Author: Peter Smith

Out of hospital, appeared to have survived temporarily. Our stays on planet earth are temporary. Thanks by the way to those who sent their best wishes in their comments on my last piece. Unexpected. Greatly appreciated.

My Anglican minister, who visited me, asked whether I would like to be included in prayers in the upcoming Sunday service. Definitely I said. We need God’s help, sick or well. For my part, I hobbled to a chapel on the hospital grounds at which a Mass is held each Sunday at 4 pm. The priest welcomed me, notwithstanding my Anglican affiliation. I followed the service as best I could, which was well attended by people obviously experienced in the order of service and responses. Mumbling got me by when all else failed.

Where is this going, you might ask. It’s going to how we apply Christian faith to decision making. Those of you who are not Christian are not really left out. Certainly those brought up in Australia, or in western countries more generally, are inheritors of Christian traditions and values which, implicitly, if not explicitly, beneficially mould and guide thinking.

The decision in question is the Voice. The Voice aims to give those who have some Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry an additional say in the design and implementation of laws which bear on those with such ancestral links. There are a number of practical and conceptual difficulties with this proposal, which I’ll get to first before trying to apply a Christian perspective.

First, all Australians tend to be affected to some extent by all laws. True, laws often fall more heavily on one cohort than another. Pension-related laws on older people, for example. But we all get old eventually. And taxpayers young and old must foot the bill for pension increases. In other words, most legislation bears on us all to one extent or another. Thus the legitimate ambit of the Voice is not at all clear. And, depending on how it is legislated, how it sees itself operating, how from time to time the High Court sees it operating, it could well operate sparingly at one point in time and very expansively at another. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to be a good idea to put a shapeshifting entity into the Constitution.

Second, it’s not clear who the Voice representatives will actually represent. There will be no voting. It would be too difficult (as I explain here) to determine who is sufficiently indigenous to earn a vote. Voice representatives will ‘emerge’. How on earth are they to reflect the different views and perspectives of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people facing starkly different circumstances? That’s a problem for all parliamentarians, you might say. Yes it is. But they have to subject themselves to votes of their constituents. It’s an imperfect process but a process which informs and disciplines representation. Who informs and disciplines Voice representatives?

Third, on its face, it is anomalous and discriminatory that any section of the population should obtain constitutional status and privileges denied to others. Laws apply differentially. That’s true. Aboriginal Australians are already eligible for benefits and preferment not available to others. Whatever the right and wrongs of that, it is not constitutionally enshrined. That’s important. It means that as circumstances change, applicable laws can potentially change. Look at it the other way. Preferment in the constitution is tantamount to assuming that the cohort in question will always need help. It is paternalistic. Analogous to the crippling effect of permanent sit-down money.

What is a Christian to make of it? There is no shortage of priests in support. Game set and match. Not so fast. Opposition to the “enlightened” views of Pope Francis in the Catholic Church and the schism in the worldwide Anglican communion point to deep divisions at the heart of faith. I’ll focus on Anglicanism. The breakaway group GAFCON (the Global Anglican Futures Conference) was joined in August last year by a group of Australian clergymen, in forming the Diocese of the Southern Cross. Former Sydney Archbishop Glenn Davies is its first Bishop. I covered it here. What’s It all about? The issue is the authority and relevance of the Bible in today’s Christian world.

The belief of those who’ve broken away is that the Bible is the sole, defining and immutable authority on which Christianity is based. It anchors the faith. It is the faith. It can’t be remodelled to suit prevailing fashions or lifestyles. It is tremendously inconvenient. It’s fair to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, which he convenes, representing the established Church, is not as wedded to a literal reading of the Bible.

Let me give my view of the difference. One follows God’s law so far as it can be determined from the Bible. The other panders to fashion. The latter is a feel good religion. “Who am I to judge,” the Pope said of homosexuals within the Church. True, Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. We should all avoid judging other people. But there is ample biblical authority to condemn fornication. Perhaps the Pope should have juxtaposed his remarks about judging other people with a clear statement about the rights and wrongs of particular sexual behaviour. Then, that wouldn’t have been de rigueur, would it?

The lax approach to human sexuality finds expression across other aspects of modern life. A pale milquetoast imitation of Christianity is applied to undermine efforts to protect Judeo-Christian civilisation. Apparently we have to be doormats to be Christian. Meekly accepting every offence; every assault. That misunderstands Christianity. It is not  following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. E.g., at judgement day: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”( Matthew 25:41, KJV) Not so cuddly and appeasing. An educated guess. There will be a one-to-one correspondence between milquetoast priests and support for the Voice.

To cut to the chase, a biblically-based Christian (the only anchored kind) would perhaps consider Galatians 3:28 as being definitive on the matter of the Voice.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [there is neither Aboriginal nor non-Aboriginal]: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (KJV)

I took the liberty of including a square bracketed insertion to make the point, without harm at all to the substance of the original. QED

Life took a turn last Monday morning at 3 am. All unheralded I woke with acute pain in my abdomen. Was it wind I thought and tried every position imaginable to rid myself of the morbid affliction. Nothing worked. Felt nauseous. Threw up. Unexpectedly did a number two. Normal enough. No relief followed. Living alone alas I grew ever anxious as the pain continued. Finally, having worried at it for three hours, at 6 am I decided to call an ambulance. Dialed triple 1. Not thinking straight. Finally dialed triple 0.

The ambulance only took about twenty minutes to arrive. Very supportive. Walked me down. Put warmed blanket on me. Pain robbed me of my senses, and I travelled to the Royal North Shore Hospital sans phone charger, laptop, change in clothes, deodorant, etc. Obviously, implicitly, expecting to be turned around tout de suite. Numbers of pain killers, which didn’t work at all, and two MRIs later I was under the knife at 1 pm. The procedure entailed cutting out a piece of strangulated bowel and joining the two resulting lose ends. Don’t want to big note but they called it serious surgery. Apparently, it lasted 2½ hours.

Was fooled by the immediate operation aftermath. No discomfort or pain. False dawn. Not so long before I thought this must what it feels like after being kicked repeatedly in the stomach by a couple of steel-booted thugs in a dark alley. Very unpleasant. Hooked up with a catheter and assorted tubes. One tube annoyingly through my nostril down into the well of my stomach with an attached bag using gravity to suck out and catch the contents. Nil by mouth until the Friday. Physio said I must cough and breathe deeply lest be struck down with pneumonia. She gave me a folded towel to press on my stomach to lessen the pain of coughing and deep breathing. Helpful? Yes, but not enormously so.

After a day or two, two doctors, part of the theatre team, who visit me briefly each morning, said that they couldn’t remove the stomach tube until they knew my bowels were working. Apparently, they go into down-(s)tools mode, when mucked about with in surgery. I explained that with no food, and to the point, no porridge, prunes, Metamucil, and regular jogs, there was no way my bowels would perform. Wind will do they said. This opened a new vista.  I became anxious to expel wind. And when I finally started, I felt free to do so whenever and wherever I wanted. No more embarrassment. I had license and incentive.

Why share this personal tale of woe? Too many to count suffer much worse for much longer. Get it. First, I reflect on the way hospitals change social etiquette. Abandon all dignity ye who enter here. My first shower, tubes and all, drew the assistance of a young female nurse. I can tell you that one’s modest manhood is not assisted by trauma. Pathetic, I know. But I thought of George Costanza’s “shrinkage” (Season 5, Episode 20). Also, one’s scrupulous cleaning of one’s private parts (clearly anything but private anymore) and bottom is completed in a much less thorough fashion when under the watch of a detached young woman, nurse though she be.

Second, again I am mightily impressed with the medical care received in this first world city. I wonder what Aboriginal societies left to themselves would have made of a strangulated bowel in 2023 or 3023. Of course, primitive societies making glacial if any progress century after century have no answer to strangulated bowels. The victims simply die in agony and distress. Something for the black armband brigade to suck on.

Third, I am amazed at how hospitals think that they are only in the medical business. Not in the catering business. Not in the business of providing secure and fast intent connectivity. I mean three-star hotels are primarily in the staying business, but they pay attention to food and to internet access. Hospitals are single-focused. Or, at least, that’s my experience for the second time in three years. The first in September 2020.

Fourth, and back to primitive man in a way. It sure pays not to be in Woop Woop, “come the wet ass hour.” (Phrase courtesy of Al Pacino in Sea of Love.)

Until last evening, I hadn’t seen The King’s Speech with Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth and company. Usually watch some shoot-‘em up over a red wine or three.  Good movie. I enjoyed it. Whether the dialogue between the King and Lionel Logue is remotely close to the truth I doubt, but the substance of the plotline is right I surmise. Anyway, gave it 4½ out of 5.

I’m an out-and-out monarchist, when I’m being my English self. When I’m being my Australian self I can see the other side much more favourably. I would probably vote for a republic, certainly give it close consideration, if the model was OK and encompassed state governors as well as the governor general.  Think it would be anomalous to have a president with state governors reporting to the King still in place.

Stan Grant I suspect would vote for a republic. Just a wild guess. I didn’t see the ABC coverage of the coronation, thankfully. Might have sent me over the edge by all accounts. I watched the BBC. Have to say, as tendentiously left-green-leaning as it has become, it still does these events superbly well. The lady hosts dress beautifully and modestly and speak so well and the commentators know when to keep shtum; and not chatter continuously. It’s always a pleasure to hear Standard English. My home town of Liverpool in England and my current home of Sydney, both in their own unique way mangle the pronunciation of the King’s English. I can only assume My Fair Lady has not been widely seen and appreciated in either place.

A problem always is the company you keep. If I were to vote on the republican side I would know that Stan Grant, Craig Foster, Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Fitzsimons, Phillip Adams, perhaps Lidia Thorpe, and many others with views distinctly different from mine, abhorrent views in fact, were on my side of the fence. And, horrifyingly, I would be on theirs. I would probably need to be counselled to quell the onset of cognitive dissonance.

I would be rather in the position of those mediocre male sportsmen who want to be women but who clearly hate women. Evidenced by them subsequently beating the pants off women at women’s sports events. Gloating, as they stand tall and muscled on the centre podium while, if they’re lucky and have faced only one female wannabe, some smaller built women accept the crumbs; and have to smile, lest they be shunned. Maybe it’s not quite a close parallel, but I couldn’t resist it.

 A thought. Is there anyone who is pro the monarchy on the pro green, left or Voice side of things? I dare say that some (genuine) conservatives are in favour of Australia becoming a republic. As I’ve said, I’m this way and that way. But I tend to doubt whether any on the dark side of the political divide (as I put it) are monarchists.  These people live and breathe their credo, every waking and probably sleeping hour. Tearing western values down, and patriotism to boot, is the name of their game. Upholding any western tradition or institution is anathema to them. Of course, the global utopia which is their plan, if they have any plan at all, would turn into a dystopian nightmare.  On reflection, I think I’ll vote for the monarchy if it comes up again, just to spite them.

Read a left-wing tendentious article yesterday (6 May) in the Weekend Australian (page 13) from a Hugh Tomlinson in London. All about the so-called Proud Boys and their Trumpian plot to storm the US Capitol buildings. Here’s a short extract

One protester was shot dead and hundreds injured, including more than 150 police officers. One officer who was beaten by Mr Trump’s supporters died the next day. Four more took their own lives in the weeks that followed.

First, the protester, an unarmed young woman, was shot dead by a Capitol police officer, without any reasonable cause. We’ve all seen the footage. Mr Tomlinson is being deceptive in leaving out the circumstances.

Second, 150 police officers were not injured – unless you are gullible enough to accept police union reports and definitions of what injuries look like.

Third, a police officer did not die the next day after being beaten. This is a factoid which survives only because the Tomlinsons of this world give it continuing currency.

Fourth, if in fact four officers took their own lives after the event, it had nothing to do with participating in a melee at the Capitol. It is ridiculous and deceptive in equal measure to imply that it did. The real question here concerns the mental health of police officers, who we’d like to believe, with the power that they have, are generally of sound mind. If four police officer from those involved in the events at the Capitol on 6 January committed suicide, it seems to be an unusually high number.

What is to be done about the lying media? I’m not talking about dreadful woke, left, green opinions. The world has always been stuck with those in one form or another. For example George Orwell laid it out in The Road to Wigan Pier in 1937:

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

Dated, but we get his drift. What I’m talking about is lies. Plain and simple duplicity. There is no Christianity, no conscience, no common decency in evidence. Just insouciant mendacity. Enough lies from the fourth estate and are freedoms are history. We saw that when the media were complicit in beating up Covid hysteria. We are seeing it in the preposterous and destructive climate-change scam, when it would be easy for the media to check the fabrications about untoward weather events, and lay bare the base motives of those pushing the scam. But we can’t expect liars to fact-check and expose lies.

Barry Humphries leaving us is a sad event. In my view he was he was the best comedian ever. I’m not talking about duos (e.g., Laurel and Hardy, Amos and Andy) or sit comms (e.g., Fawlty Towers, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm) or sketch shows (Monty Python’s Flying Circus, Little Britain, The fast Show) or Joke tellers (e.g., Bob Hope), but the lone comedians who are just simply funny in themselves. Groucho Marx was funny and Tommy Cooper and many others I can think of and others who I can’t. It’s a personal thing, I realise but, right now, if I were sitting in a theatre with a choice of comedians – only one – to provide entertainment for half an hour, I’d pick Dame Edna Everage with Les Patterson a close second. Others would be also rans.

Tucker’s gone. I had reached a stage where my Fox News viewing had narrowed to just one show – Tucker Carlson. Apart from his silly forgivable fetish with UFOs, he was a conservative’s conservative. No wonder the rabble on the left are overjoyed that he’s been given the boot. By Rupert? By Lachlan seems more likely? I have read that his sacking stemmed from his coverage of the January 6 event. A bit of a riot and trespass turned into an “insurrection” by the satanic Dems. Maybe the Dems wielded the apparatus of the state to threaten News Corp or someone with something? Who knows?

Andrew Bolt had a take on it, which went something like hosts serve at the pleasure of the station which employs them. A novel thought. Who’d have thought? Blow me down with a feather. Though apparently, condescendingly, he liked some of Tucker’s work. Damning with faint praise just about described it. Didn’t like Tucker being objective and skeptical about the worth of the U.S. spending untold treasure to support Zelensky. Bolt, himself, has no such qualms apparently. It’s all in for Ukraine, otherwise you’re a rotter. There is no two sides to weigh. It’s Ukraine right or wrong. Full speed ahead whatever the fallout. You have to admire his resolute blinkered worldview. Personally, I wonder what the end game is of providing a continuing supply of high tech weapons to Zelensky. Never mind that, she’ll be right, say the Zelensky fanboys.

I see the federal department of health have started spruiking the experimental vaccines again. Seen a couple of ads on the telly. One includes a group of fit looking young people playing basketball. Mostly the people in the ads look healthy so far as I can tell. Yet they (and us) are being advised to take a booster if it’s been six months since getting Covid or having a vaccination. Every six months? Big Pharma must be pleased.

Let’s see, saw an article about Australia’s vaccination compensation scheme. Covered nasty sounding things like, the serious skin condition “erythema multiforme major, which involves blistering to mucosal sites such as the eyes, mouth and genitals.” Cardiac conditions, “pericarditis and myocarditis.” The serious condition, “cerebral venous thrombosis.” Demyelinating disorders: “Guillain-Barre syndrome and transverse myelitis (a neurological disorder of the spinal cord that can cause weakness in the arms and legs or problems with bladder and bowel control).” I have recently read of ocular and dental issues related to the vax. Can’t find the sources but it doesn’t matter. And just today read of encephalomyelitis (inflammation in the brain and spinal cord), cognitive impairment and chronic fatigue.

Why in the world are fit people at no risk from Covid being encouraged to pump (free) boosters into their bodies? Presumably every six months. One ad says that it’s to reduce the risk of severe disease. Doesn’t mention any potential debilitating side effects. Healthy people are at no material risk of developing severe disease. Surely the advertising campaign is unethical, breaching the Hippocratic Oath – do no harm, putting people at unnecessary risk for no good purpose. I’m being polite here. What I really think is unprintable. The UK Telegraph reported that conservative MP Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party “after claiming Covid vaccines were the ‘biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust’”. The Holocaust reference is plain silly. But one of the biggest crimes against humanity, might be on the right track.

Had to stand on the bus again yesterday, and I’m not as young as I once was. How many migrants last year? Over 400,000 and over 600,000 expected in the next two years. Can extra buses be brought into service? Just asking. Imagine we might need more houses and hospitals and nurses and doctors too. And I feel sorry for Chris Bowen. How is he going to stop global warming from threatening the survival of the planet and the Great Barrier Reef with so many extra people to feed, to house, transport about, keep cool, and keep warm? Might need more wind and solar farms than even he envisions in the wildest of his wildest pipe dreams.

Andrew Bolt interviewed Lidia Thorpe’s (white) father on Thursday evening. How that happened who knows. Did Roy Illingworth knock on Bolt’s door? Did Bolt approach Mr Illingworth? Were commercial terms involved?  What is clear is that Illingworth would have done better not to do the interview. Bolt asked him some personal questions about his daughter and his relationship with her; and, intrusively, about her mental health.  Family business is best kept private. And for his part Illingworth is obviously and understandably not a practised media performer.

I think he did OK in the circumstances. He batted away the suggestion that her health was an issue. Well done. Not well done to two-bob-each-way Bolt who editorialised the interview by commenting that there are always two sides to family disputes. No there aren’t. Sometimes there are two sides. Sometimes there aren’t.

Immediately after Bolt, on came Chris Kenny, the cognitively-confused conservative Voice advocate. A tirade of prolonged criticism of Illingworth followed for appearing on Bolt and being critical of his daughter.  I can’t help but think that Kenny’s effort might sow more discord between Illingworth and his daughter. Not a good and decent thing to do. I had to switch him off. What gall. His colleague Bolt had invited Illingworth onto his show. He, Bolt, had asked intrusive and personal questions of Illingworth, knowing that he was not dealing with a practised interviewee.

Was there a rehearsal beforehand? Might I suggest a title for the segment(s):  “The patsy, the good cop and the bad cop.”

Disgraceful television.  Never mind, I can always watch the ABC.

“As I have pointed out repeatedly the only point of contention is constitutional enshrinement, the rest is noise.” So says Chris Kenny in the Weekend Australian. The only point? Yes, that’s right. That is the whole and complete point of the referendum. All kinds of stupid legislation is routinely enacted – net zero, for example. That’s quite different from enshrining it in the Constitution. Kenny seems bright enough whenever I see him on Sky News. Evidently, the Voice has undermined his reason.

But Greg Craven takes the cake. He evidently thinks the proposed wording of the constitutional amendment is awful, yet he’ll vote for it anyway. Apparently he intends to argue the case for a change in wording having already ceded his vote and support for the current wording. The Julian Leeser option. Advice to the PM and Linda Burney and Noel Pearson, safely ignore Craven, Leeser and their fellow travellers. Their votes are in the bag. In fact, you could afford to tinker with the words to make it absolutely clear that the Voice could inject itself into every executive decision and would be staffed to allow it to do so, and still not lose these people who have nailed their colours to the mast wherever it leads

Craven also invokes his Catholic faith and conservatism to bolster his case.

For me the moral logic of the voice flows deeply from my Catholic faith. All people are given life by a loving God, who demands they be able to live it to the fullest extent. It is clear to me that indigenous people have never had that right… [the voice] will deliver vast symbolic recognition of their equal citizenship in our commonwealth…The moral payload is inescapable. It is no coincidence that many conservative supporters of the voice come from explicitly Christian or Jewish traditions.

It’s hard to know where to begin with this bafflegab. First, many prominent Aboriginal people, those who will most certainly hold most sway cometh the Voice, are far wealthier than average Australians. True there are some disadvantaged indigenous people in remote communities but it’s not hard to find many disadvantaged non-indigenous people, in fact more of them in absolute numbers. What is living life to the fullest extent anyway? What does it mean? I have no idea and neither does Craven. And I don’t pretend to know what God demands, as Craven does, apart from the Ten Commandments, and loving God and our neighbours as ourselves. That aside, how in the world can God demand of me that other people live their lives to the fullest extent possible. Give us all a break. We can’t control the behavior and sometimes the self-destructive behaviour of others.

Second, Craven misses the irony of putting in the constitution a privileged status for those claiming Aboriginality, as being a symbolic recognition of their equality. No, its recognition of their superiority. Imagine a clause in the Constitution giving only those who can establish they are at least 80 percent European additional political representation. There would an outcry of racism. Claims of white supremacism would no doubt fill the airwaves.

Third, there is no moral imperative at issue. The moral imperative for us all is to do our best to help and to provide opportunities for all Australians in need, without fear or favour. Choosing the means to try to do that is a matter of practicality and pragmatism. Some people, including Craven, claim that the establishment of the Voice is the best means available to help that section of the disadvantaged population who are indigenous. However, by definition, there is no evidence in support of that claim; and other people of good will and experience believe that it will do damage to the body politic in general and to the Aboriginal cause in particular. That there are better ways. Morality is wrapped up in trying to do something not in deciding the best means.

Fourth, I am not at all sure of the Craven’s data when he claims that it’s no coincidence that many conservatives in support of the voice come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds. I’d like to see the data. First, conservatives are much more likely to be Christians than are lefties and greenies. That kind of biases the sample. Second, it’s probably best to delete from any list of conservatives those who are CINOs; wets, like Leeser and Simon Birmingham, as examples. They simply don’t count as conservatives. Chris Kenny’s an anomaly, so far as can tell. Is he Christian? I don’t know. I do know that he was done like a dinner recently when he interviewed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Looked red-faced and most uncomfortable as she gently skewered him with cogent arguments.  Sadly, he’s backed himself into a corner. I see cognitive dissonance in his immediate future.

The Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, published the results of some research in 2017 which was directed to try to explain the different incidences of particular diseases in men and women. Researchers analysed 20,000 different genes, sorting them by sex and for differences in expression in each body tissue. They found that around 6,500 of these genes were expressed more in one or other sex, in at least one part of the human anatomy. 

Men and women are different. Vive la difference, doesn’t quite do it. We usually focus on outward appearances; on bodily shape on the specific differences which are there to facilitate procreation. Beyond that it is clear, if a generalisation, that behaviour and conversation differ between boys and girls, and men and women. Evidently, the differences go much deeper than that, according to the Weizmann research, into our very genetic expression. How many differences did they find? Worth repeating, around 6,500 of them.

Recall, a year or so ago, William Thomas, mediocre male swimmer, donned a frock changed to Lia Thomas and beat the pants of US college girls in the swimming pool at the University of Pennsylvania. Obviously lacking all self-respect he, pecker and all, also apparently thought it fitting to use the girls’ change room. One of the beaten girls, Riley Gaines (12-time All-American swimmer) didn’t take kindly to this; and has been campaigning against men competing in women’s sports. The other day after a speech at the University of San Francisco she was set upon by pro-transgender protesters. She was punched and shoved and had to find sanctuary in a classroom for three hours before being escorted to safety. You can read about it and see it here on Fox News.

My impression, apart from the expletives was that the most common cry of the protesters was “trans women are women.” Let those of us retaining our reason and common sense say that this is nonsense. Trans women are men pure and simple. They are men comporting themselves as women. They have the genetic makeup of men and all of the same surface body parts as men, unless they’ve had them surgically removed. So, trans women aren’t women. Women don’t and never have had a penis. And for the information of UK Labour leader Keir Starmer, who is obviously short on reason and common sense, that’s 100 percent of women not 99.9 percent.

To be clear, adults claiming that they are the opposite of their biological sex is ho-hum in the scheme of things. Go for it, if that turns you on. The problem is the invasion of women’s sports by men and the activism as exhibited in the violent demonstration against Ms Gaines. The problem is the insidious way that activism has found its way into classrooms and school libraries, into drag queen story hour, into lewd shows which some wayward mothers take their children to in the US. The problem is the sexualisation and grooming of children that this represents.

The problem is the way governments – Victorian, Queensland, the ACT, soon NSW and the other states – have legislated to ban non-affirming counselling of mentally-confused minors who mistakenly believe they are in the wrong bodies. The problem is the way this has all led to children and teenagers being given puberty blockers whose lasting effects are unknown; subsequently being given hormone therapy, and finally being physically mutilated. Teenage girls having their breasts chopped off. Which sane and decent person does not think this to be barbaric?  Surely it will be seen as barbaric when the future looks back at this present. If not, dear God help us.

Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the lead up to Easter. Anyone who doubts the existence of the Devil need only consider the chemical and physical maiming of confused youngsters. If that isn’t compelling enough proof, what exactly is it?

From today’s (4/4) op-ed in the Australian newspaper.

Greg Sheridan: “…his [Trump’s] style was chaotic and he told countless lies. Nonetheless, he did do some good things.”

Countless lies? Pray tell, when you’re hurling ad hominem insults, what are the most egregious of those lies? Give at least one example surely. As usual for Sheridan, nary a one. Just the usual insult. Apparently though, amongst the chaos, Trump did some good things.

• Do you mean like reducing the unemployment rate for Blacks and Hispanics to the lowest on record?
• Reducing women’s unemployment to the lowest since the 1950s?
• Increasing manufacturing jobs against a previous longstanding falling trend?
• Massively deregulating and reducing business taxes?
• Replacing the NAFTA with USMCA and getting a better trade deal out of China?
• Making the US energy independent for the first time since the 1950s?
• Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement?
• Withdrawing from the Iran deal?
• Appointing a large number of conservative judges and three supreme court justices; Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett?
• Stemming the tide of illegal arrivals across the southern border?
• Making NATO allies spend more money for their own defence?
• Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and forging a better relationship between the Gulf states and Israel?
• Avoiding costly and pointless wars?

These are off the top of my head. There are many more. Talk about damning with faint praise. Sheridan is a master when it comes to Trump. Of course, I can think of a couple of bad things he did. Encouraging the ‘warp speed’ development of experimental Covid vaccines by unscrupulous Big Pharma and listening to Fauci. But then Covid messed with most minds.

All told, and against all the odds and the unending stream of brickbats thrown at him, chaotic Trump was easily the most successful president in the history of the United States. Ok, maybe George Washington, Honest Abe and Coolidge are also worth a mention.

In case Sheridan disappointed, you could have given Troy Bramston a go:

“If it [the Liberal Party] continues to follow the advice of cable television pundits and moves further to the right then it will never return to government.”

Got that, Peter Dutton. Your party has moved too far to the right. Could have fooled me. But there it is, according to Bramston. Yet another riveting read on the op-ed page.

Never mind, Julian Leeser (federal opposition indigenous affairs spokesman) provides balance on the op-ed page.

 “To argue for changes to the government’s amendment does not mean you oppose the voice…I believe the voice should be engaging with decision-makers.”

To be fair to Leeser he seems to be arguing that the voice should be legislated first to see how it works before it is enshrined. But, nonetheless, he’s a fan. No mention of the numerous well-funded Aboriginal bodies already in the business of advising governments and why they haven’t worked and why this one will. It feels virtuous therefore it must be good.

Is Mr Leeser an example of those Liberals who have moved too far to the right? Mr Bramston, any thoughts? Were Trent Zimmerman and Dave Sharma, et al, kicked out by the Teals because they’d strayed too far to the right. It’s a theory.

I’m not on Twitter. Don’t follow anybody therefore, including Mark Latham.

But I was watching Andrew Bolt this evening (Thursday) and he said he was banning Latham from ever again appearing on his show for something he tweeted. I forget exactly how he described it; something like a disgraceful homophobic slur, which Latham had since taken down.

Bolt didn’t say what the tweet was. I find this annoying. If you are going to go on air and ban someone for life; it must be for something quite awful. Yet you refuse to say what it is? I don’t find that at all satisfactory.

I am never ever going to admit that person into my presence again. Why? I won’t say. Did he murder somebody? Throw an old lady into oncoming traffic? Commit child abuse? The why matters if you are going to condemn someone. Inuendo doesn’t do it. What did he tweet that was so beyond the bounds of civil society is the question. I, personally, found the mysterious info in the UK’s Daily Mail.

First, reportedly, Latham’s tweet was “in response to gay Labor MP Alex Greenwich slamming him [Latham] as a disgusting human being.” Strong words. A rejoinder to be expected. The rejoinder was somewhat fiery.

According to the Daily Mail, Latham wrote: “Disgusting? How does that compare with sticking your d*** up a bloke’s a*** and covering it with s***?’”

Reportedly, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson was not best pleased with Latham. 

My own view. I’m torn. Supposing Latham had written: Disgusting? How does that compare with sodomy. Would Latham have been so disowned by polite society? I don’t know. Maybe he would. But certainly his particular wording was confronting. At the same time, the actual act of sodomy is itself confronting and prone, I understand, to spread diseases.

These days we see two men marrying to the acclaim of those around them and blot out what that means. Look, I don’t even know what most male homosexuals do. Maybe sodomy is a rare feature of their intimate interactions. But it does go on. I know that. That’s why AIDS spread within the male homsexual community. So if it goes on and is OK, why is it beyond the pale to describe it in graphic terms?

Mind you, I prefer graphic terms to be reserved for graphic novels, which adults can read if they want to. My conclusion. Social media is a sewer. Latham should have been less graphic but in context of responding to an outrageous slur on his own character he committed a forgivable lapse; not a capital offence. Bolt and other Latham critics should endeavour to be less self-righteous. Those using social media, if they must, should endeavour to be civil and to never to use it when they feel under the weather, drunk, drugged or otherwise ill-disposed or indisposed.