full

Episode 406 - Separating Cultural Groups and State

In this episode we look at objections to religious privilege and how that compares to other cultural groups and whether ancestral rights are a valid distinction. Plus other bits and pieces.

To financially support the Podcast you can make:

We Livestream every Monday night at 8:00 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.

You can sign up for our newsletter, which links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and that may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week.

We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can send us a voicemail message at Speakpipe

We have a sister podcast called IFVG Evergreen. It is a collection of evergreen content from the weekly podcast.

Transcripts started in episode 324. You can use this link to search our transcripts. Type "iron fist velvet glove" into the search directory, click on our podcast and then do a word search. It even has a player which will play the relevant section. It is incredibly quick.

Transcript
Speaker:

Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over time,

Speaker:

evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homo sapiens.

Speaker:

But today, we observe a small tribe akin to a group of meerkats that

Speaker:

gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the

Speaker:

current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.

Speaker:

Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the

Speaker:

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Speaker:

Hello and welcome back dear listener, yes, episode 406 of the Iron Fist

Speaker:

and the Velvet Glove podcast, I'm Trevor, with me as always, Scott

Speaker:

the Velvet Glove, how are you Scott?

Speaker:

Good thanks Trevor, g'day Trevor, g'day Joe, g'day listeners,

Speaker:

I hope everyone's doing well.

Speaker:

Hopefully they are.

Speaker:

And Joe, it's...

Speaker:

Morning time for you, and we've brought it forward an hour so you can

Speaker:

run some errands later this morning.

Speaker:

Welcome aboard again, Joe.

Speaker:

Morning, all.

Speaker:

Enjoying your travels over there, Joe?

Speaker:

It's all good fun?

Speaker:

I've been looking after Mum, so it's been hard work, but it's nice

Speaker:

to see her after five years, and a glorious sunshine day after the

Speaker:

miserable few days we've been having.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

Ah, just go for a walk in the English countryside, is that what you do?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Not really, she's got Parkinson's, so walking's quite difficult for her.

Speaker:

Ah, okay.

Speaker:

Alright, well, what are we going to talk about?

Speaker:

Got a few religious issues have cropped up, so we'll talk about those.

Speaker:

And a new speaker in the Congress in the US, and an essential report just

Speaker:

came out looking at people's attitudes to renewable energy and climate change.

Speaker:

Maybe a brief word on Gaza.

Speaker:

So yeah, I haven't done as much preparation as I normally do.

Speaker:

So this one's going to be a little bit scatty, I think.

Speaker:

A little bit more free flowing.

Speaker:

We'll see where we end up on this.

Speaker:

So yeah, all over the shop, probably.

Speaker:

Guys, I didn't give you this one because it just came in late, but, got

Speaker:

this email which was, The Australian Financial Review has an article

Speaker:

suggesting retirees should be allowed to exempt any proceeds from downsizing

Speaker:

from the age pension means test.

Speaker:

People don't want to downsize if they get their pension reduced.

Speaker:

And the writer of this email says, All I see is baby boomer homeowners who

Speaker:

want to have their cake and eat it too.

Speaker:

Why not include home value in the means test?

Speaker:

All these exemptions warp the system into inflating asset prices.

Speaker:

Makes me mad!

Speaker:

Exclamation mark.

Speaker:

I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Speaker:

I think to myself that they should never have exempted the

Speaker:

private home from the assets test.

Speaker:

It's got to be in there because, you know, you're going to find a,

Speaker:

you know, I can just see it now.

Speaker:

You've got this position, you know, you've probably got this woman that Bought the

Speaker:

house in the 30s in Vaucluse and now it's worth over two or three million bucks.

Speaker:

In Vaucluse, try five, six, ten.

Speaker:

Okay, fair enough.

Speaker:

Rightio.

Speaker:

I don't know, but anyway, it's a hell of a lot more and she's going to be sitting

Speaker:

on an aged pension when she's sitting on a, when she's sitting on a property

Speaker:

that's worth five or six million dollars.

Speaker:

So I don't have any complaint with that at all.

Speaker:

I agree wholeheartedly with that bloke.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Joe, you've got a message inter, oh, it's your internet that appears flaky.

Speaker:

The rest of us seem okay.

Speaker:

Hopefully, yes.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, there already is an exemption where if you sell your home and downsize, you

Speaker:

can already roll some of that into super.

Speaker:

I'm not exactly sure of the amount, but I know it's a few hundred

Speaker:

thousand dollars worth for each.

Speaker:

Husband and wife.

Speaker:

So, and then once it's in super, that of course is exempt from a means test.

Speaker:

And it's exempt from income tax and all that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

I'm not sure if it's exempt from the means test.

Speaker:

I would have thought that was just an asset in the means test.

Speaker:

I couldn't tell you.

Speaker:

Maybe if it's, if you've converted it into a income stream, it will be.

Speaker:

It would be exempt from the assets.

Speaker:

Yeah, that would, yeah, because that, that then the income stream forms part

Speaker:

of the income test for the asset and a lot of superannuation income stream is

Speaker:

exempt from the income test as well.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The short answer is as a boomer, you can pour a lot of money into

Speaker:

super and still get Absolutely.

Speaker:

We have a substantial amount of attention.

Speaker:

I'm the first to admit that I am taking advantage of the

Speaker:

income tax laws right now.

Speaker:

You know, I am, I am minimizing my income tax.

Speaker:

I have bought a rental property and I have also.

Speaker:

Put in, uh, what is it, 250 bucks a week this year into superannuation,

Speaker:

you know, it's If the income tax laws are going to be structured this

Speaker:

way, I will take advantage of them.

Speaker:

Thank you Kerry Packer.

Speaker:

Yes Yeah, exactly, you know, yeah, it's fair enough to like no criticism at all.

Speaker:

That's the law that applies.

Speaker:

You're entitled.

Speaker:

Exactly I was I was playing by the rules, you know, and

Speaker:

do I think it's morally right?

Speaker:

No, I don't.

Speaker:

I don't think it's morally right But, these are the rules that the government

Speaker:

has given us to play by, so we've just got to play by the rules, and if you play by

Speaker:

the rules, and if you can make the rules work for you, you just, good luck to you.

Speaker:

What will actually really piss me off is if we go and...

Speaker:

If they change it down the track and they turn around and say, oh yeah, we'll, you

Speaker:

know, we can only have it, you can only have it, you can only have the income

Speaker:

from superannuation tax free for those people that are already 70 years and

Speaker:

older and everyone else that's getting into that stage, you're going to have to

Speaker:

start paying a little bit of income tax.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There's, there's all these no government's prepared to do anything

Speaker:

without grandfathering existing provisions a lot of the time.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

So, which is what it's set up for the boomers.

Speaker:

The boomers are okay.

Speaker:

'cause they're gonna be grandfathered.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

The rest of us aren't, well, hopefully we are getting old enough,

Speaker:

but with every year that passes, we

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But if you're young, no.

Speaker:

What are they, what do they call?

Speaker:

You know, I have said before to the younger people, I have apologised

Speaker:

to them, I've apologised to members of my family, you know, it's,

Speaker:

I was born at the right time.

Speaker:

Yet another reason to vote Green, Scott, because they seem to be the party that's

Speaker:

going to tackle these sorts of things.

Speaker:

Yeah, I suppose.

Speaker:

Hmm, yeah, yeah, sorry, yeah, okay, I got some, I got some things came along.

Speaker:

There was an article about Jehovah's Witness family and being forced.

Speaker:

To allow blood transfusions for their child in an operation.

Speaker:

And also saw an article about a Catholic hospital that wouldn't allow voluntary

Speaker:

assisted dying, which surprised somebody who wanted to access it.

Speaker:

And also an article about Christian prayers.

Speaker:

So, this is a Melbourne council has ditched Christian prayer.

Speaker:

Let's start with that one.

Speaker:

Baroondara.

Speaker:

They stopped using prayer at meetings.

Speaker:

They've dumped the traditional Christian prayer after lawyers complained it

Speaker:

was a breach of human rights law.

Speaker:

And the city voted on it and motion passed 9 votes to 1 to remove the prayer.

Speaker:

And in case you were wondering what the prayer was, here is the wording.

Speaker:

Ahem.

Speaker:

Almighty God, we humbly seek your blessings upon this council.

Speaker:

Direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of your glory

Speaker:

and the true welfare of the people of the city of Borroondara.

Speaker:

Amen.

Speaker:

So Scott, is that a good thing?

Speaker:

Get rid of the Christian prayer?

Speaker:

Yeah, it is.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Why should we get rid of the Christian prayer?

Speaker:

Just, what's the basic reason there?

Speaker:

Okay, because you, okay, it's a Why are we against that?

Speaker:

Well I know why I'm against it.

Speaker:

I'm against it because it's non inclusive.

Speaker:

You know, it, it restricts the, it restricts the rights and

Speaker:

all that sort of stuff to one particular subset of the community.

Speaker:

So you've got this thing that is saying that, you know, well, the Christians are

Speaker:

the majority over here, so we've just got to say a prayer for them every time.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I've got absolutely no problems with secular invocations and that type of

Speaker:

thing that are completely non religious.

Speaker:

That, that's the way we should go, you know, because there was that council

Speaker:

where that nutter and everything was in Melbourne, or no, Adelaide, wasn't it?

Speaker:

There was that nutter that was saying that the Prius lately.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

Anyway, there was a nutter that was, I think it was in Adelaide Council, that Was

Speaker:

screaming at the Christian prayer and that sort of thing, and they just said, no,

Speaker:

you can't do that, you've just got to...

Speaker:

And what they were going to replace that with was a moment of silence.

Speaker:

I think it was a minute's silence, something like that, the beginning of

Speaker:

the whole thing, where the councillors were encouraged to think about the work

Speaker:

they were doing and that type of thing.

Speaker:

Which I've got absolutely no problem with.

Speaker:

Yeah, it wasn't a minute of quiet contemplation.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Which allowed the religious to pray to their gods and the non religious

Speaker:

to think about what they were doing.

Speaker:

Exactly, yeah.

Speaker:

Let me play devil's advocate.

Speaker:

I know what you're going to say.

Speaker:

That's because you've read my notes.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

You know, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to jump in or not.

Speaker:

Yeah, so the basic initial reason is it's not inclusive.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

Is that, is that what we're at?

Speaker:

Yeah, it is.

Speaker:

Not inclusive of...

Speaker:

But, you know, arguably it was a sharing of culture.

Speaker:

It was a generous invitation to share their culture.

Speaker:

Wasn't hurting anybody.

Speaker:

And, you know, what's the harm in that?

Speaker:

I think you're going with his smoking cigarette.

Speaker:

And as I had 50 years of the culture shared with me at school.

Speaker:

And they're just sharing their culture and it doesn't hurt us.

Speaker:

And after all, religious leaders know what's good for their

Speaker:

flock and their flock wants it.

Speaker:

So if Yeah.

Speaker:

That's their flock.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

If their, if, if Christians want this and if their leaders know what they

Speaker:

want and it doesn't harm us, then it's.

Speaker:

That should be good enough that we just do it, if it's no skin off our nose.

Speaker:

But I think that I think that the percentage of that sort

Speaker:

of thing the believers in the community are shrinking, isn't it?

Speaker:

Well, you know, 30...

Speaker:

Doesn't matter whether it is or isn't.

Speaker:

Just a substantial number.

Speaker:

It might be a substantial number, but it's now in the minority.

Speaker:

So I think they're just going to have to accept their, their new position and

Speaker:

that type of thing, otherwise you'll end up with the Republic of Gilead.

Speaker:

Yes, as is happening in America.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

As we head down the track.

Speaker:

So, I don't know, I just, you know, during the voice debate, and

Speaker:

people say, ah, you're going to be banging on about that all the time.

Speaker:

I keep getting emails from people.

Speaker:

So it's hard not to, when you keep getting emails from people.

Speaker:

Saying you've said things that you haven't even said, and other stuff, and

Speaker:

so you just sort of feel a knee jerk reaction to respond, but, you know,

Speaker:

some of the key arguments given were that Indigenous people want this, it

Speaker:

doesn't hurt us, and their leaders know what they want, and you know, it's a

Speaker:

generous offering of sharing of culture.

Speaker:

Literally, that's the type of emails I'm getting.

Speaker:

And you could say exactly all that about the Christian prayer.

Speaker:

No, I suppose you can say that.

Speaker:

And we're saying no to them.

Speaker:

No, we don't want your culture shared with us at this point.

Speaker:

Thank you very much.

Speaker:

I do think that a smoking ceremony and that type of thing is basically a...

Speaker:

It's an outward showing and that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

I don't think you actually have to take it seriously.

Speaker:

It's just that they just...

Speaker:

Blow smoke over people and that type of thing and they let you go in.

Speaker:

Is anybody out there who voted yes, who is against smoking ceremonies?

Speaker:

I guess that's what I'd like to know.

Speaker:

Is it possible?

Speaker:

Are you in favour of smoking ceremonies?

Speaker:

No, not really.

Speaker:

Not really.

Speaker:

Or even welcome to country.

Speaker:

Let's just keep it easy with smoking ceremonies.

Speaker:

It's got that sort not really.

Speaker:

I don't really like them and that type of thing.

Speaker:

If they're going to do them, they might as well do it.

Speaker:

But I don't, I don't really like them.

Speaker:

Because it's, it's, it's...

Speaker:

You mean it's like a prayer?

Speaker:

It seems to me very similar to a prayer.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know that.

Speaker:

I know that.

Speaker:

It is very similar to a prayer, but it's just, is what it is,

Speaker:

you know, there were the...

Speaker:

Is it the, because it's a, cultural groups wanting to, uh, have their

Speaker:

cultural, um, well, what it?

Speaker:

Stamp of approval?

Speaker:

No, no, no, practice, um, displayed and observed by everybody.

Speaker:

And...

Speaker:

So the question is, I just find it difficult, um, for people who would

Speaker:

be against a Christian prayer, but not against a smoking ceremony.

Speaker:

I'd like to know the logic of that.

Speaker:

Okay, well the only logic I can come up with, the only difference

Speaker:

I can come up with there is they were the, you know, they were the

Speaker:

original, original inhabitants of the continent that we now inhabit.

Speaker:

I think you're right.

Speaker:

I think that's, they're both cultural groups.

Speaker:

They're both

Speaker:

trying to promote...

Speaker:

So it's they're both cultural groups.

Speaker:

They're both looking to, um, sort of display a cultural tradition.

Speaker:

In both cases, the smoking ceremony and the Christian prayer have

Speaker:

this, you know, woo factor to them.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And...

Speaker:

The difference, the only difference I can see is this sense that Indigenous

Speaker:

people have an inherited ancestral land right or right to country

Speaker:

that makes them different to...

Speaker:

Connection.

Speaker:

That makes them different to Christians.

Speaker:

That's the only difference I can see.

Speaker:

And so then I'd say, okay.

Speaker:

You must then be respecting ancestral rites and their

Speaker:

passing down through generations.

Speaker:

Yes, but now you're Republic.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

So then I would ask, is it possible to be against the Christian prayer,

Speaker:

and in favour of a smoking ceremony, but also in favour of a Republic?

Speaker:

Because...

Speaker:

Prince, you know, King Charles would say, I have an ancestral right.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know he would and that type of thing, but we, we,

Speaker:

we are moving beyond that.

Speaker:

And that type of thing, we're saying that, you know, you might

Speaker:

have that right in Britain.

Speaker:

You don't have that right here in Australia.

Speaker:

Well, even in Britain, do you think that the royal family should

Speaker:

continue with the ancestral right as kings and queens in Britain?

Speaker:

No, not really.

Speaker:

Do you think it'd be okay for the British people to say, let's have

Speaker:

a referendum and just get rid of...

Speaker:

The ancestral power that's handed down in this family.

Speaker:

I agree.

Speaker:

I, I think that with, I think that would be something that if I was in Britain,

Speaker:

that's something I'd be arguing for.

Speaker:

Right, because you would say that that ancestral power is

Speaker:

was wrong, is not necessarily a good thing to be handed down.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It gets tricky.

Speaker:

It's in convoluted things you have to go through.

Speaker:

I can just say, yeah, we're all here on the same boat.

Speaker:

We all should be treated equally and.

Speaker:

No special favours for any cultural groups, it's, it's really simple.

Speaker:

I do tend to agree with you, but it's just,

Speaker:

my argument for voting yes was it was the, it was the first time I could ever

Speaker:

remember them getting together as a group and asking for something from us.

Speaker:

So we can all say, sorry, sorry, I didn't want to interrupt, sorry, sorry.

Speaker:

The other thing too was that it was the first time that I've ever

Speaker:

actually asked anything of us.

Speaker:

And the other thing was, I just thought to myself I was trying

Speaker:

to protect it from the Tories.

Speaker:

Because, you know, the Tories did tear apart ATSIC when all they

Speaker:

needed to do was reform it, you know?

Speaker:

What about the whole Native Title Act and all that?

Speaker:

Did the Tories ever try and reduce that?

Speaker:

HOward had a go at it.

Speaker:

He he had that ten point plan that was around the WIC decision, didn't he?

Speaker:

Can't remember.

Speaker:

Just, yeah, just can't remember.

Speaker:

He had a go at it and that sort of stuff, which the Labor Party did

Speaker:

go into conniptions about, but they never actually repealed any of it.

Speaker:

What about the Javers Witness one, where the,

Speaker:

Whether family didn't want their kid to have, say, a blood

Speaker:

transfusion often happens.

Speaker:

I think a child is something you've got to actually take out, because a child

Speaker:

is not of 18, is not 18 years of age, so he or she cannot make their own mind

Speaker:

up to have, to actually go in and not have potentially life saving treatments.

Speaker:

A lot of Indigenous communities are asking, in the Uluru

Speaker:

Statement, for self determination.

Speaker:

For example, that's a big thing, and I mean, that's self determination

Speaker:

for all Indigenous people.

Speaker:

Adults, children, it's, it's talking about the ability for Indigenous people

Speaker:

to self determine their group is one of the things that's, you know, on

Speaker:

the agenda over the next few years.

Speaker:

Well, I don't think it's going to get up.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I just, it just can't.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Because, you know, you can't, you can't have, you can't have the country divided

Speaker:

into little groups and that sort of stuff, saying, well, you can govern

Speaker:

yourselves, you can govern yourselves.

Speaker:

You'd end up, you'd end up with, you know, they wouldn't actually

Speaker:

be paying tax to the whole thing.

Speaker:

It would just, the whole thing would fall over.

Speaker:

So you'll be against that one?

Speaker:

Yeah, absolutely I would be.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Because it's just impractical.

Speaker:

Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

If you read One Law for All, Mariam Namazi talks about the Muslim commercial law

Speaker:

that's being allowed effectively in the UK and saying that for things like divorce,

Speaker:

um, it's being forced through a religious court and the UK government is signing off

Speaker:

on it and that leads to unequal outcomes.

Speaker:

Effectively, the women are held to ransom by the religious court.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know that.

Speaker:

That is ridiculous.

Speaker:

And that's a risk where you have separate groups having their own laws.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

For sure.

Speaker:

It's like, you know, the there was that case years and years ago, I don't

Speaker:

even know if it's true, but I always remember it was reported on that they,

Speaker:

a guy had been accused of raping a young girl and that type of thing,

Speaker:

so the elders said, no, we're just going to throw a spear through you.

Speaker:

So they put a spear through his leg and that type of thing, and

Speaker:

they said, well, it's all quits.

Speaker:

And that bloke, if that was true, he should have faced the full, he should have

Speaker:

been, he should have been facing the DPP, the DPP should have brought charges, they

Speaker:

should have tried him in a court of law.

Speaker:

And then after that, he should have gone into a custodial sentence.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

In the chat room, Tom the Warehouse Guy says, If you're covering religion

Speaker:

tonight, I would definitely raise Spain's report on the Catholic Church sex abuse.

Speaker:

Anyone familiar with that one?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Sorry, Tom, I'd raise it, but I'm not familiar with it.

Speaker:

We'll put that on the homework sheet.

Speaker:

I'm the Royal Commission report.

Speaker:

It's one of those things that, you know, it seems every other day there's some

Speaker:

sort of report over the excesses of the Catholic Church that's coming out.

Speaker:

You've just got to think to yourself, well, you know, part of

Speaker:

the background noise now, isn't it?

Speaker:

In Canada, there was a folk singer and social justice advocate, Buffy St.

Speaker:

Marie.

Speaker:

Who has denied allegations she misled the public about her

Speaker:

Indigenous ancestry, after a Canadian documentary questioned the shifting

Speaker:

narrative surrounding her Cree roots.

Speaker:

So, quite a famous Indigenous social activist person, whose

Speaker:

indigeneity has come into question by the equivalent of what's our ABC.

Speaker:

Yes, the CBC, the Canadian Royal Catholic Commission.

Speaker:

And, loCal tribe has come to her defense, and that's just an ugly

Speaker:

conversation that we could do without.

Speaker:

It's a kind of like the who's the guy who wrote Dark Emu What was his name?

Speaker:

Oh yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway.

Speaker:

Pasco.

Speaker:

Pasco.

Speaker:

Where there were arguments over.

Speaker:

Whether he was actually Indigenous or not and well with the failure of the

Speaker:

voice vote that's one argument we've skipped by for the moment which was

Speaker:

bound to happen would have been members of that group having their indigeneity

Speaker:

questioned at some point so if you're looking for a silver lining on a

Speaker:

dark cloud maybe that's one of them.

Speaker:

And finally, still on this issue before we move on to others you

Speaker:

guys heard of the Horizontal Falls?

Speaker:

No, I only read it when I read it when you emailed this.

Speaker:

Yes, in the Kimberley region.

Speaker:

So they have up there large tidal shifts, so as the waters move from

Speaker:

open water to inland water through narrow gorges, you get what they

Speaker:

call like a horizontal waterfall as the water's rushing through a gorge.

Speaker:

dIfferent tourism operators have spent a lot of money setting up tourism stuff

Speaker:

to take people on boats through that sort of gap and enjoy the rapids at the

Speaker:

correct tide time and local Indigenous group are saying it's a bit disrespectful

Speaker:

and wanting to shut that down.

Speaker:

Any thoughts on that one, Scott?

Speaker:

Yeah, that is a little bit ridiculous that you got something like that

Speaker:

because it's a piece of land.

Speaker:

Which has got a unique water running through it.

Speaker:

So It's nothing special or anything like that.

Speaker:

It's just it is unique.

Speaker:

It does not mean it's sacred It does not mean it's got religious.

Speaker:

It doesn't mean it's got religious or spiritual significance It's just a unique

Speaker:

waterway that I believe should be open to every Australian or international visitor.

Speaker:

Okay Be consistent on that one What else have I got here?

Speaker:

So let's move on from that.

Speaker:

I just wanted to explore some of those topics and get you thinking,

Speaker:

dear listener, about some of those.

Speaker:

But you know what?

Speaker:

I'm done with the voice for the moment.

Speaker:

I really want to get away from it, so...

Speaker:

I think so.

Speaker:

Now what have we got here is, you've been keeping tabs of the new

Speaker:

Speaker in the US Congress, Scott?

Speaker:

He's a Christian right wing nutter.

Speaker:

And election denier.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly, you know, it's one of those things like the Republicans

Speaker:

really were backed into a corner over this because it had been going

Speaker:

on for three weeks, they couldn't even sort it out amongst themselves.

Speaker:

So they had to nominate someone, and they nominated this guy.

Speaker:

What was really concerning was there was a guy from, well, one of the states, I can't

Speaker:

remember which one it was this morning, was on a podcast I was listening to.

Speaker:

They said that they asked him why wouldn't he vote for Mike Johnson

Speaker:

when they f when they, when he first came up, and he said, because he's

Speaker:

elect, he's an election denier, so I'm not gonna vote for an election.

Speaker:

Deni.

Speaker:

He's turned around and voted for an election denier right now because

Speaker:

there was literally no one else.

Speaker:

You know, it's one of those things, it's it was on

Speaker:

lost it now, can't think what it's called.

Speaker:

Anyways, listened to it this morning and he reckons that you could be seeing

Speaker:

the disintegration of the GOP, the Grand Old Party, into two factions.

Speaker:

And those factions will probably be the MAGA, right wing occultists,

Speaker:

and then you got the sort of Reagan style Republicans that are left over.

Speaker:

So that's what they reckon is going to happen is it will splinter and you're

Speaker:

gonna have the MAGA Republicans They'll be trying to steal votes off the normal

Speaker:

sane Republicans And the normal sane Republicans are gonna be trying to do

Speaker:

battle against the MAGA Republicans.

Speaker:

Neither side's going to win So they're gonna have to divide the country up and

Speaker:

say well you guys run down here We'll run up here and then we'll come together

Speaker:

and we'll put together some coalition to take government in the future but what

Speaker:

they're actually saying was that leaves it open for the Democrats to Be in a strong

Speaker:

position for the next 10 or 15 years.

Speaker:

But I wouldn't be so sanguine about that because Trump's ahead on the polls.

Speaker:

Yeah, no, and Joe Biden is looking terribly old.

Speaker:

He's looking terribly old.

Speaker:

You know, he's already 81 or something like that.

Speaker:

You know, he's just far too old.

Speaker:

You know, the voting public in America still hates Democrats.

Speaker:

still willing to vote for him.

Speaker:

Like, they're in a, you know, they're on a steady diet of Fox News

Speaker:

over there and other crazy stuff.

Speaker:

And yeah, as much as we might think it's impossible that they would do it

Speaker:

again, it seems the most likely scenario at this stage, particularly if...

Speaker:

It does, it is very frightening.

Speaker:

Mm, so...

Speaker:

And again, it doesn't need to be a majority of voters.

Speaker:

It just needs to be enough states that the electoral colleges swing.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Ooh!

Speaker:

And you just need some player like RFK Jr.

Speaker:

to come in and maybe split the Democrat vote or...

Speaker:

Who's that other professor type guy who might split the vote and you're in

Speaker:

all sorts of trouble for the Democrats.

Speaker:

They reckon that RFK will probably end up splitting the Trump vote

Speaker:

because he's a vaccine hater.

Speaker:

So, you know, they reckon that he's got that in common with Donald Trump, and

Speaker:

that type of thing, which I gather he is running, then he could end

Speaker:

up splitting the, he could end up splitting the Republican vote.

Speaker:

From an Australian point of view, would it be such a bad

Speaker:

thing if Trump was re elected?

Speaker:

Well, I mean, you think, okay, well, you know, it depends on your position

Speaker:

on AUKUS which I imagine that you would actually be quite happy with that if

Speaker:

they did actually walk away from it.

Speaker:

Because he'd be quite likely to say, there's no way I'm giving

Speaker:

these Australians submarines.

Speaker:

We haven't got enough for ourselves.

Speaker:

Get stuffed.

Speaker:

America first.

Speaker:

Australia last and...

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

And he would actually, you know, he'd actually say to Vladimir Putin

Speaker:

and that sort of stuff, Yeah, it's alright, you can have Ukraine, I'm

Speaker:

not going to send him any more arms.

Speaker:

And Ukraine will be rolled over in a couple of weeks.

Speaker:

And, um, NATO.

Speaker:

He will walk away from that too, because the guys are...

Speaker:

Might walk away from Israel as well.

Speaker:

Like he's got no loyalty to anything.

Speaker:

I don't think he, he stick with Israel.

Speaker:

Israel, is he?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Because the Trump base is very much those Right-wing Christian nutters.

Speaker:

Ah, yes.

Speaker:

And the Christian nutters rely on the whole, um, religious connotations

Speaker:

of the, of the re the rise of Jews in Jerusalem type thing.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

exactly.

Speaker:

In order to sre up once Jews.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

In order to shore up that Christian base, he will need to maintain his pro.

Speaker:

Israel.

Speaker:

Israel.

Speaker:

So I don't think that Israel is going to be walked away from.

Speaker:

I was going to say also, the Israelis are a very, very, sorry, the Jews in

Speaker:

America are a very powerful lobby faction.

Speaker:

sO, so there's a lot of Aid that goes to Israel just because of the diaspora,

Speaker:

the number of Jews who fled war torn Europe and are now in powerful positions,

Speaker:

and that's not a Jewish conspiracy, that's just saying that there's a lot

Speaker:

of loyalty in Congress towards Israel.

Speaker:

I think it would be very hard for Trump to walk away from that.

Speaker:

And that's not necessarily a right wingers, that's across the board.

Speaker:

Yeah, I mean, I don't know, on the whole it could be positive for the rest of

Speaker:

the world because let's face it, one of the big problems in the world is, you

Speaker:

know, American foreign policy, aggressive foreign policy, and Trump is one of

Speaker:

the ones who's not interested in it.

Speaker:

I know he's not interested.

Speaker:

He's not interested in it, which he'd be, you know, he'd be leaving

Speaker:

the Philippines out on their own.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So the Philippines are the only ones that have actually taken to China to

Speaker:

task over the South, south China Sea.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

. And they had that win in the maritime courts and that sort of thing, and

Speaker:

China has ignored that, but the year they've still got that there and

Speaker:

they do actually wave it in front of China and that type of thing.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

and the Philippines are actually able to back that up because they, you

Speaker:

know, it's gotta point to the American bases that are on their, on their soil.

Speaker:

If Trump was to pull out of the Philippines, then the Philippines would

Speaker:

actually have to rely on their own and they'd be collapsing down in their

Speaker:

seat and they'd be saying to China, yeah, you can do whatever you want.

Speaker:

Hang on a second.

Speaker:

Which means that, yeah.

Speaker:

But Trump knows a lot about China.

Speaker:

Can I give you an example?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Let's see China.

Speaker:

You take China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

I love them.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

I have to have my China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China because China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

I know China very well.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

Northwest Wisconsin where I'm from.

Speaker:

It's China to me.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

You wanna buy from China?

Speaker:

That's great.

Speaker:

Buy from China.

Speaker:

Buy toys from China.

Speaker:

China in particular.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

I have people that I know in China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

China?

Speaker:

China!

Speaker:

Let me ask you about China.

Speaker:

China.

Speaker:

I go to China.

Speaker:

So don't tell me about China.

Speaker:

I know China.

Speaker:

He knows China.

Speaker:

You can sort it all out.

Speaker:

Yeah, okay.

Speaker:

He knows, he knows China and that sort of thing, but he, you know, it's, it's one

Speaker:

of those things, like at least Biden is saying all the right things over Taiwan,

Speaker:

whereas Trump being America first and that sort of thing, I think he would

Speaker:

actually take that very seriously and he'd say to Taiwan, well, you're on your own.

Speaker:

Yes, he would.

Speaker:

I think.

Speaker:

Which is not necessarily a good thing, you know, and now I know you and I

Speaker:

differ on that, but the Republic of China is now an independent country

Speaker:

and should be treated as such.

Speaker:

Well, I think AUKUS is the biggest blunder that Australia's Labour

Speaker:

Party has ever done in living memory.

Speaker:

I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Speaker:

If Trump causes that to fall over, that's a good thing for us.

Speaker:

It would be.

Speaker:

If the world can survive for then the following four years, that would be great.

Speaker:

So Yeah, see how it's one of those things I think I think if we did have to walk

Speaker:

away from Orcus and that type of thing We had if we had to buy our own submarines

Speaker:

Then I think the Japanese would be in a very powerful position where they'd say

Speaker:

to Australia Well, we've still got these submarines over here if you're interested.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

So then we ended up buying them from Japan now I think they'd They planned

Speaker:

on manufacturing the first two in Japan and the rest of them were going to be

Speaker:

manufacturing in Adelaide, wouldn't they?

Speaker:

Ah, look, it's just so fanciful that any of it's going to be

Speaker:

constructed in Australia that I couldn't pay attention to it.

Speaker:

Oh, that's in Aucas.

Speaker:

That's in Aucas.

Speaker:

I agree wholeheartedly with you there.

Speaker:

That's they will, you know, there's no way in hell they'll end up manufacturing

Speaker:

any of them here in Australia.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

But, I think Japan said that they were going to manufacture the first two

Speaker:

over there in Japan, and they were going to move the manufacturing here

Speaker:

to, here to Adelaide, weren't they?

Speaker:

I don't, I can't remember the detail.

Speaker:

I did see an article that talked about how many bombs you can put on a submarine.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

It wasn't many.

Speaker:

So the cost per bomb that you get to launch is frightfully large and...

Speaker:

That's just one of the other factors about the submarines.

Speaker:

I'll come, I'll find that story and, and share it next week.

Speaker:

Look, we don't have, we don't have the landmass to have ICBMs though.

Speaker:

No, we don't, we don't have the landmass to have ICBMs, but you

Speaker:

know, you can, if you've got a, if you've got, what do you mean by that?

Speaker:

What are you saying?

Speaker:

We don't have the landmass for ICBMs.

Speaker:

What do you mean by that?

Speaker:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

Speaker:

Yeah, I thought so.

Speaker:

You know, even if you didn't, even if you didn't want ICBMs, which I don't

Speaker:

think we need over here, but if you just wanted, if you just wanted enough

Speaker:

missiles to make Australia a porcupine not porcupine, it's the Echidna.

Speaker:

Echidna, you want to make Australia an echidna, then you've just got to have

Speaker:

enough missiles and that sort of stuff that could end up Striking ships that

Speaker:

are coming down through whatever that place is through Indonesia So, you know

Speaker:

Then you don't even have to have very long range missiles that you can set up

Speaker:

there in the northwest of the country You could have them you can have them

Speaker:

set up on U boats and that type of thing that they could go out there and

Speaker:

they Could sink that they could sink the bastards when they were coming.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, you know, it's

Speaker:

Actually had to agree with Paul Keating when he was giving a very,

Speaker:

when he gave his very detailed critique of the Orcas arrangement.

Speaker:

You know, China's got absolutely no reason to come to invade

Speaker:

Australia because there's no point.

Speaker:

And they'd have to go through so many countries before they got here that

Speaker:

would be taking potshots at their armada when they were coming down here.

Speaker:

They'd have to, they'd have to invade A hell of a swathe of Southeast Asia,

Speaker:

by the time they actually got here, their forces would be stretched and

Speaker:

that type of thing, that they would be easily defeated in an invasion.

Speaker:

So...

Speaker:

Nothing to worry about.

Speaker:

I agree, it's nothing to worry about.

Speaker:

You know, it's one of those things.

Speaker:

Things we need to worry about are things like climate change and renewable energy.

Speaker:

And let me just try and find, and share this screen now for the

Speaker:

essential poll and thoughts on that.

Speaker:

So, ah, let me just get this.

Speaker:

No, it's not that's not that one.

Speaker:

It is a share screen tab share.

Speaker:

And there we go.

Speaker:

Shuffle that around.

Speaker:

Does that look better, Joe?

Speaker:

Am I got that right?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Looking at the screen, question was, as far as you know, do you think

Speaker:

Australia's doing enough, not enough, or too much to address climate change?

Speaker:

And, um, back in August 2016, uh, so seven years ago, 52 percent

Speaker:

of people said, not doing enough.

Speaker:

And that's fallen now to only 38 percent think we're not doing enough.

Speaker:

To address climate change.

Speaker:

People who think we're doing too much was only 22%, but that's risen also to 38%.

Speaker:

So it's kind of equal.

Speaker:

The number of people who think we're not doing enough and the number who

Speaker:

think we're doing, oh hang on, so I've read that yeah, and the number who

Speaker:

say we're doing enough is about equal.

Speaker:

Isn't that interesting?

Speaker:

Australia divided Equally, so about 38 percent say not doing enough,

Speaker:

uh, 38 percent say doing enough, and there's a significant number,

Speaker:

17%, who say we're doing too much.

Speaker:

That doesn't augur well, Scott, because my gut feeling is that

Speaker:

we're nowhere near doing enough.

Speaker:

No, we're not doing enough.

Speaker:

To address climate change.

Speaker:

Yeah, I agree.

Speaker:

Scott, let's look at gender responses to that.

Speaker:

They're pretty even ish to tell you the truth.

Speaker:

Not huge amounts of difference that way.

Speaker:

Age wise not doing enough, young people more likely to say that.

Speaker:

But again, not a huge number of differences on that one for age

Speaker:

either, so interesting on that one.

Speaker:

There's one here let me find this one.

Speaker:

Support for nuclear energy, so, dear listener, at different times

Speaker:

I've tried to explain much to...

Speaker:

Disagreement with John from Dire Straits about nuclear energy,

Speaker:

but if you look at any scientific report about the cost of nuclear

Speaker:

energy, it's exorbitantly expensive compared to all the other options.

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

And you've then got the danger of nuclear accidents, and then

Speaker:

you've got the problem of waste.

Speaker:

And you've also got the incredible lead time needed to construct

Speaker:

these things 10 or 15 years before your first one gets operating.

Speaker:

So there's a whole range of risks with nuclear energy, but despite

Speaker:

all that, um, to the question, to what extent do you support or oppose

Speaker:

Australia developing nuclear power plants for generation of electricity?

Speaker:

Oh four years ago, June 19?

Speaker:

In support of nuclear energy, it was 39%, and now that's 50%.

Speaker:

And opposing nuclear energy was 44%, and that's dropped to 33%.

Speaker:

So for some strange reason...

Speaker:

Sorry, go ahead.

Speaker:

I was going to say Dutton and the LNP have been pushing it hard.

Speaker:

True.

Speaker:

To distract attention away from renewables.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So they reckon they're going to meet their climate, their carbon

Speaker:

emissions targets by building nuclear.

Speaker:

They know it's not feasible.

Speaker:

But it kicks the can down the road.

Speaker:

So we stop talking about getting rid of fossil fuel for another 10 years

Speaker:

whilst we distract people with nuclear.

Speaker:

Sounds like an excellent theory, an explanation of what's happening, Joe.

Speaker:

Let's look at voting intention to see if it backs up what you've said and

Speaker:

in support of, uh, nuclear energy.

Speaker:

It's that second line, the coalition, and you've got 67.

Speaker:

Percent are in favor well ahead of any of the other categories.

Speaker:

Labor, for example, would be 43.

Speaker:

So 67 for the coalition, 43 for labor in terms of support for nuclear energy.

Speaker:

So you're right that support is coming from coalition side.

Speaker:

juSt looking at the looking at the cost.

Speaker:

Please rank the following sources of energy in terms of total cost

Speaker:

including infrastructure and household price where one is the most expensive

Speaker:

and three is the least expensive and

Speaker:

Let me just see what have we got here

Speaker:

38 I'd like to see I'd like to see that compared to the actual cost.

Speaker:

You know, we've got what everyone thinks it costs, but I'd like to see real costs.

Speaker:

We've done real costs.

Speaker:

We've done the levelised cost of electricity.

Speaker:

And that looks at the cost of the infrastructure that you need, of

Speaker:

installing the, you know, if it's nuclear power plants, the nuclear power plants,

Speaker:

if it's, you know, renewables, then...

Speaker:

The solar panels, whatever, the transmission lines that you need, and

Speaker:

then the decommissioning of all that and amortising all of those costs over time.

Speaker:

And that's the one where nuclear comes out incredibly expensive.

Speaker:

So, yeah, I've lost track.

Speaker:

I thought on that one, I saw a graph that showed young people were fully aware

Speaker:

that nuclear costs more than the others.

Speaker:

So, Yes.

Speaker:

In fact, here's the chart here.

Speaker:

So, young people were the ones who rated nuclear energy as the most expensive.

Speaker:

They knew that was the case, but older generation were not aware of that.

Speaker:

But we've definitely done that on this podcast.

Speaker:

bAck in the days of 12th Man, actually.

Speaker:

Yeah, I remember that.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So I remember having that conversation with the 12th man.

Speaker:

I said to him five or 10 years ago, I would've agreed with you, not now.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

. Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

. There we go.

Speaker:

And the likelihood to reach net zero target by 2050 and

Speaker:

only only 31% think it's.

Speaker:

It's quite likely, or very likely, um, that Australia will meet

Speaker:

its net zero emissions by 2050.

Speaker:

Which is really weird, given in the first question they said, are

Speaker:

you doing, are we doing enough?

Speaker:

And a significant number of people said we were, so, yeah.

Speaker:

You've also got those other people saying, you've also got those other people

Speaker:

saying we're doing too much, so, they probably just don't give a toss about it.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, and that's what I think.

Speaker:

Hello, gang.

Speaker:

It doesn't matter whether or not we meet our net zero.

Speaker:

Ah, yes, you're right.

Speaker:

Okay, so, alright, 30, so 7 percent think it's very likely, and 24

Speaker:

percent think it's quite likely.

Speaker:

So that's a total of 31 percent think it's likely, or very likely, that

Speaker:

Australia will meet net zero by 2050.

Speaker:

So that's 31%.

Speaker:

And the initial question, addressing climate change

Speaker:

Are we doing enough and, um,

Speaker:

and doing enough was 38%, not doing enough was 38%, and doing too much was 17%.

Speaker:

I don't know what to make of all these figures.

Speaker:

I don't think people, I don't know what to make of them.

Speaker:

Well, I'd fit into the unsure category as to whether or not we are doing enough

Speaker:

to ever reach the net zero by 2050.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Let me just find, back to the notes, okay that was that one.

Speaker:

Any thoughts on the Gaza crisis and in particular the size of the

Speaker:

pro Palestinian demonstrations in various parts of the world?

Speaker:

I don't think there's any doubt that there's a hell of a lot of

Speaker:

pro Palestinian argument out there.

Speaker:

I agree wholeheartedly with them.

Speaker:

Actually it's, it's one of those things, you don't want to be pro

Speaker:

Hamas, because Hamas is a terrorist organization, but I can understand

Speaker:

why they're pissed off, you know, they have been treated very badly over the

Speaker:

last, ever since Israel was formed.

Speaker:

You know, it's, it's one of those things, they have been treated so terribly

Speaker:

badly, it's no wonder they hate them so much, but I do not believe that

Speaker:

it's right for them to say that the Jews shouldn't be in the whole area.

Speaker:

The Jews are there, the Jews have been there since the dawn of time, so they've

Speaker:

got to actually deal with it, don't they?

Speaker:

So there was a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire.

Speaker:

Which I agreed wholeheartedly with, there should have been a ceasefire.

Speaker:

And Australia.

Speaker:

Abstained.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

What do you think of that?

Speaker:

Ah.

Speaker:

Do you know why they abstained?

Speaker:

Because they didn't actually, they didn't actually lambast, lambast Hamas,

Speaker:

Hamas, as a terrorist organisation.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Which I thought was very churlish.

Speaker:

You know, it's, uh, it's one of those things, I just think to myself,

Speaker:

did I actually really support that?

Speaker:

No, not really, because I just think to myself, that was very churlish

Speaker:

of them not to actually abstain.

Speaker:

Back it.

Speaker:

Because all they were doing was asking for a ceasefire so that they could

Speaker:

get some aid in for the civilians.

Speaker:

Now, I've got no doubt that Hamas would try and use that Break in time

Speaker:

to actually get some more weapons and that sort of stuff involved But now

Speaker:

that Israel is coming down on them like a ton of bricks It doesn't matter how

Speaker:

many AK 47s they're gonna get into, Israel's gonna take them all out.

Speaker:

Hmm, you know?

Speaker:

So yeah, Australia abstained, basically saying this resolution doesn't bag Hamas

Speaker:

enough as a terrorist organization.

Speaker:

So without that context in there, we're not willing to pass this resolution.

Speaker:

Which I could understand, I could understand them saying that, but

Speaker:

you know, they could have actually said it, but we are, you know,

Speaker:

they could have actually said it.

Speaker:

And then said after that, look, we are still going to back it because we think

Speaker:

it's important that there is a ceasefire.

Speaker:

Yeah, and I mean, how much context do you need?

Speaker:

Because then other people could have said, well, you know, and why are

Speaker:

they a terrorist organisation because of the other killings that have gone

Speaker:

on beforehand, when, and, and, you know, you could keep going back and

Speaker:

back and back and keep adding more and more context it wouldn't have been

Speaker:

that hard to pass a resolution, but...

Speaker:

You know, you look at the map of the world and who are the countries that

Speaker:

either abstained or voted against it and you know, it's that sort

Speaker:

of western powers, if you like.

Speaker:

Not all of them.

Speaker:

United States, Canada, most of Europe.

Speaker:

Invariably, sort of South America, Africa, Asia, developing countries were

Speaker:

the ones who were passing the resolution.

Speaker:

Sigh.

Speaker:

That sort of divide in the United Nations.

Speaker:

Yeah, um, it's...

Speaker:

It's one of those things, I just don't think it's going to be sorted out.

Speaker:

Do you follow any Instagram accounts or any social media where you're seeing the

Speaker:

graphic images of what's going on in Gaza?

Speaker:

No, I don't.

Speaker:

How about you, Joe?

Speaker:

No, the closest I've come is the Bellingcat report which was...

Speaker:

Basically pointing out that a lot of those images are recycled from other conflicts.

Speaker:

So to be very careful what you see on them.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But, we can be pretty sure that there's lots of dead bodies

Speaker:

being pulled out from rubble.

Speaker:

Oh, absolutely.

Speaker:

And rushed to hospitals.

Speaker:

Oh, for sure.

Speaker:

They're just such terrible scenes that I think,

Speaker:

Israel's reputation is just going down the toilet further and further with every day.

Speaker:

Absolutely it is, it's one of those things, it's bloody criminal

Speaker:

what they're actually doing.

Speaker:

You know, I know that they've got to target them and that sort of stuff,

Speaker:

but you can't actually say that we're going after military targets because

Speaker:

there aren't any military targets in an area that's basically a city.

Speaker:

You know, it's, and they can say it, they can say how they like that the command

Speaker:

and control centers are based in the hospitals, but you've still got to blow

Speaker:

up a fucking hospital and destroy it.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

You know, so it's...

Speaker:

Yeah, and that's exactly why Hamas do it, isn't it?

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

They're doing it, they're doing it to try and, they're doing it to try

Speaker:

and turn around and say, well look, Israel's bombing our hospitals.

Speaker:

Well, they wouldn't bomb the hospitals if you didn't actually put your

Speaker:

command and control centres in.

Speaker:

And so the question is, at the end, who's at fault?

Speaker:

I think there's fault on both sides.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

So it's not just Israel bombing the hospitals.

Speaker:

It's also Hamas cynically using the hospitals as protection.

Speaker:

Yeah, I agree.

Speaker:

I remember years ago...

Speaker:

It's one of those things I said right from word go that, you know, do we honestly

Speaker:

believe that the PLO were as well armed as the IDF, that they would exercise

Speaker:

the same restraint as the IDF has?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

I honestly don't think they would.

Speaker:

Or would they, would they push the Jews into the Mediterranean?

Speaker:

I think they'd push the Jews into the Mediterranean.

Speaker:

Well, if either side could, they'd push the other into the Mediterranean.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

If either side could.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I remember listening to Sam Harris talking years ago and saying, you know,

Speaker:

with the Palestinians they would put a child in front of them as a defensive

Speaker:

shield, knowing that the, that the Jews would never fire on them, yet if the

Speaker:

Jews were to do the same thing, of course the Palestinians would fire on them.

Speaker:

And I just, you know, I wonder if he goes back to that moment on that

Speaker:

podcast, because, you know, the.

Speaker:

Hamas have put children and civilians in hospitals in front of them,

Speaker:

and the Jews are defied anyway.

Speaker:

Like, it's literally the same thing, it's just more distant.

Speaker:

It's kind of like the trolley problem, isn't it?

Speaker:

You know how with the trolley problem where the more detached and remote you are

Speaker:

from the action, the easier it is to do?

Speaker:

So, you know, if it was flicking a switch, but you can't push the fat man.

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

And we're kind of in that situation with the Israel, with this conflict to

Speaker:

some extent, because to a large extent, the injuries inflicted by Hamas were

Speaker:

pushing the fat man onto the tracks.

Speaker:

Like their hands were covered in blood doing the deed, whereas.

Speaker:

The Israelis have been flicking the switch to change the track to kill

Speaker:

people, which is just slightly more remote and seemingly more acceptable

Speaker:

For some.

Speaker:

I suppose what I see makes it more acceptable is the idea for in uniforms

Speaker:

Whereas the Palestinians aren't in uniform Well, and I think The question is intent

Speaker:

as well You know, I agree, I agree with you, Joe, like I mean, I agree with what

Speaker:

you said the other week where you said, you know, the, the, the difference is the

Speaker:

Jews weren't sitting in Warsaw ultimately wanting to exterminate the Nazis, whereas

Speaker:

the Palestinians are sitting in Gaza wanting to exterminate the Israelis.

Speaker:

Oh, but, but I mean, I, I think the Hamas...

Speaker:

Wanted to inflict civilian casualties, I think the IDF are aiming to

Speaker:

inflict civilian casualties.

Speaker:

They're aiming at Hamas, and if a few innocents get caught in

Speaker:

the crossfire, well, tough luck.

Speaker:

So, yes, there are killings on both sides, but I think the Israelis are trying

Speaker:

to minimize the civilian casualties.

Speaker:

And I'm not saying that they're blameless because of that, but I think they're...

Speaker:

Less guilty, if they're trying to avoid it.

Speaker:

And how are they trying to minimise it?

Speaker:

I think that they weren't deliberately targeting a hospital

Speaker:

because it was a hospital.

Speaker:

They were targeting a hospital because it was a command and control centre.

Speaker:

Yeah, but they knew it was full of, full of the normal

Speaker:

people you find in a hospital.

Speaker:

So...

Speaker:

Yeah, and I still think that's, that's evil, but it's not as evil as...

Speaker:

That's a problem, but we'll just do it anyway.

Speaker:

Yeah, but, but again, it's collateral damage.

Speaker:

It's, it's not the primary intention.

Speaker:

Yeah, I still, I still think, I still think it's shocking, but I think

Speaker:

it's less shocking than going out and going, Oh, well, there's a hospital.

Speaker:

Let's bomb it.

Speaker:

You know, some of the characters in this Israeli government, maybe they are

Speaker:

almost at the point where they're bombing hospitals because they just want to bomb

Speaker:

hospitals and kill civilians, possibly.

Speaker:

I don't know how much regret's going on as they're pressing the buttons.

Speaker:

Maybe not so much, maybe they're just pressing the button and like, happy to

Speaker:

kill whatever Palestinians they can get.

Speaker:

How do we know that they're remorseful or regretful about it?

Speaker:

It's not looking that way, it's a, what a mess.

Speaker:

It is a hell of a mess.

Speaker:

And you know, it's, it's like I said right from word go.

Speaker:

A, a terrible mistake was made in 1947 mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

It's so hard to tell the truth in these things.

Speaker:

Remember the incident with the hospital that was bombed?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And, and so there's all this toing and froing about the Palestinians

Speaker:

still claim that was an Israeli bomb.

Speaker:

Was the Israeli sir.

Speaker:

Was a Was aye Yes.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

It's looking more and more likely that it was probably a

Speaker:

Palestinian misfire of some sort.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I think.

Speaker:

That's what the, that's what the Western intelligence organisations are saying.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Based on the kind of damage that there was, and the fact that the Palestinians

Speaker:

haven't produced any bomb fragments, you know, they could have picked

Speaker:

them up from anywhere I guess if they wanted to, but yeah, like, that went

Speaker:

on for days where initially I was thinking oh it must have been the...

Speaker:

the Israelis, because you hear these reports about the sound of the missile,

Speaker:

the nature of the damage, blah, blah.

Speaker:

And then these other reports come in saying, well actually the nature of the

Speaker:

damage is this and blah, blah, blah, and it starts to swing the other way.

Speaker:

And the simple thing of who even fired the missile, whose missile was it, is

Speaker:

one of those things that will, really, really hard to know where the truth is.

Speaker:

It could have been either side of it.

Speaker:

Well, and there was that one recently.

Speaker:

Is it Poland?

Speaker:

Whichever country borders Ukraine.

Speaker:

Poland, there was a missile that was fired out of it.

Speaker:

There was a missile that landed there, and there was a lot of to

Speaker:

ing and fro ing until finally they worked out it was a Ukrainian air

Speaker:

defence missile that went off course.

Speaker:

Yes, yeah, yep, but...

Speaker:

You just can't trust anybody, even when a U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

President comes out and says something.

Speaker:

Especially when a U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

President comes out and says something.

Speaker:

You just can't trust any of these guys.

Speaker:

Yeah, well, you know there's weapons of mass destruction in the raw.

Speaker:

Yes, that's right.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Still looking for those.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well...

Speaker:

Gentlemen that was a bit of a scrappy episode, dear listener, but it's just

Speaker:

because of what's been happening this week with my life and other stuff.

Speaker:

Have we talked about Mike Johnson?

Speaker:

Yeah, we did, Speaker.

Speaker:

You did?

Speaker:

Okay, I'm sorry.

Speaker:

There was one other one, which was the Catholic Church

Speaker:

fighting about Whether they're going to have to pay compensation

Speaker:

for their employees misbehavior.

Speaker:

And I saw a report saying that the Catholic insurer is predicting that

Speaker:

they are going to go bust if this goes through and asking for the Catholic

Speaker:

Church to provide funds to support them.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

aNd I think we ought to look very closely at any public goods, any public

Speaker:

benefits that have been given to the Catholic Church with a view to taking

Speaker:

them back and using them to compensate victims that aren't compensated properly.

Speaker:

Well, presumably if there are judgments.

Speaker:

And money's owed from the Catholic Church to victims, and the insurer falls over.

Speaker:

That's just, the judgement's still there against the Catholic Church

Speaker:

and they're still liable for it.

Speaker:

It's their church, it's their problem if their insurer falls over.

Speaker:

So ultimately, yeah, I don't know.

Speaker:

Ultimately they'll still have to pay that there are multiple bodies and they're

Speaker:

going to say that this body has no money.

Speaker:

I mean, yes, when they're shifting money out to the gray funds.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So that the church had no money, so it couldn't be sued.

Speaker:

Yeah, that's in the US, isn't it?

Speaker:

No, I thought that was in Sydney.

Speaker:

Oh, was it?

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

I mean, I could be wrong, but.

Speaker:

Yeah, haven't seen the nuts and bolts of that one.

Speaker:

Alright, well, I think that's enough.

Speaker:

Guys, might try and do something different next week.

Speaker:

Try and do something a bit more uplifting.

Speaker:

See what we can come up with.

Speaker:

I don't think there's anything uplifting.

Speaker:

The share market's in the toilet, you know, so...

Speaker:

Mmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Send us some ideas.

Speaker:

It's the lovely sunny day, there you go.

Speaker:

Yeah, send us some ideas, dear listener, if you're ready for something

Speaker:

uplifting and a bit different.

Speaker:

I might just grab a book off the shelf and do some sort of a book thing, but

Speaker:

Yes, we're done, done with the voice.

Speaker:

The voice is off the, off the table for the next, Few weeks at least

Speaker:

without a severe warning beforehand.

Speaker:

So that's off the table.

Speaker:

We're done with Gaza.

Speaker:

Yeah, let's try and find something a bit more positive.

Speaker:

A positive show next week.

Speaker:

You know, like they talked about newspapers that only had good news.

Speaker:

Let's try and do a good news episode next week.

Speaker:

Or just a happy episode.

Speaker:

A positive episode.

Speaker:

That's what I'm going to try and do.

Speaker:

Not a worry.

Speaker:

We'll give it a shot.

Speaker:

Wish me luck.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

All right.

Speaker:

We'll try that.

Speaker:

Okay, dear listener Thanks for tuning in.

Speaker:

Talk to you next time.

Speaker:

Bye for now, and it's a good night for me And it's good night from him.

Speaker:

Good night

About the Podcast

Show artwork for The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
News, political events, culture, ethics and the transformations taking place in our society.

One Off Tips

If you don't like Patreon, Paypal or Bitcoin then here is another donation option. The currency is US dollars.
Donate via credit card.
A
We haven’t had any Tips yet :( Maybe you could be the first!