Featured post

Why can't everyone condemn Hamas?

Following Hamas' atrocities in Israel, the media are awash with commentary, so I will keep my comments short. I am shocked by the willin...

Tuesday 28 November 2023

The myth of Gaza’s innocent civilians

The widespread marches declaring the "Stand with Palestine" decry the large number of casualties resulting from Israel's response to Hamas' atrocities of October 7. The marches are united by their declaration of support for innocent victims of Israel's retaliation.  The civilians they claim are the victims, as they did not start the war, it was Hamas. The civilians are the victims of Hamas too, and did not support the attacks on Israel. But is this so?

A recent poll went to find out. The results were published in the article The myth of Gaza’s innocent civilians

The results are sobering.  I'll let you read the article, but here a few snippets'

  • "A recent poll of Arab Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza, known as ‘Palestinians’ circa 1967, conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) asked them.
  • 74% supported the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7. Of these 59% “extremely” support them and another 15% only “somewhat”. Only 7% were “extremely against” and 5% somewhat against.
  • That’s 74% in favor of murdering, raping and kidnapping Jews and only 12% against.
  • Only 7% were ‘extremely’ against murdering and abducting children."

  • "83% of those in the West Bank, ruled by the Palestinian Authority, said that they supported the Hamas atrocities. Only 7% were opposed. In Gaza, there was notably less enthusiasm at 63%. But after weeks of bombings and raids, only 20% seem to have decided it was a bad idea.
  • Why were only 7% of those in the West Bank, but 20% of those in Gaza opposed?
  • Do those extra 13% of Gazans reflect a people (slightly) more likely to value human life or terrorist supporters who, like their comrades in the West Bank, like it better when someone else is doing the fighting? If the attack had come from the West Bank, would 83% (instead of just 63%) of those in Gaza be enthusiastic about the massacre and beheading of Israelis?"
and finally. 
  • "A majority believed that the Hamas atrocities were an Islamic response to the “defilement of Al Aqsa” by allowing Jews to set foot on the former site of the Holy Temple.
  • 98% in Gaza and the West Bank said that they felt ‘pride’ as ‘Palestinians’ over the war.
  • 74% expect the fighting to end with the defeat of Israeli forces in Gaza.
  • Only 17% support a two-state solution while 77.7% want to destroy Israel and replace it with a ‘Palestinian’ state."
So are there 'innocent civilians' in Gaza?  Certainly, but most probably fewer than the Pro Palestine marchers claim.

Thursday 23 November 2023

Are EVs going to make it?

With the rapid rise in EVs driven by the climate-change-obsessed West, real-world experience is starting to raise questions.  The uptake has been Nevertheless that targets are very ambitious, perhaps better recognised as impossible. In Australia, the objective is to have EV sales representing 80% of all vehicle sales by 2030. No doubt similar ambitious targets have been set for many countries with similar climate agendas. Indeed many countries have announced phasing out of non-EVstake-up by some future date, thankfully usually at least a decade out. In Australia's case, despite a Climate Change minister who seems to have ejected all common sense and is willing to spend whatever it takes to achieve unachievable targets Reality does have a habit of coming back to bite, and so it is with EVs. With ex,take up rates the number crunchers project just 30% of new car sales will be EVs by 2030. SO Mr Bowen has some work ahead of him.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of an EV. The electric motor is much simpler, more robust, produces great torque, is efficient, and with all the new gizmos being built in, they are technologically advanced vehicles. However, like many new technologies they have some real problems. In the case of EVs the issues are simple and serious; -

- they are not green and clean, as has been claimed

- they are expensive ( see my post for a recent study on the costs  )

- the battery technology is not yet mature. 

With regard to their Green credential see Electric Cars Aren’t Nearly as Green as People Think. There are many other articles noting the same issues. (Of course the EV industry and the CC zealots are trying to mitigate this by a lot of smoke and mirrors, so you will find many references refuting these claims,)

With regard to costs see my recent post Unmasking the real cost of EVs,

As for the battery technology, we have the following problems ;

  • charge time is excessive, making it impractical for long-distance travel. Many stories have already emerged in Australia where travelling from Sydney to Melbourne turned into a nightmare of long waits at charging stations and the like.
  • batteries have a limited life of about 10 years and a high cost of $10,000, resale values of expensive vehicles drop rapidly
  • worse still is the tendency of these batteries to become unstable, and either explode or burst into flame. This presents quite an issue for owners, even if the occurrence is very rare.  The consequent damage to adjacent property can be significant, not to mention dangerous. Insurance premiums are likely to add to the costs and may make EV ownership prohibitive.

Here is a video that highlights the very real danger with Lithium-ion batteries.

So Mr Bowen's EV dream seems to be turning, like many of his other ill-thought-through ideas, into a nightmare!

Wednesday 22 November 2023


A friend recently passed on to me a short piece under the title "The Bird Feeder" that happens to ring too true today. A quick search found that it has been around for a while and has been requoted a number of times. One source here The Bird Feeder.



I bought a bird feeder. I hung it
on my back porch and filled it
with seed. What a beauty of
a bird feeder it was, as I filled it
lovingly with seed.
Within a week we had hundreds of birds
taking advantage of the
continuous flow of free and
easily accessible food.

But then the birds started
building nests in the boards
of the patio, above the table,
and next to the barbecue.

Then came the shit. It was
everywhere: on the patio tile,
the chairs, the table ...

Then some of the birds
turned mean. They would
dive bomb me and try to
peck me even though I had
fed them out of my own

And others birds were
boisterous and loud. They
sat on the feeder and
squawked and screamed at
all hours of the day and night
and demanded that I fill it
when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even
sit on my own back porch
anymore. So I took down the
bird feeder and in three days
the birds were gone. I cleaned
up their mess and took down
the many nests they had built
all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like
it used to be ..... quiet, serene....
and no one demanding their
rights to a free meal.

Now let's see......
Our government gives out
free food, subsidized housing,
free medical care and free
education, and allows anyone
born here to be an automatic

Then the illegals came by the
tens of thousands. Suddenly
our taxes went up to pay for
free services; small apartments
are housing 5 families; you
have to wait 6 hours to be seen
by an emergency room doctor;
Your child's second grade class is
behind other schools because
over half the class doesn't speak

Corn Flakes now come in a
bilingual box; I have to
'press one ' to hear my bank
talk to me in English, and
people waving flags other
than ”ours” are
squawking and screaming
in the streets, demanding
more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe
it's time for the government
to take down the bird feeder.
If you agree, pass it on; if not,
just continue cleaning up the shit!

Tuesday 21 November 2023

The burden of truth

"There is a burden of truth on all of us. There is a weight of responsibility to not give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it" Gemma Tognini "Media regards claims of murderous monsters as legitimate"

Gemma has hit the bull's eye again with her piece (see link above) articulating what many of us have concluded about Main Stream Media. I am not new to criticising the media, just look at the many posts I have penned over the years (see Media related posts ). 

Given the horrendous, unspeakable atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on Oct 7, I expected that the civilised world would speak with one voice. A singular, unquestioning, unambiguous, unqualified voice of condemnation. Yet I was wrong. It did not take even one week for the apologists for Hamas to take to the streets condemning not Hamas but Israel. I guess some reaction from the Islamists, and their useful idiots was not really surprising, but what was and remains surprising, at least to me, is the lack of moral clarity by the media. These are educated, trained journalists who should be able to discern the truth. Professional journalists would be expected to ask questions and evaluate commentary based on the credibility of their sources. Most of all I would expect a commitment to truth. But no. Too many journalists have failed their profession. 

They have accepted as true statements from those who have shown no respect for truth. From those who have been shown repeatedly to have lied. What can you say about a journalist who reports as true, without qualification, claims of 10000 dead civilians, when their source, Hamas,  had claimed 500 civilians had been killed by the Israeli bombing of a hospital which was later proved to be false. It was not Israel but a Palestinian rocket misfire, it was not 500 but about 50 and it had not destroyed the hospital but the car-park of the hospital. Ok so they did it once. But then they made repeated claims that the Al Shifa hospital was not being used by Hamas and that Israel was guilty of war crimes for attacking a hospital When Israel stated they had evidence that it was being used by Hamas, the media started qualifying the reporting saying "Israeli spokesmen claim that the hospital was being used by Hamas". Suddenly they qualify when it comes to claims by Israel but make no such qualifications when reporting on civilian deaths claimed by Hamas.

As a result, Israel has had to do its own media reporting to ensure the truth was told. They have published videos proving that the hospital had been used by Hamas for a long time given the existence of large reinforced tunnels built directly under the hospital. They also released a video from the hospital's internal video systems showing that hostages captured on Oct 7 were taken to the hospital. The truth laid bare despite all the lies.

YouTube Video of the tunnels under Al Shifa hospital

YouTube video showing Al Shifa hospital's security video showing Hamas transporting hostages. As this is adult content to view it you will have to follow the links and view it on YouTube

So what about our media. They have been shown to have had no respect for the truth. Indeed they have not had respect for the truth for a long time. The Shifa hospital was part of the Hamas infrastructure going back at least a decade. And it is unbelievable that the doctors who work there did not know, nor indeed that the media did not know it.

It reminds me of the MeToo movement that seemed to burst into our newspapers only after one brave victim of Harvey Weinstein's sexual misconduct spoke out. Then of course many a victim then came out of the woodwork to join the accusing crowd. In that case, too, it was well known that Weinstein had been a sexual predator, yet no one, not one of the strongly outspoken feminists who had been abused had had the courage to call it out. 

It has taken an all-out war between Israel and Hamas to call out the media lies that have provided support for Hamas' public relations. With Weinstein, the victims and their supporters came together as a group to ensure Weinstein was punished. Now that the media acolytes have been exposed will we see the media call out Hamas for its lies? Will the media confess their own complicity? I doubt it.

But Gemma's words resound more than ever. 

"There is a burden of truth on all of us. There is a weight of responsibility to not give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it"

Tuesday 14 November 2023

Unmasking the real cost of EVs

 A recent paper OVERCHARGED EXPECTATIONS: UNMASKING THE TRUE COSTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES by The Texas Public Policy Foundation provides a sobering assessment. 

The executive summary highlights the economic aspects of electric vehicle (EV) ownership and the challenges associated with the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to EVs. 

While the report relates specifically to the US, it does illustrate the misleading headline figures that are driving EV sales. I would expect similar issues in all countries pursuing the move to EVs.

Key points include

  • A comprehensive analysis of the costs associated with electric vehicle (EV) ownership is crucial for a holistic understanding of the economic landscape surrounding the attempted mass transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to EVs.
  • Major selling points promoted by EV advocates are lower maintenance and fueling costs over the life of the vehicle and the common claim that reductions in battery prices will eventually make EVs less expensive to own than ICEVs.
  • A study conducted by a group at the Argonne National Laboratory estimated that while an average EV is about $22,000 more expensive to purchase than a comparable ICEV, they cost about $14,000 less to fuel, insure and maintain over a 15-year period, making their lifetime cost only $8,047 more than an ICEV.
  • No one has attempted to calculate the full financial benefit of the wide array of direct subsidies, regulatory credits, and subsidized infrastructure that contribute to the economic viability of EVs.
  • The average model year (MY) 2021 EV would cost $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period without $22 billion in government favours given to EV manufacturers and owners.
  • EV advocates claim that the cost of electricity for EV owners is equal to $1.21 per gallon of gasoline, but the cost of charging equipment and charging losses averaged out over 10 years and 120,000 miles, is $1.38 per gallon equivalent on top of that.
  • Adding the costs of the subsidies to the true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline. 
  • And these estimates do not include the hundreds of billions more in subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) for various aspects of the EV supply chain.