Welcome to Grappy's Soap Box - a platform for insightful commentary on politics, media, free speech, climate change, and more, focusing on Australia, the USA, and global perspectives.
With virtually daily bombshell news hijacking all media focus, climate zealotry has not had its share of attention. You may not have heard about the recent presentation highlighting Australia's poor energy policies. As part of his sold-out Australian tour for the Institute of Public Affairs, US author and filmmaker Robert Bryce spoke in Sydney about why Australia needs to pull "the plug on Net Zero. Adam Creighton and Chris Uhlmann, both journalists for The Australian, joined Robert Bryce in presenting the case with compelling arguments.
Together, they provided an incisive critique of Australia's current energy policies, highlighting the pitfalls of the country's commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Australia's Energy Failure
Bryce highlights the paradox of Australia being an energy-rich nation that exports vast quantities of coal, natural gas, and uranium, yet faces domestic energy shortages. He points out that while Australia is the world's third-largest LNG exporter, it experiences gas shortages at home due to infrastructure constraints and policy decisions. Similarly, despite possessing significant uranium reserves, Australia has no nuclear power plants, limiting its options for low-emission, reliable energy.
Critique of Net-Zero Ambitions
The presentation challenges the feasibility of achieving net-zero emissions, arguing that such goals are more aspirational than practical. Bryce emphasises that Australia's contribution to global CO₂ emissions is approximately 1%, questioning the rationale behind policies that could have minimal global impact yet significant domestic economic consequences.
Key Insights from the Presentation
Bryce presented several slides that demonstrate the absurdity of Australia's policies. Here are a few of them.
Australia's contribution to world emissions is insignificant
China and India's increase in emissions is much greater than the reductions in emissions in the rest of the world.
Coal is NOT being phased out. The growth in coal-fired capacity is five times greater than the growth in nuclear capacity.
Australia's coal-fired generation is insignificant, so why close them prematurely?
World experience shows that cheap alternative energy is a myth.
Renewables (solar and wind) cause increases in electricity costs
Net Zero is very expensive
In summary
Given Australia's relatively insignificant contribution to global emissions, energy policy should be driven by cost and efficiency. Australia's Net Zero target should be abandoned as it is unattainable, and attempts to implement it will cause damage to Australia's economy without yielding any benefits in terms of global emissions reduction. The drive towards Net Zero would be self-inflicted harm.
Trump, never one to "hide his light under a bushel", has often enough expounded on his 'winning policies. During his 2016 campaign, he said
“We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore, Mr. President, it’s too much.’ And I’ll say, ‘No it isn’t. We have to keep winning. We have to win more!”
Trump is nothing if not entertaining. Yet, this last week qualifies as the most winning of weeks for Trump and his policies. Let's look at the list:
The US dropped massive bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities, significantly downgrading, if not eliminating, their nuclear infrastructure and capabilities.
At the NATO conference, he won commitments from almost all NATO members to increase their defence investments to 5% of GDP
SCOTUS announced 3 most significant rulings, all in favour of the Trump administration;
The first was a ruling denying individual Federal Court judges the right to issue nationwide injunctions. This is a direct defeat of the lawfare battle that the Democrats had initiated against Trump's executive orders. Virtually every one of his EOs had been challenged via injunctions for various reasons by left-leaning Federal judges.
The second was to give power back to parents to refuse to accept the LGBT propaganda that seems to have pervaded many of them
The third was to allow the administration to send illegal immigrants to third-party nations
The signing of a trade deal with China
Food giants have agreed to remove artificial dyes from food
The social security payments have had the most considerable monthly reduction ever, due largely to the work of DOGE
The Pentagon has started reinstating service members who had been wrongfully dismissed due to their refusal to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.
Trump brought an end to the war between Rwanda and Congo, a war that had been going on for decades.
The tariff strategy has generated some $88 B, disproving many pundits
The SP500 and NASDAQ hit record highs
Zero crossings of illegal immigrants into the US
Not a bad list!
Here is Rowan Dean from Sky News Australia summarising this most successful of weeks for Trump.
Earlier this week, I was speculating about Bill Maher's allegiance to the Democrats following his Trump dinner (see Maher telling it straight).
Obviously, I was either prophetic or already too late, as I came across this video where he claims he was "never a Democrat". Go figure. He certainly sounded like one for a very long time. Admittedly, many people who claimed to be Democrats a decade ago do not recognise what has become of the party. I often reflect on how organisations and individuals can transform gradually into something so unrelated to their former selves. They seem to have intense and passionate views both before and after their transformation, yet these views are now the opposite. If you think I am talking only about Democrats, you would be wrong. I find Tucker Carlson has undergone a significant transformation from his Fox News days into a bloviating isolationist. And don't get me started on Candace Owens. But I digress....
Spoiler alert, it is still too early to tell. While that may be the short version, here is more detail.
Following the massive attack on key nuclear sites using the biggest bunker busters ever, all the pundits have been voicing their opinions. President Trump has announced it an unqualified success with total destruction of the sites and Iran's nuclear ambitions eliminated forever. Ok, I am exaggerating, but that is the spirit of his commentary. The left-leaning newspapers have doused these claims as being too optimistic and cited various 'leaked' security services' assessments as questioning the success of the mission. The bombing has not destroyed all the sites, and some 40kg of 60% enriched Uranium was transported from the sites and hidden elsewhere.
Clearly, we have Trump and his team with a strong interest in owning a successful mission. At the same time, the anti-Trump brigade, including most Democrats, the left-leaning media and some isolationist Republicans, want to prove it a failure.
As always, it is challenging to glean truth from the cacophony of claims. But there is one party that has a strong interest in the truth. That is Israel. Israel, under an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, certainly wants to know whether Iran's nuclear ambitions have been thwarted for keeps.
So what does Israel say? Israel Defence Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin said
"It is too early to fully assess the operation's achievements, which will be discussed for years to come. Even at this moment, we maintain high alertness. Our missions are not complete, and we will continue to act for our future."
He stressed that Iran's nuclear program, according to Israeli assessments, "has been set back for years."
So there you have it, 'too early to tell the details, but successfully put back for years. That is good news.
It has been messy. After widespread acclaim for the US operation to end Iran's nuclear program through intensive strikes by the US, including the deep penetration MOPs, Trump has been speedy in announcing a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
It was not a fully negotiated affair, with Iran denying, then accepting, Israel accepting, then accusing Iran of breaking, and with missiles killing Israeli civilians. It also had a rather truculent Trump denouncing both Israel and Iran as if they were equally guilty of the violations. Bibi complied but was most probably smarting. It was another unedifying Trump performance. But, so far, the ceasefire is holding.
That seems to have been Trump's objective, but is it wise?
Israel had total control of the air and was systematically disarming the IRGC. The ceasefire stopped their momentum. Had they continued for a few more days, the regime may have suffered terminal damage and allowed for a popular uprising to replace the regime that has terrorized its people for over four decades. Now, that may not happen. The IRGC has already been out rounding up anyone who showed support for the Israelis and could pose a threat to their rule.
Equally significantly, there have been reports that the IRGC relocated enriched Uranium before the attacks on the known nuclear sites and even claims that the level of destruction of the sites was not as extensive as has been reported. If there is truth to such claims, it would make all that Israel and the US have invested into this battle be for naught.
Given the bombing occurred quite recently , it is too early to evaluate the veracity of such claims, but they are important. Once a ceasefire is in operation it becomes far more difficult to assess the truth, and more difficult to react if further bombing is required.
I am generally a Trump supporter, but I really cannot see the urgency in pushing a ceasefire before assessing the status of the nuclear program after the bombing. Also, Trump has made it clear that he forced Israel to accept this ceasefire. Given Israel had taken all the risks of attacking Iran, executed the battle over 12 days, and had suffered 1000 missiles raining on her civilians, Israel should have had the choice of whether it wanted a ceasefire and when it should have been called.
I recently came across a compelling interview with Dr. Aseem Malhotra titled “The Doctor That Got Banned For Speaking Out: ‘We've Been Lied To About Medication!’” and felt it deserved a wider audience, not for sensationalism, but because it raises questions we’re too often told not to ask.
Malhotra is no crank. He’s a respected British cardiologist who once enthusiastically promoted pharmaceutical interventions, including the COVID-19 vaccines. But as he tells it, experience — and personal tragedy — led him down a very different path.
Here are the key takeaways:
Big Pharma's Influence
Malhotra paints a disturbing picture of an industry with far too much sway over medical research, publication, and guidelines. The result? Not only overmedication and an ignorant public, but poorer health outcomes.
COVID Vaccine Concerns
Initially supportive, Malhotra changed course after his father’s sudden death — a cardiac event he now believes was linked to vaccination. He points to multiple studies that show that the COVID mRNA vaccines carried a greater risk of serious harm than benefits, and believes that vaccination should not never have been mandated and that no one should continue to be vaccinated.
Lifestyle Over Medication
A longtime advocate of healthy living, Malhotra argues that we’ve become too reliant on drugs — particularly statins — when the better solution is staring us in the mirror: diet, exercise, and stress control. He argues that if patients are properly advised about the risks and benefits of a medications such as statins, they would be able to make an informed consent to their treatment.
Speaking Out Comes at a Cost
Unsurprisingly, his public stance has made him a target. He’s faced professional backlash, regulatory scrutiny, and the full force of the modern "consensus machine."
A Call for Transparency
At heart, his message is simple: stop censoring debate. Let people hear the whole story, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
Now, you don’t have to agree with everything Malhotra says, but in an era where dissent is often treated as heresy, voices like his deserve to be heard, questioned, and debated — not silenced.
Liberal comedian Bill Maher has been a favourite of the Democrats for many years. His caustic humour can tear apart many Republican policies, and when targeting an individual, it is at its best. After all poking fun at your enemies is a powerful weapon. How can anyone respect a politician who has been totally ridiculed? Indeed, for many years, Donald Trump has been the target of Maher's barbed humour. But not all is well in Liberal land. Maher is an old-fashioned liberal of the type that has been dying out with the capture of the Democrats by Wokism. So Maher has transgressed on occasions, pointing his barbs at Woke extremists. It was tolerated, firstly because he is always funny, but more so, because it was balanced by at least as many strikes on the Republicans, and of course, Trump.
Then Trump did the unexpected! He extended an invitation to Bill Maher to the White House for a dinner with a group of commentators and naysayers. Maher, true to his independent spirit, accepted the invitation. His summary of the evening revealed that Trump had made an impression on him, not completely, but significantly.
Judge it from this piece that Maher presented after the dinner.
Subsequently, Maher's stance has shifted. He appears to have softened towards Trump, a change he attributes to his own consistency. However, his increasing criticism of the Woke extremists suggests a more complex evolution.
Again, here is a sample.
The Democratic party's shift to the left has led many traditional liberals to reconsider their allegiance. The list of defectors is long, stretching back decades and including names like Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Dave Rubin, Alan Dershowitz, and Joe Rogan. Could Bill Maher be the next to leave the Democrats?
It happened! After what looked like endless vacillation, Trump gave the order to destroy Iran's nuclear sites using the US's bunker buster munitions. The reports to date indicate it was a total success. But let's be a bit cautious, it will require verification. No doubt it will be confirmed or otherwise in the coming days.
Hopefully, the sites are truly inoperative, but even if not, Trump, the US and Israel have had a significant victory. After decades of threatened terror by Iran's Islamists, the West has fought back.
Why did it take so long? A good question. I think the reaction from the world is at least a part of the story. Instead of universal acclaim for making the world safer, the media keeps giving mixed messages. Sure enough, there are plenty who do recognise the importance of the action and welcome it. But many nay-sayers seem to spout an endless stream of negative consequences. Yes, some are voicing fears about what may happen, and this would be reasonable if it gave some recognition to the necessity of the strikes. But no, they claim the strike was unjustified and cite the consequences that have not yet occurred as justification for not striking. Mmm, sounds like cowardice. It is an argument for inaction for fear of potential negative impacts. That is called appeasement, and we know what happens to appeasers. I think it was Churchill who said it best, "An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last". It is that same cowardice that tries to appease bullies, and is at least one reason that Iran's Islamists have managed to get away with it so long.
But today we can celebrate. The world is a safer place due to the courage of Israel, the US and Donald Trump in facing up to the bullies.
It is unusual for prominent Muslims to put their head above the parapet and expose themselves to the Islamists who threaten physical violence against those who do not follow the Islamists' dogma. Yet, a prominent and outspoken Imam in France has broken the spell. Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, of Drancy near Paris, has penned a piece praising Israel and the Jewish people.
It is a short piece but well worth a read, especially as such direct praise of Israel and Jews is so rare in our hate-driven world. Read the article "Israel: A Nation of Miracles"
Israel has , once again, had the courage of its convictions, attacking Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. This was high risk and fraught with uncertainty. It was done after extensive planning and executed with precision and professionalism. Given the task's difficulty, long distances, the likelihood of retaliation, and catering for massive barrages of ballistic missiles, the decision to act was not easy. It was made at what Israel thought was the latest time possible to avert an even worse scenario, Iran developing nuclear weapons that would have put Israel at existential risk.
While it would have preferred for the US to join in the attack, Israel decided that it could not wait and went in alone. It had advised Trump and his team, and unlike the Biden administration, Trump accepted Israel's decision and provided assistance in mitigating Iran's missile attack on Israeli cities.
This was just six days ago, and Israel's IDF's performance has been exemplary. Israel has achieved air supremacy; they have destroyed aerial defences, damaged many of the nuclear sites, and eliminated senior military and nuclear personnel. The Ayatollah has passed control to the next in charge, and he is hiding outside Tehran. Israel has freedom of the skies to destroy the IRGC military, communications, and energy infrastructure. Tehran is in chaos with long queues of citizens leaving the city.
On the other hand, Israel has suffered significant damage. Despite the Iron Dome's defence system's 90% success rate, 40 of the over 400 ballistic missiles sent by Iran have got through. They have inflicted damage to Tel-Aviv, Haifa and many other towns. Fatalities amount to some 30 people, but this number is increasing, and some 1000 Israelis have been wounded. These figures are far lower than expected, but the war is not yet over. Israel estimates they have destroyed some 40% of Iran's missile stocks.
There is, however, a serious issue. Israel's attack's key objective was to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions. While Israel is in the process of destroying all the known sites except Fordow, it has limited capability to attack Fordow, which was built inside a mountain. Israel has limited options for the Fordow site. They lack the US's bunker-busting munitions that can penetrate some 200 feet underground. The US is needed to destroy Fordow.
As of this minute, Trump has been hesitating. His team has developed the plans for such an attack, but says he has not decided to give the go-ahead.
Why? While I understand that such decisions should not be made lightly, consider the alternative. If Fordow is left intact nothing is stopping Iran, no matter what regime takes over, from developing nuclear weapons in the future. If Iran did so, all Israel's efforts would be wasted, Trump's legacy would be shot, and Iran would again threaten the rest of the Middle East, Israel and the whole world with nuclear terrorism.
This decision is not difficult. If Israel could make the decision to attack, given all that it had to lose, why can't Trump make the decision when he has nothing to lose; it only requires dropping some bombs in undefended skies. It does not need troops on the ground. Sure, the US could face attacks on US bases worldwide, but that has always been the case.
I believe Trump will make the right decision, but he should do it now. As soon as the US destroys Fordow, it will destroy the IRGC's dreams and precipitate an end to the war. While Fordow is intact, it keeps alive Iran's dream of nuclear weapons.
Don't take my word for it. Here is a short video by Historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson on this topic.
Consider this. There are two demonstrations in town at the same time. One is a rather aggressive, large group of protestors threatening violence against citizens; they should shout slogans and carry signs that incite violence. The other is a smaller group of ordinary citizens, walking quietly; they, too, carry flags and some signs, but none incite violence. There are no speeches or chants, just a quiet demonstration.
Which would you prefer in your city? If you went to the city and happened to pass by one of these demonstrations, would you want to be confronted by a screaming mob or a quiet group of peaceful demonstrators?
Yes, I have loaded the question to absurdity. No one who is not part of the screaming mob or strongly aligned with their motivation would want their peaceful city taken over by loud, aggressive mobs. No matter the cause.
And what would you want the police to do if the two demonstrations converged on each other? I guess that would be more difficult, as it would depend on police resources at the time and the size of the two demonstrations. You would not want to have them merge, as we know what would happen. But, and this is important, if a demonstration was planned and authorised at a specific location, then the Police should ensure that that demonstration had the priority at that location. Moreover, the Police should ensure they have sufficient resources to protect the demonstrators from aggressors.
Unfortunately, for many Western Cities, aggressive and unseemly demonstrations have become a weekly occurrence. They have been called pro-Palestinian demonstrations, but in practice, they would be better characterised as anti-Israel or pro-Hamas demonstrations. No matter the justification, no one would have cared had they been peaceful. But no, their marches were provocative, specifically targeting synagogues and Jewish-dominated areas. The chants were genocidal and anti-Semitic. It was not just Israel they demonised, but Jews. Also, they incited violence against Jews, and they were themselves violent.
What did the police do to ensure the many laws against hate speech, incitement to violence, and to protect the rights of non-demonstrators to use public roads and parks? In Australia, they did nothing. They allowed the demonstrators to take over the streets. They allowed racist anti-Semitism and genocidal chants to continue. They allowed the flags of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, contrary to the law. They only acted when there was property damage and seemed reluctant even then. When pro-Israel demonstrators happened to be in the same areas, the police invariably forced the peaceful demonstrators to leave. Why? They were afraid they could not enforce their will on the aggressive mob. That is the epitome of police failure.
No society can survive if those charged with protecting the rights of all citizens simply abandon their jobs when they are needed most.
A recent episode was recorded by Rebel News' Avi Yemini and is well worth a view.
Israel has pulled off a spectacular pre-emptive assault on saber-rattling, terrorist-supporting, theocratic dictatorship. It has managed in just a few days to win dominance in the air, and is in the cleaning-up stages. This includes further attacks on nuclear-related sites, the IRGC assets, and some infrastructure. The latter is specifically to discourage Iran from using its ballistic missiles against civilian targets.
The war has not been all one-way. Iran showed a surprising lack of resistance to Israel's air attack. More on this later. On the other hand, it has launched multiple waves of drones and ballistic missiles against Israel's largest cities. Despite a highly efficient protective dome, destroying some 80-90% of such missiles, the remainder do penetrate, and we have seen substantial damage to buildings, and some casualties. The number of civilians who have lost their lives is relatively small, especially given the size of the onslaught. It was only possible due to Israel's defensive infrastructure, with shelters built in or near virtually every building.
Iran has targeted a few strategic sites, Israel's defence departments' building and an Oil Refinery in Haifa, but its primary targets have been residential areas. I expect that we will soon have the ICC issue warrants for the Iranian military leaders and the Ayatollah for such war crimes. And of course, the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway will put sanctions on these people. SO that will teach them. Of course, I don't really expect any such actions. But it does show the hypocrisy of the ICC and those virtue-signalling morally blind leaders of the UK, Canada, Norway, New Zealand and shamefully Australia.
While all freedom-loving people will applaud the success of Israel, and indeed thank them for taking the action against Iran. While Israel has done this as it faced an existential threat in Iran's moves to develop nuclear weapons after they had threatened Israel's destruction often enough. They had even boasted that Israel was a one bomb state. So they only had to make sure they managed to get one through, and Israel would be destroyed. So Israel had little choice, and they took the brave steps to protect their country. Yet, we have to accept that they have done us all a favour. The Islamists who rule, perhaps I will soon be saying ruled, but not yet, have threatened not only Israel but the West in general. A nuclear-armed Iran would have perpetuated a regime that had already supported terrorism around the world, through proxies, it had fought civil wars in Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. It was a force for evil and should never have been accepted in the community of nations. The world could isolate such rogue states, but I will leave that for another day.
While the West celebrates Iran's now-likely fall, its allies, China & Russia, have a lesson to learn. Iran's inability to prevent Israel's air superiority despite anti-aircraft defence systems provided by Russia is sobering. While Russia did not supply many batteries of its best system, the SU-400, it had provided the SU-300. They turned out to be totally ineffective against Israel. To our knowledge, after 5 days, Israel has not lost a single aeroplane. That is remarkable.
So Russia's confidence in its ability to defend itself has taken a blow. Equally important, Iran was a major source of the drones that Russia had been using against Ukraine. That supply line has now been broken. Israel's success against Iran has dealt several blows to Russia.
Here is a video providing far more detail on the impact of Iran's failure on Russia.
I almost feel guilty pointing out the same issues post after post. Yes, I am criticising the MSM (Main Stream Media) again. No surprise that much of the MSM is left-leaning. Sometimes we can adjust for the known bias. If we see any article about Israel in the NY Times, we can completely discount what they say. They not only always take a view that is critical of Israel, but also, too often, they simply print lies. Even when this is pointed out later, they will take no steps to correct the lies.
Consider the case where a misdirected rocket fired from Gaza towards Israel fell short onto a hospital parking lot, killing many people. Hamas claimed Israel had bombed the hospital, killing some 500 people. All are simply anti-Israel propaganda. You guessed it, most MSM printed the propaganda as fact. When the truth was discovered, most of the media printed retractions, pretty weak ones, but of course not the NY Times.
But that is not my focus today. Today it is about the LA riots. The anti-Trump MSM, together with the Democrats, have tried to portray these riots as 'mainly peaceful'. That description is, of course, now infamous after we experienced the summer of love in 2020 with mainly peaceful demonstrations, causing the destruction of billions in property, looting, fires, and even deaths. All mainly peaceful.
Thankfully the LA riots have not been allowed to get out of hand. After what happened in 2020 Donald Trump was not going to allow these riots to continue without direct and forecful action. He called out the National Guard and sure enough the LA police also started doing their jobs.
The media, however, was once again at their worst. Instead of reporting the facts, they acted like cheerleaders for the rioters. If only there could be some way to punish the media for inciting illegality. But I note that with some hesitation, as I know what would happen if Congress were tasked with framing such a law. No, the better way is to enforce the laws as they stand.
Dr Phil presents an enlightening perspective on how the media handled the LA Riots.
In the "now for something completely different" file, I have included this video clip of the appearance of Boston Dynamics' robotic dogs in America's Got Talent reality show. They made quite a splash and were certainly a popular act. These types of casual, friendly introductions of robots are important. They serve to demystify the machines that will no doubt integrate ever more completely into our daily lives.
A few hours ago, Israel launched its much-anticipated surprise attack on Iran. It was not unexpected, but its timing may have been. It is too soon to gauge its success, though initial reports show -
a large operation with some 200 planes
Minor reported damage to Israel from Iran's defence systems
widespread damage in many locations in Iran
targets included anti-aircraft defence, high-value military personnel, missile manufacturing sites and most importantly, nuclear weapons factories
The 'neutralization' of some senior personnel has been acknowledged by Iran, including the head of the IRGC
Iran, Khamanei has vowed retaliation, and drones have been launched against Israel
These are but a few hours after the attack, so much too early to draw conclusions.
Israel has been a victim of unwarranted aggression by Iran for decades. Iran has been threatening, has been using proxies for direct attacks and just a few months ago launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles against Israel. Iran has declared war on Israel and has used everything in its power to attack Israel for decades. Israel has taken this step only due to the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons.
So, by any fair evaluation, Israel was justified, and the free world will be better off if it succeeds. Success would be the elimination of Iran's nuclear threat. Even greater success would be the elimination of the terrorist theocracy that took control of Iran in 1979.
We can all hope that Israel achieved the former, and that the freedom-loving people of Iran take the opportunity of Iran's weakness to overthrow the regime.
Biden's Autopens are multiplying. As Congress delves into the use, or likely abuse, of Biden's Autopen, we are learning more. Congressman Comer has reported that there was not a single Autopen but three. One of these was only discovered recently, and more importantly, that the 3rd Autopen had been used for signing 'hundreds of proclamations'. We have also learned that four people were involved in using the Autopen, including Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. This is building the case for legal action against some of these for usurping the power of the President.
It now seems that, due to cognitive issues, Joe Biden was not in control of his faculties throughout much of the later years of his presidency. His 'minders' should have reported his condition and had him replaced under the 25th Amendment. Instead, they lied about his condition and usurped his power, using the autopen to forge his authorisation.
If this can be proved, it will invalidate a large number of Autopen-authorised proclamations, executive orders, and pardons and launch a myriad of court cases and prison terms. Oh, 'tis a tangled web.
The media is starting to pick this one up, so many people are covering the Autopen-gate scandal.
Given the history, I guess we shoudl not be surprised, but the IDF has uncovered the UN working with Hamas to smuggle aid to Hamas for re-sale. Israel Hayom reports that
"Newly obtained data reveal a systematic mechanism by which the Hamas smuggled goods using UN aid trucks, enriching its coffers by millions of dollars during wartime. The documentation shows direct "under-the-table" cooperation between Hamas operatives and staff of the UN's World Food Programme (WFP)."
After much protest by the climate zealotry fraternity that the Spain /Portugal blackouts at the end of April were caused by unusual atmospheric conditions and were not an ongoing issue with a high proportion of renewables in the electricity grid, everyone has gone shtum. While many knowledgeable analysts at the time pinpointed the cause as the instability caused by fluctuations in the output of renewables in the grid, the zealots rejected that this was a serious concern for renewables. The media has quickly moved on, and once more, the warnings of the experts have been ignored.
Yet, given the experts' concerns, when intermittent renewables become a significant energy source of the grid, fluctuations in the energy generated will cause a cascade that is very difficult to limit. Sophisticated automated grid management systems operate to ensure that fluctuations in frequency, which would damage the grid, are detected and the offending generators are switched out of the system.
The cascade occurs when the consequence of switching one generator out of the system, in turn, causes a fluctuation that is transmitted across the next component and so on. It is just this type of process that resulted in all of Spain and all of Portugal having a blackout. Given that Spain's grid is connected to France, why didn't the cascade continue to France? The difference is that France has sufficient non-intermittent nuclear generators that ensure that the fluctuation of losing Spain is relatively small, and gives adequate time to France's grid management system to switch Spain out of its network.
So the Achilles heel of renewables is the fluctuations that occur with changes in solar output due to clouds, or just the natural changes in wind strength. The fluctuations can be handled when renewables are a relatively small proportion of the total power, but become unstable when the grid is majority renewables.
This is the canary in the renewables coalmine! Countries that have bet the farm on 100% renewables must return to the drawing board.
Australian journalist Chris Uhlmann has followed renewables technology and government policies for some time. He has developed healthy scepticism about current Australian policies. Here is a short video of his interview with John Anderson. It is well worth a view.
Mixing some good news with the constant stream of bad, comes a recent breakthrough in medical technology. Interesting Engineering magazine's article " China’s scientists use tellurium to restore vision in mice, let monkeys see infrared" tells the story. Researchers at Fudan University of Shanghai have used the rare element Tellurium to create an artificial retina. After implanting the device into blind mice, the mice regained vision. Tellurium was used because it has the unusual property of creating electrical signals in response to stimulation by light. Since the tellurium also responds to infrared light, the artificial retina allows its recipient to 'see' infrared signals too. Of course, this is brand new technology and will take some time to reach human use; it is a breakthrough.
The past 2 weeks have seen a dramatic demonstration of Ukraine's technology and strategic cunning. In multiple attacks on Russian soil, it has decimated Russia's strategic bomber fleet, destroyed a Black Sea gas platform, annihilated a strategic Black Sea communications hub responsible for coordinating attacks on Ukraine and most recently, a train carrying some hundred military vehicles, including 7 tanks. The attacks have used high-tech special-purpose drones, and with the actions spreading from the Arctic to the Black Sea and inside Russia, demonstrate an unexpected reach. Russians are now well and truly aware of this war.
Of course, Russia is a formidable bear, and they have launched multiple attacks against Ukraine's civilians, costing lives and damage to infrastructure. Ukraine has focused only on military targets and has used precision targeting, limiting casualties but destroying expensive military assets.
Who will win this battle, the fox or the bear?
Here is another video giving details of the most recent drone attack on a train.
Although the Watergate scandal is now some 50 years old, it has become the standard by which all more recent scandals have been judged. It is the scandal of all scandals, having taken the scalp of a US president together with a whole range of accomplices on the way, many having served jail sentences. A more recent scandal is threatening to take the mantle from Watergate. It is the Autopen scandal, henceforth Autopen-gate. The questions surrounding the unprecedented use of an Autopen by the Biden administration for multiple executive orders and pardons.
Why is this a scandal? While the use of an autopen goes back to the very early years of the US. Thomas Jefferson had an early version of an autopen. So that is not an issue. While it has generally not been used for executive orders, only for routine correspondence, its use is legal whenever an Autopen is authorised by the POTUS. But there is the problem. Given Biden's now accepted cognitive issues, there is serious doubt as to his conscious authorisation of its use. Did he understand what the autopen was signing? Did he even authorise its use? If he did not authorise its use, on some pardon or executive orders, are those orders, or pardons valid? If used without authority, those who used it are guilty of serious crimes.
Autopen-gate has yet to play out. The Watergate scandal took years to run its full course, and Autopen-gate will also take some time. The potential for jail terms, cancelled pardons, and revoked executive orders is evident. At this stage, Congress and Trump have also raised the issue and are asking questions.
If it is pursued, multiple court cases will likely end up in the Supreme Court. My guess is that the use of an Autopen on executive orders and pardons will be banned.
Bill O'Reilly recently covered the Autopen scandal well in a recent video. Well worth a view.
Science fiction stories are replete with laser weapons. They are the weapon of choice in space, depicted as coloured beams of light shot like arrows at enemy spaceships to invariably turn the target into explosive debris, often with unscientific thunderous noise. Even land-based confrontations use laser pistols to shoot at enemies, again with immediate dramatic annihilation. The enemy is frequently vaporised, sometimes exploded or just eviscerated. These weapons have, however, remained science fiction until now.
Israel, among many other countries, has been experimenting with so-called directed-energy weapons, laser guns, to destroy enemy projectiles, be they aircraft, missiles, or drones. However, such laser weapons have remained experimental despite some successful testing. That has now changed. In the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, Israel used its Iron Beam laser weapon to destroy incoming missiles and drones. Despite some limitations, it was a valuable asset in preventing missile penetration into civilian areas.
Israel's much-vaunted Iron Dome system has one major shortcoming: cost. The rockets used to destroy incoming missiles cost $50,000 each. This is a relatively expensive defence system because incoming drones may cost only a few hundred dollars.
However, Laser Weapons redress this imbalance. A single shot that can destroy an incoming drone costs only a few dollars of electric energy. This rebalances such warfare towards the defending side.
Given the widespread aerial attacks on Israel, this is a most welcome development.
However, laser weapons will not be limited to defensive roles. They can be equally used for offence and no doubt they will be.
Yesterday, Donald Trump revealed that he had an extensive telephone conversation with Putin regarding several topics, including Ukraine's much publicised successful attacks on Russia's strategic military assets, and Putin's prized bridge linking Crimea to mainland Russia. Putin threatened retaliation, of course.
We are yet to see the response, but no one will be surprised, after all, Putin does not have the same values that we have in the West. Is it because he is crazy? It appears not. However, his actions over the past two decades show he is a ruthless dictator who does not hesitate to use force to achieve his ends. He has taken complete control of Russia, and all opposition has been vanquished by fair means or foul. Journalists, politicians, and those opposing his rule have been disappeared or poisoned. His military opposition had fatal accidents. He has used his military to attack his neighbours, with great success, prior to the current Ukraine invasion. What are his objectives? Most pundits believe he wants to recreate the glorious days of the USSR. He wants Russia to have the power and respect that the USSR, achieved in its heyday. Given what we now know about the hollow carcass that regime had turned out to be, this does sound hollow. It is hard for us Westerners to understand the Russian culture and how they can tolerate Putin's brutal dictatorship. Why don't they rebel? Some insight into the Russian mind was given by Konstantin Kisin in his short but forthright presentation titled "Why Americans Don't Understand Putin".
It has only been a few days since Ukraine's remarkable surprise attack on Russia's strategic military assets, when it has pulled off another significant attack. This time it was an underwater drone that delivered structural damage to the Kerch bridge. The bridge that connects the Russian-annexed Crimea to Russia.
The extent of the structural damage to the bridge is yet to be fully assessed, but the damage to Russia's military is clearly visible. Putin, instead of delivering his planned rapid takeover of the whole of Ukraine, has been bogged down in a war that is in its 4th year. Along the way, it has lost up to 1 million men, dead and wounded, many billions of roubles worth of armaments, and incalculable political capital. Russia's military has dropped from being regarded as one of the top military forces in the world, and is now considered as an outdated paper tiger. Its only asset is its nuclear arsenal, which, although untested, remains its major deterrent from NATO's even more aggressive actions.
Again, we have to be cautious about over-cheering Ukraine's success, as we can anticipate some reaction from Russia.
In the meantime, here are some of the reports on the recent attack.
Given the Trump tornado's dismantling of Biden's 'legacy', it is not surprising that the news media have had their hands full. Never does a day pass without many opportunities for outrage at Trump's policies. Whether it be another on/off on a tariff, a district judge putting a stop order on an executive order, a failed ceasefire negotiation, the anti-Trump forces have been too busy attacking Trump to look for defending Biden's legacy. There are signs that that will change soon. There are many open questions on the Biden Presidency, including:-
Who was aware of Biden's cognitive decline and when?
Who was 'running' the country over the period when Biden could not do so?
What role did his immediate family, Dr Jill Biden, and his disgraced son, Hunter, have?
Who was in charge of the auto-pen used for signing executive orders? Many were signed by auto-pen.
Are the auto-pen executed orders legal?
Are auto-pen executed pardons legal?
Did Biden's doctor do a PSA test? If not, why not? If yes, what was the result?
When was Biden's prostate cancer diagnosed?
Who was the source of the cocaine found in the White House?
While Trump's Justice Department and FBI have been busy settling into their new roles and implementing the changes required by Trump's executive orders, there are now signs that the questions circling about Biden's presidency are receiving attention. Republicans in Congress, many of whom have been doggedly pursuing Biden's questionable business dealings, are pressing for more action, oft repeating the Democrats' mantra, 'no one is above the law. ' What goes around comes around.
I expect there will be plenty of circus in the coming months.
Yesterday's surprise ambush by Ukraine of Russia's strategic military assets reminded me of a movie from the 60s by that title. A small principality in Europe decides to declare war against the US. Why? It fully expects to lose the war, but then receive the generous aid that the US was seen to bestow on countries it conquered. Obviously, it is a comedy and pretty memorable for its premise. Ukraine is far from a small principality, and it certainly did not start this war, but yesterday it certainly roared. It pulled off a massive surprise attack on Russia's most strategic assets. The extent of the damage has yet to be determined, but the attack targeted 4 separate military sites and destroyed some 40 strategic bombers, some of which were located thousands of kilometres from Ukraine's border. By all accounts, and there are many, this was a military masterpiece, executed in total secrecy despite an 18-month implementation schedule. Experts cite this as the greatest military loss by Russia since WWII.
This is a major setback for Russia, but even a greater embarrassment for Putin. So we can expect a reaction. One could ask, "What is worse than an angry bear?", and the answer would be "A wounded bear"
CDC removes children and pregnant women from COVID Immunisation Schedule
It has been some time coming, perhaps late, but the US CDC has removed COVID mRNA vaccines from the CDC's recommended immunisation schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. The announcement was reinforced on X. This is a short one, just 37 seconds.
Today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from @CDCgov recommended immunization schedule. Bottom line: it’s common sense and it’s good science. We are now one step closer to realizing @POTUS’s promise to Make America Healthy Again. pic.twitter.com/Ytch2afCLP
Monday: COVID mRNA vaccine risks are being exposed
It has taken the re-election of Trump and the replacement of the heads of the US Health bureaucracy to open up the discussion on the COVID mRNA vaccine side effects. The new management players, RFK Jr, Dr Bhattacharya and others have started to uncover the institutional malpractice in the management of the COVID pandemic. The period included coerced vaccination with a poorly tested vaccine, false statements as to its efficacy and safety, and misinformation as to the safety and efficacy of alternative treatments. The vaccine mandates were stopped a while ago, but recommendations for boosters are now being withdrawn.
Given this new open approach, Doctors are now willing to speak out. I have come across a number of these but do not want to inundate you. Nevertheless here is one video exposing some of the issues with the COVID mRNA vaccines.
Wednesday: Net Zero destroys the economy
I penned a post on Net Zero just last week, and here I go again. Last week's post was centred on the futility of removing fossil fuels from modern society, given society's extensive dependence on the products of fossil fuels. This post focuses on the economic consequences of driving any economy towards Net Zero. I won't belabour the point as the video below provides the information in an easily digestible form. Indeed, it was a presentation by Paul Marshall at the ARC conference. While his focus is on the UK and the dramatic costs to its economy of the UK's commitment to Net Zero, the arguments apply equally to any country that has sacrificed low-cost energy via fossil fuels, or nuclear, for the so-called 'renewables, wind and solar. Invariably, the move from 24/7 baseload power to intermittent sources raises prices significantly, killing industries that rely on low-cost electricity. Many argue this is unnecessary, but electricity prices have invariably soared wherever the move towards renewables has progressed.
This video titled "Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care)" is well worth the 15 minutes or so.
Thursday: Pandemic Excess Mortality 2025
The news is not good. Yes, I would have reported it, if it were. Excess Mortality remains at unacceptable levels into 2025.
Some may not have followed the story, so let me recap. All cause mortality rates, a parameter often used by Insurance actuaries, rose significantly during the years of the Pandemic. It was noted by insurance companies first, then by many interested in evaluating the impact of the pandemic. Excess mortality refers to rising mortality rates above the 'normal'. The normal is the average that prevailed before 2020, when the pandemic started. By the way, the mortality rate has been relatively stable over the years.
An increase in mortality during a pandemic is expected, but it would have been expected to return to normal levels as the pandemic waned. Also, the increase in mortality would be expected to follow the peak infection rates and to wane as vaccination rates increase. However, neither of these occurred. The excess mortality that started in 2020/21 has remained high in all the following years. After excess deaths during the peak of the pandemic, one would expect excess deaths to become negative as the most vulnerable had already passed. But that has not happened. Excess deaths remain at pandemic levels long after the pandemic has passed.
So why is this happening? The finger of blame is pointing at mRNA vaccines! I have posted on this a number of times in the past ( see here, here, and here), so I shall not repeat it again. The evidence against mRNA vaccines is compelling.
Dr John Campbell's video below covers the recent update on excess deaths.
These statistical measures raise the nightmarish possibility that rolling out the mRNA vaccines has condemned billions of people on Earth to a shorter lifespan. If this is so, we must hold to account all those who led us to this disaster.
Tapping fingers on the table .....tap, tap, tap.
Friday: How to Stop the West's Decline!
I came across this video this morning, again, due to YouTube roulette. I was served another dish of Konstantin, having devoured several of his pithy presentations in the past. Google's algorithm is quite successful, as it hit the spot again. The only issue I have is that there is no age filter, and YouTube often presents very old delicacies.
This video is some five months old, but no matter, it is well worth it.
As always, Konstantin presents his incisive arguments with clarity and humour. His fundamental argument is irrefutable.
"The West isn’t just 'different'; it’s better (because) "in Australia there are precisely zero
people who get onto rickety boats every year to brave shark-infested waters in search of a better life elsewhere... the traffic is all one way in the opposite direction, the same is true on the southern border of the United States, the same is true in the Mediterranean...."
The presentation is part of a Holberg Debate on "Is the West in decline?", another must-see.
In what must go down as one of the most egregious episodes in the UN's already tainted record of moral clarity and honesty, the UN's Humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, made an outrageous claim that "there are 14,000 babies (in Gaza) that will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them".
The claims were widely reported in mainstream media worldwide, proving that " a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes."
Of course, the BBC reported as Fletcher claimed, but hats off to them, they did follow up to identify the basis of the claim with the relevant UN office, which referred to an IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) report. The IPC report, however, did NOT make the claim that was made by Fletcher. It projected that over the next 12 months, 14,000 were at risk of acute malnutrition—a somewhat less dramatic claim, albeit still questionable.
Given the UN's biased stance on all things related to Israel, we cannot be surprised, but the media, the supposed last barrier to misinformation, are anything but. They continue to amplify these ludicrous, extreme statements without question. Nor do they go back to correct the errors they keep making.
Thankfully, a few media organisations look at the other side of every story and try to report on the misinformation perpetrated by the media.
You had me at the headline. That was the intention, but I have to admit that after investing the next five or so minutes, I was not disappointed. It was, I am almost ashamed to admit, another video by Konstantin Kisin, who seems to be my bestie. This time, it was not via YouTube but via PragerU's five-minute instant enlightenment series. But instead of my summary, why don't you watch it? Why I left Utopia. It provides an insight into the question, 'What is Utopia?'
Imagine the possibilities!
With all the world's crises, it is easy to gloss over technologies and medical breakthroughs that have the potential to transform the world. The world's media focus on the current urgent problems and potential future crises. There is no room for good news, or it is at best rare. Yet if we look back at just the past few decades, we have seen many dramatic changes to our lives. Two decades ago, there was no social media, iWatch, iPhone, electric cars, free video communication worldwide, and many more.
Such dramatic improvements have not been restricted to technology alone. The World Health Organisation's Millennium Development Goals web page lists some of the achievements over recent decades as ;-
Globally, the number of deaths of children under 5 years of age fell from 12.7 million in 1990 to 6.3 million in 2013.
In developing countries, the percentage of underweight children under 5 years old dropped from 28% in 1990 to 17% in 2013.
Globally, new HIV infections declined by 38% between 2001 and 2013.
Existing cases of tuberculosis are declining, along with deaths among HIV-negative tuberculosis cases.
In 2010, the world met the United Nations Millennium Development Goals target on access to safe drinking-water, as measured by the proxy indicator of access to improved drinking-water sources, but more needs to be done to achieve the sanitation target.
We hear the bad news, but the good news creeps by without a mention. We should not be surprised; it has always been this way.
The advances of the past lead us inexorably into a new future built on the achievements of the past. The recent leaps in AI and robotics will totally transform human experience. The merging of AI+Robotics will see the advent of humanoid robots with Artificial General Intelligence, creating universal machines that have the potential to free humans from the need to work. All work, not just manual labour, but all labour, white collar and blue collar. Dramatic yes. World-changing, yes. A nirvana, mmm, maybe. It does pose a serious challenge for humanity. Imagine our world in a decade, with universal machines capable of replacing all the drudgery in your life. It may sound wonderful, especially after a day of hassles. But what will you do with all that time? How will humanity reorganise itself? Like most developments that have the potential to create a golden future, there are potential abuses, which are usually of equal importance. So not all a bed of roses.
A recent Elon Musk presentation challenged us to imagine the possibilities. The guru himself explains this in the video below.
Good intentions, bad results!
It is a sad truism that despite the best of intentions, too many projects fail. Why is this so? Well, of course, there can be many reasons for failure, but we can see a common theme for many failures.
Consider the multi-decade project to lift the living standards of Australian aborigines. Successive Australian governments have invested vast amounts of capital, both public and political, into reducing the 'GAP'. This GAP is a well-defined set of social measures that shows aboriginal communities, especially those living in remote areas, have lower standard of living than average Australians. Yet, year after year, we see limited improvements.
There have been multiple parliamentary enquiries with input from the communities and their representatives. They have compiled lists of recommendations. New bodies with substantial government money have been formed. They have been given the authority, the resources and the means to implement programs that address all the recommendations. This has been going on for decades, with only small improvements in the GAP. After each review, new recommendations are generated, which always entail more money and onerous commitments. While the government has been spending some $A30 billion pa, Aboriginal activists say this is not enough; they want a change to the Australian Constitution to create yet another special body, called the Voice, comprising a selected group of Aboriginals to advise government on all legislation that could affect the Aboriginal community. This was taken to the Australian people through a referendum, and it was defeated with a resounding NO vote. (Thank goodness!)
This is not over; we have yet to see what our newly elected Labor government will do. I would not be surprised if they tried to create a legislated Voice that did not require a constitutional change.
That is by the by. I only used this as an example of the failure of good intentions.
So why do these good intentions fail? The simple answer is incentives. Intentions do not cause a change, but incentives do. If one invests a pot of gold each year to reduce the GAP. Those receiving the money will want to keep receiving it, so they will not have any incentive to reduce the GAP but an incentive to NOT reduce it.
This is a general principle: you cannot solve any problem if your incentives do not provide a reward for solving the problem.
I have to confess my theme was triggered by a recent video from Konstantin Kisin. The video gives several examples of where this has worked or failed. It's well worth a view.
Abundant Energy drives the modern world
Energy and electricity policies have attracted me over the past week. This is partly due to recent discussions I have had with my circle of friends and YouTube's tendency to base its recommendations on one's previous selections. Despite this, I can not resist posting this video by Bjorn Lomborg, also presented at an ARC conference. Lomborg is well-known for his economic evaluation of the impact of Climate change. He calls out the lunacy of current climate policies that cost more than the projected economic impact of the climate change they are trying to remediate. Along the way, he dismisses many of the fallacious claims climate zealots use to panic the population into accepting climate policies that are not cost-effective.
Another must-see!
Australia's renewables obsession
After the defeat of the opposition parties at the recent election, there is nothing to prevent Labor's drive to decarbonise Australia's electricity grid, no matter the cost. And the cost will be much higher than the already unprecedented energy costs that households and industry have already borne. Many have warned the government that its path will cost too much. The costs will fall on the poorest in our society and continue to drive manufacturing offshore. Despite the warnings and real-world experience of countries that have already taken the renewables path, the Labor government insists that "renewables provide the lowest cost of electricity".
Gerard Holland at the ARC conference in Australia addressed these issues in a clear and direct presentation. In the presentation, he identifies all the cost components for the competing electricity generation technologies and conclusively demonstrates that an all-renewables solution will cost ~$2,500 vs ~$850B for nuclear and ~$550B for coal. (See the table below, taken from the presentation.)
This video is a must-see.
Progress on fusion?
I remain sceptical that fusion energy is just around the corner. The technology has been on the precipice for too long to expect a sudden breakthrough. It seems much of the media has also taken this view, so we have heard little about it for some time. Yet, there seem to be some green shoots. I came across this video about a 'breakthrough' in plasma stability. The novel German design has achieved an unprecedented 8 minutes of operation. This may not seem much, but compared to the alternative designs recorded in the seconds, it is major. I won't bother you with the technicalities, I am not an expert, but you could glean a bit of the excitement of this achievement from the video below.
Perhaps the video is a bit overenthusiastic, but it is worth a view.
