contempt reserved only for “deluded idealists”.

So, for those of us who don’t “fit” the Westernised first-world notion of “success”… let’s fucking hope there’s another judge !!!

I’m pretty much depending upon it myself, that when I get to the Pearly Gates of Nirvana, that Allah Buddha Muhammed Jesus Mary & Joseph or whomever, says,

“Yes, Rooshkie – you had it right all along, and all of those “successful” people (read as self-serving, pocket-filling) have to go back and try again”, and YOU my dear, get to stay here in Heaven AKA Nirvana (not the band, nothing to do with Kurt Cobain) AKA Shangri-La (not the Hotel chain), and live out the remainder of eternity (!) in bliss”.

Rooshkie (en route… not too soon if you please… to Heaven).  x.

Square cut or pear shaped…

Woman hand with gold ring

Michal Bednarek – Dreamstime Stock


Now here’s something I don’t understand… have never understood… will never… etc.  (Parentheses – it’s beginning to dawn on me that there are quite a lot of things that I don’t understand !!)

Women and rocks.  I’m not talking about my sixth form Geology teacher.  Hilarious wild -haired Scottish woman.  Really, really into rocks.  The fossil type.  The sedimentary kind.  The extruded ones.  Not so much the super hard shiny ones.  She was such a Geologist, that all other elements of scientific interest seemed to her to be not really worth a mention.  For example, all life forms were referred to as “beasties” (in a Scottish accent).  Just beasties.   Didn’t matter if it was a woolly mammoth or a gnat – it was a beastie.

I’m thinking here more along the lines of women talking about jewellery.  Um… oh God how fucking boring is that.  Some women can bang on for hours and hours about what type of engagement / wedding / anniversary ring they want / got.  I’ve never been engaged; and I guess it’s redundant to say that I’ve also never been married or anniversaried.  Now – make of that what you will.  But, I’m pretty confident that were I ever to be engaged / married / anniversaried, then my primary focus would not ever be drawn to the discussion of rocks.

I’ve heard women go on for ages and ages about baguette diamonds, cluster settings, emerald cut or sapphire cut….

“Are you going for the white gold or the platinum?”

“Gosh, such a difficult choice, isn’t it”

My ever so cynical mind goes…

“Um, no I don’t think it is… why don’t you just go for the one that’s going to cost your boyf / partner / fiancé / husband more money, so that then you can talk loudly about how much it cost, and he can do that thing that men do – that inverted pride thing – where he “complains” about how much money you’re costing him, whilst actually being proud of you costing him money, because it appeals to his ego, and possibly to his primal need to provide for and protect you.  Even though I think the primal feeling is really meant for life and death scenarios where he ensures that his woman and his offspring are sufficiently fed, watered, sheltered, and not eaten by a sabre toothed tiger.

Also, it’s a metal.  So what.  Big Stretch…. yyyyaaaawwwwnnnn.

To the rocks.  It’s blue, or it’s green, or white or yellow or pink, or whatever, and it’s a nice hard shiny stone.  Great.  I don’t mind shiny stones, they’re kind of pretty I guess, but more interesting are the forces which created them (Mrs Scottish “Beastie” Geology Teacher would be pleased, “Och Aye The Noo, something did go into her head” !!)

I sure as heck don’t ascribe any exorbitant value to them.  It’s a pretty rock.  That’s all.  It is not worth remortgaging your house for.  It is not worth not having an entire plethora of other stuff, that could be useful, or helpful to you and your family in the course of your daily lives.  It is not worth not having leisure in order to pay for a shiny rock.  It’s not worth not giving some money to a worthy charity for.

And it really doesn’t warrant much in the way of discussion or conversation.  It’s a rock.

Also, it’s a symbol – it is symbolic of Love.  It really shouldn’t matter if it’s a Coke can ring-pull.  (or Pepsi, or any other leading brand of cola)

Sorry, but am I the only woman who thinks like this?  Am I actually a man, in this respect?

Do men think that the whole obsession with shiny metal and shiny rocks is simply mental?

It drives me nuts.  There are so many more interesting things to talk about than shiny rocks and how much they cost.  It’s just in such bad taste to bang on about money in this way.  It’s soooooo ’80’s aspirational.  We’re not all watching ‘Wall Street’ any more, and Michael Douglas is Igneous and married to some Welsh woman.

Rooshkie. x.

Adam Ant !


I think that “leaders” have one thing in common – perhaps I mean “bad leaders”, of all ilks… national, commercial, religious, etc… and it is this…

They are adamant !!

I’ve met, and know, several people who, once they state something – let’s call it “a fact”, then that’s it, and they will not waiver from that point.  They are absolutely set in stone, that the fact, which they have stated, is incontrovertible.

I find this perpetually astonishing… and it seems to me that in many instances, the “fact” stated, is more of an opinion… or just simply “something I read”, or “something someone once told me”, or something which has melted so deeply into our collective cultural psyche that we take it as read.

I’ve been in plenty of scenarios where the “fact” stated was… in fact… wrong, incorrect and erroneous (yes, I know… don’t you just love tautology when you’re trying to make a point).

Trying to recall a particular instance.  There are a lot.  However… let’s go with this one.

I’m a horticulturalist, I work with plants… have done for nigh on fifteen years, and before that was a keen amateur.  I’ve read a ridiculous number of books about horticulture, and have been practicing the art (there’s a hint there) for a long time.

I believe that I have a natural empathy with plants… I understand them, and they respond to this.  I know what they need, and I know what they want, and I care enough to make sure… within the parameters of what I also want… that I give this to them.

So when I was told… adamantly… by someone who is considered a horticulture “expert”, that if two plants “touch each-other” – that they will start to die !!!!!

I thought, as I collected my jaw from the floor…

WHAT ???  Ex-Squeeze me???  Are you talking complete and utter crap or what ???

I didn’t say this.  I’m actually quite polite, and although I was thinking, “Oh My Lord, what a load of old bollocks”… I just said, “I don’t think that’s right”.

The “Expert” continued… “Yes (and get this, he actually said this)… it’s a horticultural fact”.

I thought – are you mentally mental ???  I mean for goodness sake… that’s the sort of thing that not even someone who knows almost nothing about plants would say.  What I mean is, that a complete rank amateur in horticulture would almost instinctively know that this is complete and utter bullshit.

So I wondered if I had misunderstood what this person… ahem ahem, do excuse me, I mean “expert” had said.

He was blustering at this point.  Which is a sure sign that someone knows that they’ve just said something so wrong it defies the laws of wrongevity (made that word up… did you notice?), but is too arrogant to retract.

This is only one example of the Adam Ant Syndrome – as I have come to dub it in my own head.

It happens all the time, and each time it has me flummoxed.  My polite Ness says out loud “Hmmm… what a very interesting point of view you have, let me be sure to mull this over when time and circumstance allow”.

My proper brain is going… “Oh fuck, how can you stand there looking all defiant, almost challenging me to contradict you… and being so smug and adamant when you’ve just said the stupidest fucking thing in the world ever, and moreover – you know it”.

What then happens, because people who know better often also have better manners… I will simply cave, because it just isn’t worth the effort being that rude to someone who is that stupid and that adamant !!

I guess it’s when adamancy turns to fundamentalism that the real problems begin.

It’s when a religious, political or business “leader” states something which many of the smarter people in the world realise is total nonsense, or is simply a misguided matter of belief, or opinion posing as absolute undeniable fact… that’s where it becomes important to stand them down.

I have to say also that I don’t equate adamancy with strength… all too often it brings power… of some sort, to it’s espouser, but certainly not genuine strength… in fact it is emblematic of a lack thereof.

To not allow flexibility in ones thought and utterances, and to not – when questioned – be able to consider the possibility that one might be wrong, incorrect, or erroneous (!) is a manifestation of a kind of weakness.

Oh, and one other thing… just because someone says something louder, more often, and with a more adamantine quality… that does not make it correct…

Question it… question it all… keep questioning it all, always.

Rooshkie… still asking the questions…  x.

Environ-mental !!!


Photo by Melinda Nagy –

Sitting in a cafe the other day, I could overhear (how could I not have – loud, shouty types they were) a couple of City Slickers discussing the “environment”. They REALLY seemed to think that they cared about the environment, about animals, about forests, and grasslands and wetlands MORE than the “country bumpkins”. There was a lot of stuff about farmers “ruining” the environment and the countryside. And I thought, wow, that’s so counter-intuitive… and them with all their urban cleverness… Sheesh.

My experience is that “Country folk” care about the countryside SO MUCH, that they actually LIVE IN IT !!!

These two were banging on about what the people who live in rural areas should and shouldn’t do… and I wanted, Oh how I wanted to say… “Do you know what… most country folk couldn’t give a pigs arse (you’d call that “leg of pork”) what you do… because they’re too busy working.”

To assume that after a couple of “countryside short breaks” that a townie knows how it operates, how it functions, how the people live in the countryside, is utter Bollocks… In fact, more than that, it’s Bullocks Bollocks!! You can only understand country people by living in the countryside.

Those City workers go home and sit in their electricity guzzling suburban house with the Heating or air con on constantly, eating eggs and bacon for breakfast, having fresh milk in their leading brand of coffee, reading the Financial Times (BTW they’re made from trees…shock horror amazement, stop the logging!!).

I think some city people have forgotten where all “dis shit” comes from… you know I mean the food, the consumables, etc – not the actual shit… which one does find in abundance in the countryside… and anyone who goes all squeamish over this might actually remember that ALL ANIMALS POO… it’s a simple fact, YOU included… try and get used to this basic tenet of life, and other things might become easier to accept !!!

It’s hard enough for farmers to keep stock (literally not figuratively), to ensure that it’s healthy, to make it grow and prosper, to make money out of it…so that Mr & Mrs C.T. Slicker can have breakfast, lunch and dinner, without then being criticised by people who know pig all about pig all about farming !!

The vast majority of farming folk that I’ve met care passionately about the countryside, about the animals they rear, and about the wildlife around them. They care about the trees and the grasslands and the birds. Most farmers have a more intimate knowledge of, and a greater love for, these things than urban folk will ever know or comprehend.

City lives are unfathomable to a farmer who lives in nature, who is blessed to be upon the land, breathing the clean crisp air every glorious day.

Now let’s recite…

God Speed The Plough,

AKA The Farmers’ Prayer…

(Dedicated to my Grandparents – lifelong farmers from generations of farmers.)

Let the wealthy and great
Roll in splendour and state,
I envy them not I declare it.

I eat my own lamb,
My own chickens and ham,
I shear my own fleece and I wear it.

I have lawns, I have bowers,
I have fruit, I have flowers,
The lark is my morning alarmer.

So jolly boys now,
Here’s God speed the plough,
Good luck and long life to the farmer.

Amen ….

(Small note that I personally don’t eat lamb or ham, but… no judgement… not much anyway… perhaps a bit… poor Lambkins… poor Piggy Wiggy… ethical choice is yours).

So, back to the two be-suited and be-spectacled ones in the cafe – those two should go back to their climate-controlled 40th floor office; check the NASDAQ, then check the NADSAQ… grow some … and MYOB.

Oh yeah… One more thing… Why does Keith URBAN make country music ?

I’ve NEVER understood that.

Rooshkie. x.