New Star Signs Down-under

The hotter the weather, the more likely a turtle egg will hatch into a female. It’s one of countless examples of the environment affecting a creature’s traits. And it’s now solid empirical science.

The book on us — humans — is still sketchy. But we already know that we have not one but many internal clocks, taking their cues in different ways (which is why long-haul flights leave us feeling so jetlagged). There seems little doubt that our bodies are in tune with the monthly transits of the moon, and it makes clear biological sense for our ancestors to have had, for instance, a biological urge to ‘make hay while the sun shines’...

But of course not all humans are conceived in midsummer. So if the process of natural selection determines that a society is most successful with a population composed of a certain percentage of one personality type, a different percentage of another, and so on, what better key for that than the 12 months?

Right, so four paragraphs in and we’re finally getting to the astrology! My contention is that the human traits laid out in the 12 Signs of the Zodiac are nothing to do with the constellations but actually built upon observed character differences of people conceived in different months.

And. That would make Southern Hemisphere star signs all wrong!


Coming up next time: a handy table for finding your adjusted star sign in two seconds flat, and some blurb on what strengths and weaknesses that sign is known for. Stay tuned...

Big Brother Bashers

Nothing gets the goat of Venerable* Guru Al Cad more than the politicians, pundits and puritanical-types who would ban reality TV series Big Brother.

For the benefit of anyone who’s been living in a cave for the last seven years (hey there, Osama, how’s it hanging?) Big Brother films a dozen or so volunteers living in a house 24/7 for several months, or until they’re ‘evicted’. During their stay, the housemates are pretty much isolated from the outside world. The show’s producers take it in turns to be ‘Big Brother’, giving the housemates tasks designed to show them and us different facets of their personalities, and ensuring that they follow the strict rules of conduct. At the end of the series, there’s one winner who receives a large cash prize.

Sounds innocuous enough. And it is. But not to the bigoted puritans who decry the show.

Put a bunch of mainly twenty-something, mainly single guys and gals of widely differing backgrounds together for a long time and stuff is going to happen. Which, of course, is the idea. What stuff that is depends on what kind of people they are — and ultimately the nature of the society they’re from.

To loathe Big Brother is akin to loathing the youth of your own society. That’s right John Howard. Yup, I’m talking to you too, Nine News. And yes, even environment good guy Sunrise.

If you watch the evening news and you see Michael Richards (Seinfeld’s Kramer) having a racist rant, you don’t try to ban the news. So what sort of idiot would try to ban Big Brother if one of its housemates lets themselves down?

The Australian version of the show adheres closely to the TV ratings system. Most of the shows are rated PG (Parental Guidance recommended) and are not only suitable but educational for young teenagers. They show the real consequences of many traits: being two-faced, selfish, cliquish, the various ‘-ists’, and so on.

The MA15+ notch on the ratings system is the highest on Australian terrestrial TV, so of course those shows were not going to be appropriate for under 15s. And because there doesn’t seem to be nearly enough parental control to go around, putting them on at 9.30 pm was not a good idea. But for the mature viewer, there were insights to be had and lessons to be learned. Political pressure was brought to bear on Channel 10 last year, and they axed the MA15+ shows.

It probably shouldn’t be too surprising that someone who guest speaks on a Catch the Fire Ministries’ video would want to ban Big Brother entirely, and there can be little doubt that PM John Howard still has the show in his sights. Look out for more media-fuelled controversy whipped up during the forthcoming series, and more ‘Time to Go’ rhetoric on channels 7 & 9.

Hang in there, Big Brother — it’ll soon be Time to Go, John Howard...


* and extremely modest

The Trouble with Mateship

mateship n.  friendship, especially between two men or within a group of men, on terms of equality and mutual support.

That’s the Encarta Dictionary definition; and the gist of other definitions I’ve found has been the same. Sounds innocuous enough.

A lot of Australians take mateship very seriously indeed. It’s seen as one of the core Aussie values, along with ‘a fair go’, the Aussie spirit and — in many versions — a cold beer.

In this context as an Aussie value, it has a wider meaning, which goes something like this: if you’re in strife I’ll try and help as if we were mates, ‘cause I know you’d do the same for me.

‘Old School’ politicians like PM John Howard are so passionate about these core Aussie values that they want laws passed obliging new residents to sign up to them. Howard’s former opposite number, Kim Beazley, even wanted tourists visiting Australia to be told to sign up to them.

“So what?” you’re thinking. “OK, so the laws sound a bit draconian and meaningless (people’s values aren’t changed by signing a piece of paper) but where’s the problem?”

The problem is this: Picture a 52-year-old sheep farmer from Carnarvon, WA. He’s white, 188 cm (6’2”) tall, weighs 107 kg (17 stones), has a wife and two children and has taken over the family homestead from his father. Mateship is in his blood. Three people come to him for help:

1. a member of the Yandeyarra Community in the Pilbara, WA


2. a political refugee from Iran


3. a wheat farmer from Horsham, VIC

Does he extend mateship equally to them all? Perhaps he’s keener to help the Aborigine (1) who lives the nearest? Or maybe the most help goes to the political refugee (2) who’s the most in need? But I don’t think so.

I was driving down the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory recently and saw a man holding a toddler, standing next to his car, signalling for help. While we jump-started his car, he explained that he was a Torres Straight Islander (an aborigine from one of the small islands just north of Australia), who had been waiting most of the afternoon for someone to stop. This was the hottest part of the year and there was no shade other than the vehicle. He and his daughter were smartly dressed and the car was modern and clean. As the only highway between Darwin and Alice Springs, a large volume of traffic must have passed them over the course of the afternoon. So why did no one stop?

For many of the most passionate advocates of the importance of mateship, it’s about extending friendship towards a person they could picture as a mate; someone they see as like them. And that’s where it all falls down.

Love vs Sex: The Live Final

Oh yeah, this isn’t TV; Gretel, I won’t be needing you after all.

OK, so no live final. But from my previous posts on this subject you may be wondering if I’m implying it’s ‘better’ to have less partners. Am I ‘morally against’ having lots of sexual partners? Will fewer partners mean more happiness? How many is too many? Whoa, back up!

Firstly, a reminder of what these posts have been about: the search for love. A lot of people are looking for love in the longer term, but for now want S.E.X. — and lots of it! Well maybe one day there’ll be a pill that’ll allow us to fall madly in love on demand. But for now I’m here to tell you: your plan won’t work!

Am I ‘morally against’ having lots of sexual partners? No. (Although when it comes to the sort of figures Charlie Sheen boasts, it’s hard to see how things like STDs can’t be a factor, so that seems like putting his own pleasure above the health of others.)

Will fewer partners mean more happiness? Maybe. A long-term relationship with your soul mate could lead to great happiness. And one night stands, for instance, can be soul-destroying, ie being stood up. Love is not about being happy, in the conventional sense; it’s about a fundamental feeling of wholeness, which trumps any transient pleasure. Love is a very big subject — more on Guru soon. And if you have a burning question, remember, you can always ask. (I can point you towards some very effective creams!)

How many is too many? 43. Just kidding. There’s no exact number of partners that ‘trips’ something in the brain to ‘switch off’ the ability to fall in love. As I said, it’s cumulative. But most people, after 43 partners, will not be able to fall truly, madly, deeply in love like you see in the movies.

Yeah, I know, it sucks.

Celebrity Love vs Sex

There seems to be a Celebrity version of just about every contestant-based show on TV. (OK, so there’s no Celebrity Dancing With The Stars!) But fear not, I’m not going to do a Celebrity version of each post. This is basically a continuation of Love vs Sex, using some hapless celebs as fodder...

Celebrity personal lives have a habit of being disastrous. And ‘media intrusion’ is not generally the real culprit — it’s all about notches on bedposts.

Call me psychic, but I wasn’t altogether surprised to hear that things didn’t work out between Charlie Sheen, who claims 5,000+ conquests, and ex- porn star Ginger Lynn Allen. Ditto Gene Simmonds, the Kiss singer who claims to have bedded 4,600+ people, and Diana Ross.

Jordan fancied settling down, so changed her name to Katie Price and found a nice guy to marry. She likes that he loves her. But if (or when) she fancied a sea change, no problem! (We may have to wait a year or two for that one to play out, though.)

Jamie & Katie, from Australian Big Brother 06 are another reality series hook-up that happened before our eyes. Katie said she was a virgin, while Jamie bragged about sleeping with over a dozen people during a few weeks abroad. Katie fell hopelessly in love with Jamie, who was flattered, but also felt cornered. The relationship went into meltdown soon after they left The House, ie soon after Jamie’s pool of potential conquests increased from one or two to thousands. Katie was widely derided as unintelligent. But she got what so many seem not to — when it comes to your cherry, you can’t have your cake and eat it!


Continued: In the conclusion, Love vs Sex: The Live Final, The Guru answers such perplexing questions as ‘How many is too many’ and ‘Will fewer partners mean more happiness?’ He also has another go at ‘boil on the backside of humanity’ Charlie Sheen...