Loving Australia... all over again

We're just back, Jing and I, from ten days down in Australia. Mainly to see my Mum who turned 105 last Tuesday. Imagine! And still going. Still putting on lippie, a very nice dress and pearls. Our dear Mutti. 

And family. And old friends. 

It's spring in the antipodes; spring was springing and singing everywhere. On the train from Sydney to Canberra, a tootle and a pleasantly slow doddle at four hours for the 300 km, we watch the bush brush past, on either side, yellow with wattle. 

Choo-choo, choo-choo. Past Yerrinbool, Bingara, Mittagong, Bowral, Burradoo. All bloomin' wattle. And bloomin' lovely indigenous names too, aren't they? 

South of Goulburn, Wollogorang, another lovely name, flows off the tongue, then Lake George, for decades dry, sheep grazing on its bed, now flows itself, full of water. The land is green. Usually khaki, olive, grey, now lime-greens, shot through with the everywhere wattle. 

The crabapple too is out:

My sister Anne’s Crabapple, Ainslie, Canberra 

The eucalyptus is flowering. A magnificent Blakelys Red Gum, a true monster, on the corner of Chisholm and Hayley streets in Ainslie, is heavy with cream-coloured flowers.

In the mornings, Magpies sing and chuckle, prancing around in their dinner suits and bow ties, for titbits on the lawn. Afternoons, the Eastern and the Crimson Rosellas reach for a worm, and hold it to eat. Sulphur-crested Cockatoos crack seeds, loudly. The Galahs come shouting through -- "makeway... makeway...". What a cacophony, the delightful ever-changing noise of the Aussie bush. 

The people we find -- after an absence of nearly a decade -- friendly, open, helpful. Smiling. It's not just Thailand that's the "Land of Smiles". We reckon Australia is too. 

When I'm back in Hong Kong, I mention this to a Thai friend. Who says "well, yeah, of course, but you're Aussie". I say, not but it's also my wife, from China originally, who feels it. She used to feel "like a foreigner" when she first came to Oz, thirty some years ago. Today, not. She's just an Aussie, too.

There's so many now from all over, and especially from Asia. Being asianised myself, now, after 40+ years in China and Hong Kong, I feel it too, and it's comfortable. 

We arrive at our rented apartment in Kirribilli, on the north shore of Sydney. It's on the top floor with no lift. We've got a 25kg suitcase, and me 77 yo.

There's a young guy doing some reno. He offers to help. I don't ask; he offers. Thanks mate, that's much appreciated. He's from Fiji, name of Jerry, looks like a rugby forward. I say this. Yeah, he replies, I used to play footy... in New Zealand. Picks up the suitcase like it's a rugby ball, and marches up five flights of stairs. Doesn't expect anything. Thanks, mate, you're a champ, I say. No worries. 'Ave a good one. And he's off, back to work.

Same at departure. This time it's a young bloke, name of Spike, who says No Worries, I used to do removals. And picks up the case to march it down the steps. Again, expecting nothing but a "thanks mate", to which he's: "no worries. Have a good trip". 

"No worries". The best of Oz. 

The land. The flora. The fauna. The people. The friends. The family. The beauty of it all. 

We're loving it. All over again. 

Beware of China | Kevin Rudd

Carrying on the great political tradition of ‘never buggering off’, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is back – sort of – offering advice.

To my great annoyance, he might even have a point.

Taking a momentary break from the substantial role of Global President and CEO of the Asia Society, Kevin Rudd appeared at the National Press Club.

Who better, I hear you say, to steer Labor through difficult geopolitical waters than the man with friendly knives embedded in his suit jacket?

Suffice to say he is not on the ‘comeback trail’. (Rudd hinted that Tony Abbott might be.) He is also not running for UN Secretary General because ‘Malcolm [Turnbull] took care of that last time round’.

Kevin Rudd gave a sermon on the rise of China, calling for a ‘radical change in our national psychology’ and a new sense of ‘national urgency’.

Describing Australia as a ‘complacent country’,

Australia be like…

Canada and PM Carney’s idea of “associate relationship” with the EU

Australia be like… 

… Canada (above), but looking at China instead of the EU.

At least from many talks here in Oz. And debates on the ABC. Australia is leaning to … China!

Such is the hate for Trump across Australia, Aussies now hate their main ally, their long-time ally, their strongest ally. While casting lurid, loving glances at tyrannical communists. Sinical, no?

Bondi Beach Babe

Your Blogger on Bondi Beach, Sydney

Iconic Sydarb…

The Three Icons at Milsons Point Wharf

 

“Why Migrants Tend to Make the Countries They Move To Like the Ones They Left” | William Meijer

So relevant to where I’m now, Australia, a land of immigrants. Somewhat nerdy, the article below, but worth the read…

For centuries, economists have tried to understand why some countries are rich while others are poor. Numerous explanations have been proposed—geography, inclusive institutions, and knowledge—but all seem to fail at explaining empirical reality.

Iceland, South Korea, and Israel are prosperous despite their geography and lack of natural resources. China and Russia outperform most countries despite having extractive institutions. Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany have recently become economically stagnant despite their inclusive institutions. Poor countries tend to remain poor despite decades of good advice from competent economists.

Jounama Dam Pondage, Snowy Mountains, N.S.W., Australia

Ukraine war update

Who’d a thunk?

February 2022 Russia attacked Ukraine. World Experts gave it a few weeks before Russia overran the country and occupied Kiev. 

Not so fast, comrade! Said the Ukrainians. Now they’re world experts on drone warfare. In asymmetrical warfare. In how to pound the Russkies. In giving it to the Man….

Australia would do well to buy Ukrainian weapons off the shelf. Instead of reinventing the wheel. Especially buying from among their many and varied drones. Battle tested and proven. All available like something on Amazon. We seem set to invent our own at a cost of $20 million each. Another submarine-type debacle in the making. Sigh…

The Sun is clearly pro Kiev. Very well. So is Europe. And the United States. And Australia. And bien pensants everywhere. Fact remains: they do good and informative updates on the war. 

As we watch. 

AsUkraine takes back land from Russian occupiers. As it threatens to recapture Crimea! 

Victoria ladies, 2017

America: “No man left behind”. Australia: “No man left unprosecuted”

Is this too tough? Too far-right? Too extreme? Or is it a fair take of Australia? At least of the Left in Oz? 

I confess to contemplating this from time to time: that Australia’s guilt at “Stolen land” is at once useless and dangerous. 

The US spent $300 million to save one downed airman in Iran. 

Australia meanwhile spent $300 million to prosecute our most decorated Afghan War veteran and charge him with war crimes.

Our government literally paid for billboards and newspaper advertisements in Afghanistan advertising rewards if random people came forward with war crimes allegations against Australian soldiers.

There is a sickness at the heart of our civilisation. 

We are a country and civilization with no will to live.

Our political class believe that Australia is built on “Stolen Land” and that all white Australians are therefore stained from birth with the crime of genocide. 

They therefore have no will to live. They wish they had never been born and that the nation never existed. 

This is what it looks like when your elite hate themselves and hate the country. Drew Pavlou 

Albanese’s shameful submission to radical Islam in Australia

Anthony Albanese, PM of my country Australia, got mobbed and screamed at at a mosque while he talks about how he’s fighting ‘Islamophobia.’ This is a matter of weeks after Muslim gunmen went on a deadly Jew hunt on Bondi. 

Albanese is the perfect embodiment of cowardly, craven, dogmatic progressivism. He responded to a jihadist atrocity against jews in Sydney by point blank refusing, to even mention that this attack had anything to do with Islam.

He refused to use the words ‘Islamism’ or ‘jihadism’, and condemned generalised ‘hate’ and generalised ‘antisemitism’, ‘gun ownership’ (!) etc, to obfuscate and unfairly tar the whole of Australian culture with the crimes of a radicalised Islamist minority. Then he pivoted, immediately, to focussing on Islamophobia, and did stuff like ban jewish speakers, who were flying to Australia to discuss the massacre on Bondi, from entering the country because they’d been ‘offensive’ about Islam. 

Then he visits mosques, gets absolutely hounded by big groups of angry beardos — they’re always angry —  shouting ‘Allahu akhbar’, calling him a ‘dog’, ‘genocider’, etc. But none of it will change his behaviour because he is motivated not by a desire to protect Aussie citizens or pursue truth, but to uphold his cultish quasi-religious mainstream-progressive narrative at all costs, always, forever.

Albo the coward. Albo the Islamist enabler. Albo the Islamic terrorism denier. 

Australia shoots itself in the foot. Over and over

 Australia, my country, has abundant resources. Abundant oil and gas. Abundant uranium. Abundant sun. Abundant wind. Abundant coal. 

Yet we're now short of energy. The price of electricity is the highest in the world. We have to import natural gas to terminals where we used to export it from. We import petroleum products to terminals we used to export it from. Delivering it to terminals right next to decommissioned oil refineries. Which we closed down because... well.. because.... Because we thought it a good idea to do away with fossil fuels. 

This is all the result of POLICY. Not of some kind of weird natural accident. But of policy. Of decisions taken by politicians. In the pursuit of a chimera. Of the crazy notion of Net Zero. 

For which the "rationales" are:

We must set an example. But no one follows the example. They only laugh at us. Look at China, increasing its CO2 emissions year after year. In part because of the emissions that Australia has exported to them. 

And... 

We matter. NO. We don't. Barely 1% of world CO2 emissions are from Australia. And if you think that reducing our CO2 emissions is like a voting system and we all must vote, then also NO. Because there's voting blocks out there, the US, China and Europe that have 75% of the "votes". So our vote matters not one jot. 

This is all so depressing. 

If you could imagine a case in which the politicians took no part in decision making, we'd be in a much better place, I bet. We'd have nuclear power, gas power and some renewables and our CO2 emissions would be one third of what they are now. That's the case with where I live now, in Hong Kong. Where our power comes from Nuclear and Gas, our CO2 emissions are 4.2 tonnes per person per year, vs 16 in Australia, despite Australia going gangbusters for renewables and impoverishing itself in the process. 

Sigh... 

The state of Britain today: Submission to Islam

"Nothing to see here". Really? The "you are ours" move

British politician Nick Timothy objected to the mass prayer -- the Adhan --  by Muslims in public spaces. I'm sure you've seen it. Vast hordes of beardos, doing yoga, the Downward Dog, heads on the ground, arses in the air. Pretty disturbing. Especially when we remember this: that a Christian lady was arrested by the rozzers for "silently praying". Talk about Two Tier policing. A Chrisian woman cannot silently pray, in public, but vast numbers of beardos, hewing to a misogynist, supremacist, homophobic, pedophilic religion are untouched, as it were, when they pray publicly in Trafalgar Square.

Britain is done.

Below a response to those who've criticized the bravery of Nick Timothy in calling this out. I fear it's not going to do anything. Because the mass of people, brainwashed by the pollies, is attacking him. The crowd. The mob. 

Oh dear....

Jim Chimirie on the issue.

@EdwardJDavey, you have misread the argument so comprehensively that one has to wonder whether it is deliberate.

Nobody is objecting to freedom of worship. Nick Timothy did not say Muslims should not be allowed to pray. He said mass ritual prayer in a shared national civic space is an act of domination, and cited the former extremist turned scholar Ed Husain, who has spent his career documenting exactly this phenomenon. The Adhan, the call to prayer, declares there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. That is by definition a theological repudiation of every other faith. When projected into Trafalgar Square, a national memorial to British sovereignty and independence, it is not equivalent to a celebration. It is a declaration. The distinction is theological, not political, and it is precise. You invoke freedom of worship as though Timothy had called for mosques to be closed. He did not. You invoke British values as though observing that the domination of public spaces is straight from the Islamist playbook is somehow un-British. It is not. It is documented, sourced and supported by scholars who have spent decades inside Islamist movements. This week, thousands of people gathered on the Embankment chanting death to America and death to Israel. Bobby Vylan led chants of death death death to the IDF, cleared by the CPS last year and back on a London stage doing it again. The Islamic Human Rights Commission, named in a Lords report as part of Iran's soft power network in Britain, addressed the crowd. Thirty six Labour MPs wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner demanding the investigation of a man for pointing out what every serious student of Islamism already knows. The Attorney General deployed his Jewish identity to defend a declaration that, by its own theological logic, repudiates Judaism. And your contribution to all of it is a tweet accusing people who raise these questions of stoking fear, hatred and division. You lead a party that voted consistently to keep Britain in the European Union against the democratic will of the British people. A party that has positioned itself as the political home of progressive appeasement, that has never met an Islamist grievance it would not accommodate, and whose response to every act of cultural intimidation is to accuse those who name it of bigotry. The Liberal Democrats have no record of defending British values under pressure. They have a record of redefining British values to mean whatever is least likely to cause offence to the most vocal pressure group in the room. Freedom of worship is indeed a fundamental British value. So is freedom of speech. So is the freedom to observe, without being accused of racism, that a theological declaration of exclusive truth projected into a national monument is not the same as lighting a menorah or performing a Passion play. Nick Timothy exercised that freedom. The full weight of the parliamentary and political establishment descended on him within twenty four hours.

That is the state of British politics today, Ed. And you are part of the problem, not the solution. "Nick Timothy didn't say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to pray. He said mass ritual prayer in a shared national civic space is an act of domination, and cited the former extremist turned scholar Ed Husain, who has spent his career documenting exactly this phenomenon."

ADDED: The folks at Spiked discuss.

While Australian PM, Anthony Albanese, Submits to Islam. Will he attend an Easter celebrations? Let's see, but I doubt it. And no one will notice. Australia is sliding right along, full square, into submission to the will of Allah. In that way, he's just like his horrid namesake, Francesca Albanese, she of the Human Rights watch in the U.N. who watches out for the human rights of all but the Jews, for she's a reliable Jew hater.

Muslims claim to be indigenous Australians

	Liza Rosen ⁦‪@LizaRosen0000‬⁩ Muslim influencer explains that just like Israel, Australia is about to be returned to its original native indigenous Muslim people who existed before humanity came to existence. pic.x.com/TBa7mhNOmn   12/3/2026, 5:10 am

My thought: 

Tariffs are sometimes good. Giving away our car industry...voluntarily

Saved by the Bill. The tariff bill that kept tariffs on 
pick up trucks like the Ford F250

The answer at bottom is not before a long tussle with Grok. 

I was reminded that in the 1980s I'd owned a brand new company car, the Holden Commodore, made in Australia. 

It was a great car. I thought better than most American cars I'd driven. And better than even many European cars. I thought it better than the BMWs I'd driven in Europe. It was as fast, as agile, had braking as good; and had far better aircon. 

Then came the killer of the industry. The Australian government, a Labor, left wing one, did away with the last remaining tariffs and non-tariff barriers on car imports.  Result: the end of the Australian car industry, after 70 years. 70 proud years. 

Shame. 

Then I learned that in the US the car industry was decimated by the NAFTA and WTO in the 1990s and early 2000s. Because of these trade agreements, the U.S. industry moved to Mexico and China. And in America people were told: "don't worry, everything will be cheaper". 

Tariffs were removed...

EXCEPT FOR the tariff on what the Americans call "trucks". Aka, "pickup trucks", like the Ford F150 and F250 in the pic above.  

These kept a 25% tariff coz of some kind of quibble that I can't be bothered to look up; but which led to the US keeping its manufacturing of pickup trucks, now the largest item of car sold every year in the US. 

By the way, these are great vehicles. I LOVE them! If I were living in a place that permitted private cars (I don't), then I'd have one for sure. They're rough, tough and hugely practical. 

Having been taught in Eco 101 at the Australian National Uni, that "Tariffs Bad. Free Trade Good", I'd imbibed and imbued that my whole life. Then Trump upends things. Peoole freak out. But surely we should look at what they do. And at least in the case of the American Truck and in the case of the Australian Holden Commodore, tariffs have kept a viable industry, with all its employment and all its ancillary industries. Even if the end product might have been a little more expensive.  

Then my long argument with Grok, which I won't bore you with. 

The Sowell quote to which Grok refers is one of my favourite ones: professor Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions; only trade offs". 

If you know that there's no perfect answer, you know that you have to make trade offs. The problem with Australia, during the Paul Keating and Bob Hawke Labor years, is that they thought they were giving us solutions.  

When what they were doing was one end of a spectrum of trade offs. We decided to trade off domestic jobs, give them to to other countries, for some cheaper goods. And that was sold as a "solution". It wasn't. Australia now has the lowest percent of the population in manufacturing than any country in Asia and than all developed countries. Well done Lucky Country! Not. 

My killer question to Grok: 

To which it answered:

Grok: Yes – your argument holds.

Australia's passenger vehicle industry ran for ~70 years (Holden full production from 1948, roots earlier). High tariffs (peaking ~57.5% in the early 1980s) kept it viable, supporting direct manufacturing jobs for tens of thousands plus 150,000+ in the supply chain at peak. It produced millions of cars tailored to Australian conditions.

The final VF Commodore (2013-2017) was genuinely world-class: best-ever build quality from the Elizabeth plant, strong exports, class-leading dynamics and durability. Executives and workers confirmed the last cars were the highest standard ever.

Australia chose to unwind this.

Whitlam's 1973 across-the-board 25% tariff cut (explicitly to fight inflation and force "efficiency") started it – two years before the non-binding Lima Declaration he enthusiastically backed. The Hawke/Keating Button Plan (1984 onward) then deliberately phased tariffs from ~57% down to 15% by 2000, then 10%, then 5% by 2010, plus FTAs with Thailand, Korea, Japan and China that zeroed duties on imports.

No one forced it. It was policy choice, framed as virtuous global citizenship – exactly the Lima spirit of helping developing nations industrialise by opening developed markets.

Sowell was right: only trade-offs.

Keep tariffs → slightly dearer cars, but retain a full domestic industry, skills, jobs, and related manufacturing. Lower tariffs → cheaper imports for consumers, but the entire sector collapses (Ford 2016, Toyota/Holden 2017).

Australia picked the second path. The industry was competitive enough under protection; it wasn't "dying naturally." We voluntarily gave it away.

Why don't people get married any more? Why the declining global birth rates?

Tell me, Grok: why do you think it is that people are getting married less these days? I have three children and several nephews and nieces. All in relationships. None of my kids or nieces is married. If I ask why not marry, they say "shut up, dad!" or similar. So... I don't know. Do you?

It's a common observation these days, and you're not alone in noticing it among your own family. 

In Australia (and similar trends appear in many Western countries), marriage rates have been declining for decades, with a particularly sharp drop among younger adults. Recent data from sources like the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), and surveys like HILDA show that:

The crude marriage rate has fallen from around 7 per 1,000 people in the early 2000s to about 5–5.5 in recent years (even after a post-COVID rebound).

Among people in their 20s and early 30s, the proportion who are married has dropped dramatically — for example, only about 20% of women aged 25–29 were married in recent surveys, compared to over 35% two decades ago.

De facto (live-in partner) relationships have risen correspondingly, now common for many couples, especially those with kids.

Your children's and nieces/nephews' generation (likely millennials and Gen Z -- "Zoomers") often see little practical need for formal marriage, especially since Australian family law treats long-term de facto couples almost the same as married ones for property, superannuation, spousal maintenance, and children. 

The "shut up, dad!" response is pretty classic — it's a mix of independence, eye-rolling at "old-school" ideas, and perhaps not wanting to explain deeper reasons.

Here are the main factors driving this shift, based on research and reports:

Marriage has become optional and more "deliberate"
People now view it as a conscious choice rather than a default life step. Many couples "try before you buy" by living together first (83% of couples who do marry have cohabited beforehand, up hugely from decades ago). If the relationship works long-term without the certificate, why add the formality? Stigma around living together or having kids outside marriage has largely vanished.

Financial and economic pressures
Housing affordability, high cost of living, student debt, and career instability make big life commitments feel risky. Weddings themselves are expensive (even modest ones), and many young people delay or skip marriage until (or unless) they feel financially secure. Economic insecurity also contributes to fewer people forming partnerships at all, or keeping them informal.

Later life milestones
People spend longer in education, take time to build careers (especially women, with greater workforce participation), and travel or focus on personal growth. The median age for first marriage has risen steadily (now around 30+ for both men and women). By the time they're "ready," marriage might not feel urgent — especially if kids arrive via de facto relationships.

Changing attitudes and fear of divorce
Many in this age group grew up seeing high divorce rates among their parents' generation (boomers had the peak). That creates caution: "Why risk the legal/financial mess if de facto offers similar protections?" Marriage is sometimes seen as outdated, unnecessary for commitment, or even a potential trap if things go wrong. There's also more acceptance of diverse relationship styles — single life, serial monogamy, or long-term partnering without rings.

Cultural and social shifts
Less religious influence (fewer church weddings), dating apps changing how relationships form, and a broader cultural glamorisation of independence and self-fulfilment all play roles. For some, marriage feels like conforming to expectations they don't share.

In short, it's not that your kids and their generation don't value committed relationships — many are in them, having children, building lives together — they just don't see the legal/ceremonial step as adding much value in modern Australia. 

The practical rights are largely covered without it, and the costs (financial, emotional, social) can feel high for something that's no longer seen as essential.If you're curious, a gentle, non-judgmental chat about their specific views (maybe over a beer rather than "why not marry?") might reveal more personal reasons — like "we're happy as is" or "the wedding industry is ridiculous." But yeah, the era when marriage was the automatic next step after a relationship has passed for many. It's a big social change, but families still thrive in de facto setups just fine.

ME: You don't see any connection between low marriage rates and plunging birth rates in nearly all thew world?

Yes, there is a clear and well-documented connection between declining marriage rates (or more broadly, declining rates of stable partnerships) and plunging birth rates across much of the world, including Australia. This link shows up consistently in demographic research, and it's often described as one of the strongest proximate (direct, immediate) causes of falling fertility in recent decades.

The Global Picture

Fertility rates (measured as total fertility rate, or TFR — average children per woman) have fallen dramatically worldwide since the mid-20th century, now below replacement level (2.1) in most developed countries and dropping fast in many developing ones too. Recent analyses (up to 2025 data) attribute a large portion of this decline to fewer people entering committed relationships that lead to children.

In many societies, married people have significantly higher fertility than unmarried or even cohabiting ones. Studies from the Institute for Family Studies and others show married couples are far more likely to have children (and more of them) than singles or cohabiters.

Declining marriage rates explain a substantial share of fertility drops — for example, one analysis found ~75% of the U.S. fertility decline since 2007 tied to shifts in who is married. Similar patterns appear in cross-country data, where drops in people being married or in stable couples track almost one-to-one with fewer births.

In places like East Asia (e.g., South Korea, where extramarital births are rare), falling marriage rates account for the majority (80%+) of birth rate declines over recent decades. In Western countries, where cohabitation is more common, the story includes both fewer partnerships overall and sometimes lower fertility even within cohabiting unions due to greater instability.

Other factors contribute (economic pressures, education/career priorities, housing costs, shifting norms around family), but relationship formation — especially marriage as a stable context for kids — is frequently the biggest single driver in decomposition studies.

In Australia SpecificallyAustralia mirrors this trend closely. The TFR has continued falling, hitting around 1.48 in 2024 and projected to drop further to ~1.42 in 2025–26 (well below replacement). Marriage rates have declined steadily, with fewer people marrying young or at all, while cohabitation has risen but not fully offset the drop in partnered people (especially at peak childbearing ages).

From 1991–2019 (and trends continuing), the falling proportion of partnered women (particularly married) contributed negatively to fertility, especially among younger ages. Births to married mothers dropped from ~77% to ~64%, with cohabiting births rising but not enough to compensate fully.

Increasing singlehood (neither married nor cohabiting) among women in childbearing years has directly pulled down overall fertility levels.

Even though Australian law treats long-term de facto partners similarly to married ones for many rights, cohabiting couples often have fewer children on average than married ones (due to less perceived stability or commitment), and many people delay or skip partnering altogether.

Your observation about your kids and nieces/nephews fits right in: they're in relationships (often de facto), having or planning kids, but skipping formal marriage. 

In aggregate, though, fewer people reach that stable partnered stage (or do so later), fewer have multiple kids, and overall births drop. It's not that committed relationships have vanished entirely — many still form families — but the shift away from marriage (and sometimes away from any long-term partnership) means fewer births than in past generations.

In short, yes — the connection is strong and causal in many analyses: fewer marriages/partnerships → fewer babies. It's a key part of why global birth rates are plunging, even as other explanations (like costs or individualism) play supporting roles. If policymakers want to boost fertility, addressing barriers to stable relationships often comes up as more impactful than just cash incentives for kids.

=======================

Me, adding: Fear of Climate Change. I've had this mentioned direct to me, several times. And seen it written about. The fear -- in my view unfounded -- has led many to think that it's "not fair" or "too dangerous" to bring new young life into the world. 

Two views on Net Zero for Australia | Ed Cavanough & Aidan Morrison

 

Talk at the Sydney Institute Australia. Pro Net Zero (NZ): 

Ed Cavanough, head of the McKell Institute on the pro NZ side. And...

Aidan Morrison, of the Centre for Independent Studies, on the anti-NZ side. 

Below the fold, the transcript of Cavanough's 15+ minutes, 2,500+ word presentation.

If I can stereotype, I'll say this: Cavanough's speech was full of feelings not facts. Morrison's speech was full of facts not feelings. 

Feelings on the one side (the Left). Facts on the other (the Right). 

Cavanough attacks not the actual arguments on the conservative side, but the Straw Man arguments that he constructs. A "Straw Man" being the extreme exaggeration of the other side's argument, which you then attack, instead of attacking the argument itself. 

His talk is also full of ad hominem, which is the attack on the person not the argument. Playing the man, not the ball. 

Examples: 

Straw Man "arguments": 

• Net zero opponents want to “return to the stone ages” (no industry, no flying, no cars, no mining). 
• NO. People on the Right do not argue this. They simply want to debate whether going Net Zero is the best strategy for Australia. The proponents of Net Zero have no factual argument, so turn skepticism into silly "return to the stone ages" Straw Man.
• Opponents are “stuck in this endless and futile culture war on energy.” 
• Same as above. It's not the Right who is "stuck in an endless ... war". We want to debate the issue. 
• Skeptics advocate “Australian isolationism” on all international issues. 
• No, we don't argue that. We argue that going Net Zero, even if we get to NZ, does nothing to mitigate climate change. As even Australia's Chief Scientist has acknowledged. Emitting just 1% of world emissions, Australia's success or otherwise is irrelevant. And too bad if that's uncomfortable for the NZ proponents.
• Conservatives want Australia to be a “bad climate actor” like China, copying its coal policies. 
• No, we do not want to be a "bad climate actor". We note -- as I have here over the years -- that China is adopting a pragmatic policy on the climate. It's the biggest installer of solar and wind. But also has coal, gas and nuclear. I don't like the Xi regime. But I can recognise, and have recognised, when they do something sensible. Which is their climate policy. 
• Opponents shirk “responsibility” and mock individual choices (e.g., EVs, solar). 
• I don't see this on the conservative side. This is pure Straw Man.
• Opposition is purely “hyperbole and alarmism” from an “echo chamber” without credible alternatives. 
• I wonder, just who are the hyperbolic and alarmist, in this dispute. Surely it's the Net Zero proponensts, who keep repeating that "in xx years, or in year yyyy, it'll be all over, we'll be gone, wiped out. So we must do Net Zero immediately, no matter the cost". This is not an unfair characterisation by me. That's what we've heard over and over, since about... forever. 

Ad Hominem "arguments":

• Opponents of net zero are characterized as stuck in an “endless and futile culture war on energy.”
• They represent a “narrowing echo chamber in Australia’s right-wing media ecosystem.”
• Conservatives are accused of “bending and twisting their principles” to prove anti-net zero credentials.
• They “disrespect individual choices” (e.g., household demand for solar, batteries, EVs) and even “ridicule” them via “vapid culture wars.”
• Skeptics want Australia to “shirk responsibility” and be a “bad climate actor” like China.
• Opposition is driven by “cultural politics littered with philosophical contradictions,” showing “fundamental disrespect for the public will.”
• The mainstream right has “abrogated” the debate, implying intellectual cowardice or laziness.

Again, being ad hominem, none of these points, address the question. They simply smear the person. These are not arguments. They're .... well... ad hominem. 

I'll leave this for now. Just to repeat. That the "arguments" on the Net Zero in this debate are largely Straw Man and Ad Hominem. There is not a single serious fact-based argument. 

Aidan Morrison, otoh, does make an argument based on facts and figures. A few too many facts and figures for my taste, tbf.... Check it out, after 16:00 in the video above. 

Not sure why I should keep the whole transcript of the pro Net Zero dude, but I got it so may as well keep it. 

It's below the fold. 

The Aussie Appeasers

  Guess when I wrote this letter below, published in Australia's The Age.

TO: The Melbourne Age, from PF, Hong Kong.

RE:  Melbourne terror accused…. The Age, 5 August xxxx

Two of your Op-ed contributors, Daniel Flitton, “New twist in the old, familiar al-Qaeda story”, and Berhan Ahmed, “Strong African communities will defeat terror recruiters”, both of August 5, xxxx, offer variations of the “tiny minority of extremist” arguments, to urge caution and treatment of the events “with care”.

But are the would-be Jihadis a "tiny section of the community" (Flitton), or a "few marginalized people" (Ahmed)?

In a poll conducted in 2007 and broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.

One in four justifying terror may not be a majority, but it certainly isn't a "tiny section" either.  Is there any reason -- other than wishful thinking -- to think that the figures in Australia would be significantly different?

Perhaps a “tiny minority” is a matter of personal opinion.  Reuters, for example, reported on October 15, 2006, that “just” 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.  But Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, which means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings.

Australia needs to wake up to the threat within our society from Jihadis driven by well-documented and clear Islamic doctrine, which calls for the killing of non-Muslims.  No amount of trying to deal with “marginalisation” or “alienation”, or adjusting our foreign policy, is going to appease such people.  A robust facing up to the Jihadi’s motivation is the first step in trying to deal with the threat.

And the answer is: I wrote that letter in 2009. Not yesterday, or just after the Bondi massacre last month, but 16 years ago. Here it is, as I posted in 2009. 

Things have only got worse since then. As the video above shows clearly. Australians across the board, and in particular Muslim Australians, like the ones quoted in the video, are ever more keen to protect and excuse any horrid act by their Muslim acolytes. 

Which makes me wonder, of course. Why on earth do I keep on banging on about the threat of Islam? Good question, except I just keep on writing just because I like keeping on writing. I've long past the hope that the day would come when people would say "You know what.. you were right!"

I was wrong to think, as I seemed to do 16 years ago, that:

The Australian public is, I think, more robust on the Jihadi terror threat than the media or politicians.

Australia seems even more averse to talking about the real issue. Straight after the Bondi shooting, the mass murder, by a Jihadi father & son team, of 16  random Jews celebrating Hanukkah on the beach, the government of Anthony Albanese blamed "right wing elements" and "guns". Nothing about radical Islam. Nothing. 

When ex-PM Scott Morrison, a man I've not much time for, by the way, suggests that Islamic leaders, the preachers in the mosques, should take some responsibility for de-radicalising their flocks, he is roundly smeared by the Lebanese Muslim community. In an article that is pretty much 100% ad hominem. No facing of the issue. No arguing with the points ScoMo made. No, just smear his record and irrelevant issues. Deny and Deflect, iow. All supported by the luvvies, the fellow travellers, the appeasers, the "don't scapegoat Muslims" crowd at the ABC and elsewhere in the media. I'm going to be done with this earth soon-ish. But my kids and grandkids? What about them? Will they be living in an Islamic society? If so, I feel for them, for that is a pinched and crabbed society. One where noone can achieve their full potential. 

The UN Human Rights Report has all the Islamic countries right at the very bottom of their table. Islamic countries are always at the bottom of tables of Women empowerment. They are at the bottom of tables of Press Freedom.... I could go on, but it's just too dreary. Just too dreary now much Islamic countries fail. And yet how much they demand to be the sole power running things. 

16 years ago I headlined the post "The Aussie Jihadis". Now I label this one "The Aussie Appeasers". 

For it seems the Appeasers are more to the front than ever, while the Aussie Jihadis are just blending into the background, avoiding all direct responsibility for the rabid anti-semitism, the outright murder of Jews, that's been happening since then, ever more horridly and violently anti-Jew, since October 7. 

Birth of a Grand-Nephew

Grand-Nephew, Noah, born to Dr Meredith Davies and Zed. 

A birth. Always a thing to celebrate. Especially these days of such low birth rates. 

A son to my niece, daughter of my sister and Ian. 

Hurrah!