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.
Bill Maher is back doing what he does best — cutting through the noise and exposing the hypocrisy of the modern protest movement. In his latest segment, “A Face in the Shroud,” he turns his wit toward the so-called social justice warriors who flood our streets to shout slogans about causes they barely understand, while ignoring the genuine human rights catastrophes happening right before their eyes.
Maher’s target this time? Gender apartheid — the systematic oppression of women in parts of the Muslim world where they are forced to cover their faces, live under male “guardianship,” and risk imprisonment or death for showing their hair or seeking independence. He contrasts this grim reality with the naïve energy of Western protesters chanting for “freedom” in the wrong places, while millions of women are denied even the right to be seen.
With his trademark mix of comedy and outrage, Maher skewers the absurd double standards of those who claim to fight for equality yet turn a blind eye to real apartheid — the one based not on race, but gender. He reminds us that true moral courage isn’t found in campus slogans or viral hashtags, but in standing up for the voiceless, even when it’s politically inconvenient.
It’s one of Maher’s best recent monologues — sharp, fearless, and long overdue.
Do yourself a favour and watch it. It’s just a few minutes, and it might restore your faith that some in the media still dare to tell uncomfortable truths.
Every few decades, a new technology comes along that promises to change everything. The steam engine, electricity, the transistor — and now, perhaps, the quantum battery. What was once the stuff of science fiction is now emerging from physics labs into prototype form. If the promise holds, it could spell the end of the age of oil.
What Are Quantum Batteries?
Traditional batteries, from the ones in your phone to those powering electric cars, store energy using chemical reactions. These reactions are slow, generate heat, and degrade over time — meaning every charge cycle brings them one step closer to failure.
Quantum batteries, by contrast, rely not on chemistry but on quantum mechanics, the branch of physics that governs the strange behaviour of subatomic particles. These particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously (a property called superposition) and can become entangled, meaning the state of one affects another instantaneously — even at a distance.
By exploiting these effects, a quantum battery can store and release energy at a fundamentally faster and more efficient rate. Instead of energy flowing cell-by-cell through a material, it is distributed and absorbed across the entire system at once. This phenomenon, known as quantum superabsorption, means that adding more quantum cells actually speeds up the charging process — the exact opposite of classical batteries.
How Do They Work?
In simplified terms, imagine a cluster of quantum particles all linked through entanglement. When one particle absorbs energy, the whole system absorbs it simultaneously. Because the energy transfer happens through quantum states rather than physical movement of electrons through materials, the process can be almost instantaneous.
The result:
Ultra-fast charging — potentially seconds for an electric car.
Minimal energy loss — almost no heat waste.
Near-infinite lifespan — no chemical degradation.
Where a lithium-ion battery might take 30–60 minutes to charge and lose capacity after a few hundred cycles, a quantum battery could, in theory, charge in moments and last indefinitely.
The Potential Impact
If scaled successfully, the implications are staggering. Energy storage has always been the Achilles heel of renewable energy — wind and solar are clean, but intermittent. The ability to store excess power without losses could finally make renewables self-sufficient and round-the-clock reliable.
Electric vehicles could recharge in seconds.
Homes could store solar energy overnight with zero loss.
Cities could stabilize their power grids without fossil fuels.
Developing nations could leapfrog the oil era entirely, just as they skipped landlines for mobile phones.
It’s no wonder the oil industry is watching nervously. As one executive reportedly wrote in a leaked memo: “If this scales, it’s not gradual disruption — it’s a terminal event for oil.”
The State of Play
The most talked-about development comes from AON Energy, a small Canadian firm that began as a university research project. Their prototypes have reportedly charged devices in seconds with negligible loss. Governments and investors are taking notice — with the Canadian government declaring it a strategic national priority and other nations scrambling to catch up.
Independent scientists, such as Dr. Matteo Reich of the University of Geneva, have confirmed the underlying physics: “This is not hype. It’s real. The challenge is engineering, not theory.”
Pilot-scale demonstrations and early commercial trials are expected within the next two to five years. If successful, large-scale deployment could follow by the end of the decade.
The Drawbacks and Challenges
As with any revolutionary idea, there are caveats.
Quantum batteries are still laboratory prototypes, relying on fragile quantum states that often require ultra-cold conditions or exotic materials. Manufacturing them at scale could prove far more difficult than demonstrating the physics in a lab.
Moreover, the transition away from fossil fuels will create social and economic upheaval. Millions rely on oil and gas for livelihoods, and entire economies depend on petroleum exports. The shift to a quantum-powered world will require careful management, retraining, and global cooperation.
There’s also the issue of hype. Many technologies — from fusion power to room-temperature superconductors — have promised world-changing breakthroughs only to stall at the engineering stage. Quantum batteries may yet face the same fate if practical barriers prove insurmountable.
How Far Away Are They?
Optimistic timelines suggest we could see commercial prototypes within two years, and limited applications within five — most likely in data centers or specialized devices before reaching consumer markets. Full-scale global adoption may take a decade or more, depending on materials, cost, and industrial investment.
A Quantum Future
Despite the hurdles, the direction of progress seems clear. If quantum batteries deliver even part of their promise, they could represent a turning point — not just in energy, but in human civilization itself. For the first time, power would no longer depend on geography or natural resources. It would be something we can create anywhere, instantly, from the strange but powerful rules of the quantum realm.
The age of oil may finally give way to the age of information energy — where the same physics that power quantum computers also power the world.
Australia funds the ABC with more than a billion dollars a year, supposedly to ensure independent, balanced journalism. Yet on the topic of Israel and Hamas, balance has been missing in action — replaced by a relentless framing that casts Israel as aggressor and treats Hamas-approved propaganda as fact.
Chris Kenny’s recent editorial lays bare the problem: ABC reporters echo claims from “Palestinian health officials” — in reality, Hamas — without question. They amplify allegations of “genocide” and “starvation” that are later debunked. They report Hamas narratives from hospitals or prisons as though terrorists never lie.
When falsehoods are platformed repeatedly, what happens? People believe them.
Where does this rage come from? From the stories people are fed.
When the ABC refuses to report key facts — like verified Hamas executions of Palestinians in Gaza — while endlessly portraying Israel as a deliberate killer of civilians, it is manufacturing the anger erupting in our suburbs and schools.
This isn’t just bias.
It’s a public safety failure.
The ABC’s Response? Shoot the Messenger
Instead of reflecting on the errors Chris Kenny exposed, ABC’s Director of News, Justin Stevens, tried to silence Kenny by writing complaint letters to his employer.
A government-funded executive attempting to shut down media criticism of his own organisation.
Accountability?
Transparency?
Forget it.
The ABC insists it has only been “caught out three times” and that there has been “no finding of bias”.
Well — if your internal system can’t find the bias right in front of the nation’s eyes, that only shows the system is broken.
A Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Problem
Let’s be plain:
This war began because Hamas butchered, burned, raped and kidnapped innocent Israelis — gleefully filming the horror.
Israel — a democracy, defending its citizens — is treated by the ABC as morally equivalent to a terrorist death cult.
Or worse.
That false “two sides” moral equivalence allows viewers to justify hatred. To see terrorism as resistance. To accuse Jews in Australia of crimes committed by Hamas in Gaza.
Media shapes the mob.
The ABC has been feeding it.
This Must Stop
A billion-dollar public broadcaster cannot:
✅ refuse accountability
✅ repeat terrorist narratives
✅ ignore atrocities
✅ dismiss criticism
❌ while insisting it alone defines “truth”
At a time when balance is essential, the ABC has stoked the fires of antisemitism. They have helped turn a conflict thousands of kilometres away into a source of division and fear at home.
The ABC must be held to the standard Australians pay for — truth, fairness, and responsibility.
Because biased journalism is not just bad journalism.
Australia has twice gone to the polls to deal with racism in our laws — the landmark 1967 referendum and, more recently, the referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. In both cases, Australians made one point unmistakably clear: we do not want race to determine how our society treats people.
Yet here we are, with more race-based distinctions than ever.
Today, governments at every level, universities, corporations and even public hospitals routinely ask whether you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander — and what follows is often different treatment. It may be called “special measures” or “closing the gap,” but the reality is simple: if you treat people differently based on race, that is racism.
Some argue it is “positive discrimination.” But discrimination in favour of one race always means discrimination against another. That is the opposite of equality — and it breeds resentment. Australians do not want two classes of citizen. We do not want an apartheid-style divide where ancestry determines access, priority or rights. Yet that is exactly the trajectory we are on.
The intention may be good — but the principle is wrong
Addressing real disadvantage is important and necessary. But you don’t need race-based policies to do that.
If someone is struggling — help them.
If someone lacks access to education or healthcare — support them.
But make that support based on need, not bloodline.
Imagine how much stronger and more united Australia would be if assistance flowed to every person facing disadvantage, regardless of their heritage.
What Australians voted for
In 1967, the nation overwhelmingly chose to remove racial distinctions and bring all Australians under equal laws. More recently, Australians again said race should not be the basis for political power or structural advantage. These were not votes against Indigenous Australians. They were votes for one Australia, not two.
It is time our institutions respected that message.
The path back to unity
To rebuild social cohesion, we must:
Stop asking people their race as a routine requirement
Remove race as a condition for services, preference or funding
Address disadvantage wherever it exists — equally
Uphold equality before the law as a lived principle, not just a slogan
If we continue to divide people by ancestry, we should not be surprised when animosity grows. Race-based policies, no matter how well-intentioned, ultimately separate us.
Australians have twice rejected racism. Now we must ensure our governments and institutions do the same.
One nation. One people. Equal treatment — no exceptions.
