Good bye Dan!

Again we have had an unexpected politcial change and our media set to work analysing every aspect of Daniel Andrews’ resignation.

So many words, you need few from me, Yet I am triggered by what has been the most consistent phrase in his many political obits, both by those who praise and those who deride. It is near universal praise of his political prowess, electoral success and his longevity.

I lament that mere survival in the political shark tank is the measure of a politician’s success. Of course it is true, Andrews did survive, and he did vanquish the opposition. Although some may say they vanquished themselves. And , Yes, he vanquished his internal labor party competition. Under his rule the Labor right had no chance, think Somyurek. And over the years he vanquished his state. There are too many failures to mention; 

• red shirts corruption, 
• highest COVID death rate in Australia, 
• longest COVID shutdown in the world,
• multiple civil rights violations with an overzealous police force - firing rubber bullets at demonstrators or arresting pregnant woman for a facebook post, 
• profligate spending leaving Victoria with the highest debt of any state
• signing up to China’s Belt & Road program contrary to Australia’s policy
• Damaging Australia’s reputation by canceling the Commonwealth Games
• violating governance norms with an autocratic disposition 

So yes he vanquished one and all! But "Leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge."( Simon Sinek). So did he take care of those in his charge? Maoist would say no, and he has left many a mess behind him. Some of which I am guessing will only come to light in the coming months.

Victoria will take a long time to recover from Daniel Andrews’ care!

Are we perpetuating the GAP?

With the upcoming referendum on the Voice and its main goal of bridging the gap in living standards between Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens, it's the perfect time to ponder why this gap still exists. We've invested substantial funds, approximately $30 billion annually, for decades, in attempts to close this disparity. Yet, here we are, still facing the same problem. So, what's going on? Firstly, throwing money at the issue hasn't been the magic solution. The establishment of semi-government bodies with multiple levels of access, such as ATSIC or the current NIAA with its $4 billion budget, hasn't made the difference we hoped for. As a city-based observer, it's challenging to grasp all the factors contributing to Indigenous disadvantage. However, some things are clear. Geographic isolation plays a significant role. Many remote communities lack essential services, from hospitals to schools and employment opportunities. But there's more to it. Indigenous representatives have passionately fought for the recognition of their cultural identity. While this is essential, it has led to special treatment by law enforcement, social services, and education providers. Domestic violence, child abuse, and truancy are sometimes more readily accepted, and the strict letter of the law is often relaxed. Could it be that this acceptance of different cultural norms, combined with the lack of services in remote communities, perpetuates the gap?

Perhaps the solution lies in providing these communities with the same services as those in larger towns and enforcing, rather than relaxing, the laws that apply to all Australian citizens within Indigenous communities. The Voice referendum, with its bureaucratic approach, would only further separate the treatment of Indigenous Australians from other citizens, and is therefore unlikely to reduce the GAP.

Instead, let's consider something novel: treating all Australians the same.

The Sunlight Shuffle: John Clauser's Revelation Shakes up Climate Models

In the world of climate science, where intricate models strive to predict our planet's future, John Clauser, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, seems to have struck gold. He's unveiled a critical flaw in existing climate models, one that hinges on the assumption that the amount of sunlight reflected back into space remains constant. But as Clauser adeptly points out, in reality, this assumption doesn't hold water due to the ever-changing nature of cloud cover. 

 Let's delve into Clauser's revelation and why it's causing waves in the climate science community. 

The Achilles' Heel: Variable Albedo

The cornerstone of many climate models is the concept of albedo, which is the measure of how much sunlight is reflected back into space. These models often rely on the simplifying assumption that albedo remains constant. However, Clauser's astute observation challenges this notion by highlighting the variability of cloud cover. 

Cloud cover, on average, oscillates between 30% to 70%, and it's incredibly erratic. What's more, cloud cover acts as a negative feedback loop that helps stabilize Earth's temperature. As temperatures rise, evaporation from the oceans increases, leading to greater cloud formation. This, in turn, augments the proportion of sunlight that gets reflected back into space. It's a self-adjusting system, and climate models that overlook these variations are bound to falter. 

Water Vapor: A Game-Changer 

Clauser's insight doesn't stop at variable albedo. He emphasizes the immense influence of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Surprisingly, water vapor has a much more significant impact on temperature compared to methane or carbon dioxide, approximately 200 times greater. Yet, many of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models tend to downplay the role of water vapor.

Reality vs. Models 

The implication of Clauser's findings is profound. Climate models that neglect variable albedo, particularly cloud cover variations, are fundamentally flawed. They fail to accurately predict past temperatures, let alone future climate scenarios. This revelation challenges the popular narrative of a climate emergency, suggesting that it might be based on models that do not faithfully reflect reality.

Censorship and Controversy

Predictably, Clauser's declarations stirred controversy, resulting in his suppression in mainstream media and by major tech companies. 

His insights, however, are not entirely hidden; those interested can watch his full talk on EpochTV, though it's behind a paywall. (https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-there-is-no-climate-emergency-climate-models-miss-one-key-variable-5486017), and there is a shorter version on YouTube at

In conclusion, John Clauser's revelations force us to reevaluate the foundations of climate science. The assumption of a constant albedo, without accounting for variable cloud cover, has created a rift between climate models and real-world observations. Furthermore, the substantial role of water vapor in climate change adds another layer of complexity that many models disregard. While Clauser's views have been met with skepticism and censorship, they open the door to important discussions about the accuracy of climate models and the narratives surrounding the climate crisis.

Why I am voting NO to the Voice.

Like most Australians I am disappointed in the lack of progress in eliminating the gap in living standards between many, mainly outback, indigenous citizens and the average Australian (GAP). It remains shameful that despite multiple attempts over decades and despite significant investment in public funds there still remains a significant GAP. Certainly, past efforts have not worked, and new approaches are justified. The current proposal to change Australia’s Constitution to recognise a new body called a Voice and empower this body to make representations to all levels of executive government is no doubt a genuine effort by many of its proponents to redress past failures.

 However, I believe this proposal is seriously flawed, and, despite the best intentions of its proponents, should be voted down in the upcoming referendum.

 There are many reasons for my rejection of this proposal, but I can summarise them under the following.

•    It is undemocratic and racially discriminatory.

•    It is divisive & dangerous.

•    Constitutional change is NOT required to eliminate the GAP.

Let me elucidate each of these in turn.

It is undemocratic & racially discriminatory.

The founding principle of any democracy is that all citizens have equal rights. However, the Voice proposes to give some additional rights to just some citizens. That is the right to be selected to a new body called the Voice which has the ‘right’ to make representations to all levels of executive government. While proponents of the Voice argue that no special ‘rights’ will be conferred to the Voice, that is clearly not true. The ‘right’ to make representations to all levels of executive government is clearly a right and it is highly valuable, otherwise why would the proponents of the Voice want it. Yet only some citizens will be able to be members of the Voice.

So, the Voice breaks the most fundamental principle of a democracy that all citizens are equal and is therefore undemocratic.

Worse still the citizens entitled to be part of the Voice are selected on the basis of their ancestry, which means that they are all of the one race. This is clearly racially discriminatory.

Proponents of the Voice argue that it is not discrimination because it confers a benefit to the race rather than a disadvantage.

However, Article 1 of the UN Universal declaration of human rights bans all unequal treatment of citizens based on their race, even when the different treatment confers benefits. Article I does allow temporary beneficial discrimination. However, the Voice is being put into the constitution making the benefits of taking part in the Voice permanent and would therefore contravene Article 1.

Far from the opponents of the Voice being racist, as they have been labelled often enough, it is the proponents of the Voice who are proposing to make Australia’s Constitution racist. 

It is divisive & dangerous.

Without doubt the Voice debate has created enormous division in our social discourse. Some of this was to be expected as there are always two sides to any proposition. However, the level of acrimony seems unprecedented. Clearly the opposing sides are passionate about their views, and this is likely to continue sometime after the referendum but would normally die down.

However, by entrenching a racial component to the governance of our country, the Voice would forever cause division.  Wherever the Voice makes representations it would have proponents and opponents. Each of these sides\ would continue to fight for acceptance by the Government, the media, and the electorate. So instead of having just opposing political parties with all the general debate/acrimony that entails, the Voice would introduce another dimension for further social and political division.

But not only would we have a country harder to govern due to increased division on our legislative discourse, the Voice would set a path with multiple potential dangers. Very likely changes not anticipated but impossible to correct once the Constitutional change has been made.

 There is a long history of attempts by many governments at both reconciliation and eliminating the GAP. Each such attempt was accompanied by honied words promising all the benefits that the Voice proponents promise today, ‘bringing the country together’, unity, ‘doing the right thing by our indigenous brothers’, raising living standards. These include native title, multiple bodies such as ATSIC, now disbanded due to corruption, and the currently active NIIA etc, stolen children commissions and ‘sorry day’.

All of these attempts at ‘reconciliation’ and eliminating the GAP have failed to deliver either. But they did generate further demands.

The most recent ‘request’ is the Voice, a substantial Constitutional change that would change the governance of Australia virtually permanently. But that is not the end, the Uluṟu statement gave a road map, first the Voice, then a treaty, and then ‘truth telling’. But many of the proponents of the Voice have also voiced further demands for changing Australia day, some want reparations and even self-governance.

Over the same period that these claims and concessions have occurred, we have seen the emergence of a small but growing number of militant indigenous activists, criticising every aspect of Australian history and social norms. They claim sovereignty over all land, want reparations, declare there is a ‘war’ between white ’colonists’ and indigenous, and accuse Australians of past genocide and even claiming ongoing genocide. These small groups can easily turn violent and can in turn cause the formation of vigilante groups in opposition. We have seen this type of militancy occur in other social movements, civil rights, eco terrorism, etc.

The Voice will only feed the extremists, encouraging further ever more divisive demands. This is dangerous.

It is unnecessary.

Finally, the change to the Constitution, to constitutionally entrench the Voice, is not necessary.

I personally do not accept the claims by proponents that the Voice would reduce the GAP.  After all we have heard that claim before without any change in the GAP. However, my main objection is that changing the Constitution to entrench the Voice would make our Constitution undemocratic and racist.

I do not have a strong issue with legislating the Voice and evaluating if it works.

If it does and makes a significant reduction of the GAP, then obviously putting it in the Constitution is not necessary. And if it doesn’t work then you can change it or close it down.

This approach highlights the inconvenient fact that the only reason the Voice needs to be put into the Constitution is to prevent it from being removed if it fails.

An alternate vision

The Voice proposal encompasses a vision of Australia that permanently separates non-indigenous Australians from Indigenous Australians, with different rights, different flags and different accepted visions of Australia.

 However old fashioned it may be, my vision for Australia is best outlined by the old Seekers song.

“We are one,

But we are many,

And from all the lands of earth we come,

We’ll share a dream.

And sing with one voice.

I am, you are, we are Australian”.

 

Yes, let us all ‘sing with one voice’, lets unite our country, one nation, one flag, one people, all equal.

 

Back after long absence

It has been a long time since my last post and I guess I should provide a few words of explanation.

While I have tried to keep my blog impersonal, preferring not to bias my posts with my own or my families' issues, I feel I need to give you some details.

About 5 years ago my wife, of 50 years, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia. As a result our daily lives have been totally transformed. Despite our best efforts we have not been able to stop the deterioration, although it may have slowed it for a while. As it stands today, she is totally dependent on me, together with a support team of family and other carers. While my time remains very limited with virtually full time carer duties, with the support team in place, I do have some time to resume occasional posts.

Life can take unexpected turns, and we have no choice but to play the cards we are dealt.

With that off my chest, I apologise for my absence and for possible future absences in advance.