There should be no need to protest

about women's rights or the right of women to women only spaces. If there are protests about this then they should not need a police presence to shield the protestors from others.

There was a gathering in a neighbouring state yesterday. I have been sent a couple of pictures. They are disturbing, very disturbing.

Have we really gone backwards so far it is necessary to shield women from being attacked because others object to their pleas, demands, requests (call it what you will) for safe and single sex places? Initially the police were not even going to attend the event. When it actually happened there were apparently some police in riot gear keeping others away.

My paternal great-grandmother would be appalled by what happened. Great-grandma was, from all accounts, more than able to handle herself, her family and the wider community. I am told there was many a supposedly tough man who meekly did as he was told when she was there. I often wish I had met her but suspect she would not be impressed by the fact I am not, according to my family, "nearly assertive enough".  That said, I do care deeply about the rights of other people.

It has been more than a century since women obtained the right to vote in this state. Great-grandma did not chain herself to the fences but, if the stories I was told are correct, she had plenty to say about a woman's right to vote. She also had plenty to say about a woman's right to work, to own property and be treated with respect. I know her views would almost certainly now be considered "conservative" in some ways but they were unusual then. My great-grandmother and others held views which were considered radical in their day. 

Now it seems, for some, it is wrong not to allow men into women's spaces. No, you do not need to "be transgender" in order to gain access now. All you need to do is say you are. A man can put on a dress and apply some lipstick and say, "I am a woman".  Views on whether this is right or wrong vary widely. I suspect my great-grandmother would have had strong views and they would not all have been related to the prevailing views of her time.

I am certain of one thing however. Great-grandma would not have protested in support of those who used sharpened umbrella tips to intimidate and harm others. If you need to resort to that sort of behaviour then you are on the "wrong" side of decency and respect for other people.  

You can think whatever you like

as long as you do not say it...and as long as you agree with me. You cannot be "apolitical" and I do not care what your politics are...as long as you come out and say you agree with me.  You have to support "the cause". You must go along with the only point of view there is.

I am only vaguely aware of who this Ed Sheeran person is. I know that may sound ridiculous but I am not one to follow any sort of popular culture. I may have heard him perform but I am not aware of it. I will not pretend to understand what the current uproar is about. I have a vague idea that someone else appeared on a stage at some sort of event with this man and said two words which were, and still are, regarded as highly political. They are words which are, like it or not, taking sides.  

Apparently the issue has been muddied by Mr Sheeran because he has refused to take sides, refused to acknowledge the two words and repeat them. He is being told he can think what he likes but he cannot stay silent. He has to agree with the other bloke and with a slew of other "artists". There is apparently only one point of view which is correct, only one way of thinking in all this.

Think on that please. It is happening elsewhere as well. We keep being told that there is only one "correct" way to think about all sorts of issues. There are the obvious issues like "climate change" and "global warming", "transgender rights" and the use use of "puberty blockers", "abortion" and "euthanasia" and then "refugees" and "immigration".  They are big issues. They are also complex issues, far more complex than most people believe. 

Despite their complexity we are all too often told there is only one "right" or "correct" way to think about the issue. If we do not think the way we are told we should think then there is something wrong with us. We will lose friendships. In more extreme cases we can be taken to court, fined and even sent to prison for simply disagreeing. We become pariahs. People don't want to know us.

Apparently Mr Sheeran has been told it is not possible to remain "apolitical" about the matter in question. He must come out and support the view espoused by so many of his fellow entertainers. It does not matter that a concert tour may no longer go ahead. All that matters is that he supports the view of the person who used the stage at a concert to make a political statement.  That it may alienate others is of no consequence to those who are demanding this. 

Yes of course musicians and "rock stars" get political. Writers and artists get political too. They all hold a wide range of political views. That is how it should be. Most of them will want others to know their views. That is how it is going to happen. It is when they demand others hold the same views as themselves that it becomes unacceptable.  

I don't have to agree with you but I will defend your right to speak providing you do the same to me.  

 

We have to stop spending

so much money. 

This country currently has a "AAA" credit rating. I am not sure how that happened or how the present government has managed to maintain it. We are, to put it bluntly, deeply in debt. 

That debt has risen dramatically since Covid but it is not, as the present government would have it, due to Covid. Some, perhaps most, of the measures were justified then. There are other expenses now and they cannot be justified in the same way.

We are supposedly heading towards the mythical "net zero" and the cost far outweighs the benefits. What we are really paying for is an attempt for our small population to be a big player on the international stage. It is not working. 

This is not about "climate change" or the debate about whether it actually exists. It is about what might actually work in a country which has a population much smaller than the population of California (39m) or Texas (31m). The land mass of mainland USA is only about five percent larger than ours. While the USA has some desert and more sparsely populated areas these are nothing compared with our most remote areas. We keep being told "nuclear won't work" and "nuclear is dangerous" and "nuclear is too expensive" and all those things combined. We sell coal to China, coal we cannot use ourselves because it might add to our "carbon footprint". It all adds up in end - adds up to more expense.

Under enormous pressure we brought in a scheme which was intended to show we care for some of the most vulnerable people in society. It should have worked but it was badly designed and many people with disabilities are missing out while other people (or those responsible for them) are getting assistance they may enjoy but do not need in the same way.  It has proved enormously expensive and taking benefits away from those who do not really need them is, for the government in power, an electoral nightmare.

For generations we have continued to isolate indigenous people on the grounds that we are preserving their "culture", their "languages". their "family structures" and "family values". In reality we are not doing those things at all even while we genuinely believe those things are important. We have put billions of dollars into all this and many indigenous groups are no better off. 

Now we worry about housing for future generations but still persist in the belief that a single unit of housing with land around it is how it should be done. The reality is different.

Last night's news was full of how anxious farmers and arborists are about bringing in the upcoming food crops. They rely on imported and cheap labour from overseas - the people who are prepared to work hard for short periods of time. Some of those people will be relying on this work to send money home to feed their own families. Acknowledging that does not mean we should not also acknowledge there are many younger, fitter and more able young people who could also help but do not want to work in or to the same conditions. They rely on tax payer funded benefits instead.

All those things cost money and they are just the big things. Taxpayers fund sport because it is seen as "popular". It is not doing enough to fund libraries or publishing or skill building.

We allow non-citizens who have committed serious criminal offences to appeal when their right to stay is rejected and many of those appeals succeed. It is a costly process which can take years. That is just one small part of a process of migration in and out of the country which needs to be reviewed for the sake of everyone involved. 

There is more of course. Those are perhaps the biggest issues, issues where money could be spent more wisely with better long term outcomes for all. Electoral popularity and staying in power for as long as possible will always win out. I just need to stop spending anything in order to pay for all of this.  

 

No you do not "opt out" of AI

using your creative endeavours to "train" their own "creative endeavours". 

Apparently our federal government is planning legislation which would require creative human beings to "opt out" of allowing a machine to learn "creativity" from actual people. This is being proposed in an effort to get those who are developing AI into bringing "data centres" into the country.

Has the world gone mad? Has the world gone completely crazy? AI is not creative. It uses data fed to it. It may appear to "think" and "create" but it is not creative in the way human beings are. AI does not have the same sort of imaginative powers. It cannot feel emotions. Yes, it might tell you it can do all these things but it cannot.

I do not longer how much longer we have before AI takes over. I still hope it will, despite the recent dire predictions, be a very long way off - or, better still, never happen. What I do know is that AI cannot "write" even the way I can write. It can be asked to try but it does not succeed. It may fool some people but someone, somewhere will pick it up. I know someone resorting to the old "card index" method to show her work is not AI driven. I know someone else who says it is much more difficult to "edit" AI created material. I know a musician who tells me that AI sounds "artificial" to him. AI can create a picture in the manner of Rubens or Rembrant but it cannot reproduce the actual brush strokes.

Creating anything worthwhile is hard work. Even this blog is "work" (although some people think it is "fun" and should be seen as such). Many hours go into researching a novel and writing it. A new song does not "just come" to someone. If a creative person wants their work to be used then they should be expected to grant permission, not withhold it.  

There should be no requirement to "opt out" here. It is most certainly not something which any government should require of creative people. It is government sanctioned "theft", nothing more and nothing less.    

Children as young as four being left

alone for not just a few hours but for days at a time?

If this was happening in an urban area and you were not "aboriginal" then your parent would be in court. You would be removed from their care.

If you are "aboriginal" and living in a remote community then apparently things are done differently. You might have older siblings or cousins who will see to it that you eventually get something to eat - if there is any food in the house - they might even do a bit of actual caring if you are lucky.

Someone mentioned the report about this to me and asked if I thought it really was true. Sadly and distressingly my answer was that it was not only true but it would not be an isolated incident.

I am commenting on this now, while I can. It is all too likely that saying something like this in the future will result in a demand to "take it down" or it will be removed and I will be unable to post anything at all on a blog. I may not even be able to have a blog.

Yes, there are two issues here. The first is the issue of the care of the aboriginal child. The second is the present government's attempts to take control of what we can see, hear and do on the internet. The claim they are only trying to remove the harm done by misinformation is nonsense. Misinformation? If the government does not like something does this mean it can be removed? Yes, of course it does.The idea of robust debate is not something any government relishes if it means they may lose votes. All those comments about non-competitive grants to golf courses would have to go. Any questions about "platinum" access to the lounge at the airport would be considered "misinformation" even though the vast majority of the mileage was paid for by taxpayers. 

Those are just two examples in the last few days. There has also been the refusal to even debate the urgent need to review the Act which has left women without rights to safe places.

Perhaps all of that pales into insignificance however when children are not being cared for because to do so might mean their removal from their families and their community. We are being told that they must remain there "because we cannot have another Stolen Generation". If you believe that then do you actually care at all? 

Recently I was directed to an article in a "reputable" newspaper on the other side of the world. If the article is correct then a mother now has a criminal conviction for the sin of allowing her four year old child to walk a half a mile alone - without adult supervision. Once the child would have walked twice that distance and done it twice a day. Yes, there were risks involved but the benefits were seen as outweighing the risks. I suspect someone allowing their child to do that here would also find their child was on an "at risk" register. A parent might well find themselves in court.   

In a remote community of aboriginal people it seems it is a different story. To do anything might mean taking the child away from their family and community. That takes precedence over the safety and well being of the child. We are told that the priority here is "family" and "culture". The reality is that, all too often, neither of these things exist in a meaningful way. Those responsible allow the lies about those things to continue but talk about them and the label "racist" is quickly applied. 

The person who directed me to the article is aboriginal. She wanted to know what I thought. Her views on the issue would get her banned from the internet - but they might protect children.  

Whyalla is dying

and whether it can be revived is the subject of the intense and anxious discussions by the spin doctors.

The answer of course is that it cannot be revived. More than a billion dollars of taxpayer funds have been poured into life support but the situation deteriorated anyway. 

Most people knew this would happen but there was an election to win so the money went in. A buyer was found. How the buyer ever believed what the government told him remains, and will remain, a mystery.

As a child at school I was taught that Whyalla was an important part of the state's economy. There were ship works there and the steel works were there. The ships went long ago. The steel works limped along like an old man who thinks he should keep walking but has difficulty in doing so. 

Now the furnace has failed. It was failing for some time but the government's "clean green energy" strategy was, apparently, going to save it. There would be a cheap and ever renewable source of power for it. This was going to save everything - except that it did  nothing of the sort. 

I think we all knew this, those in power certainly did. But, being in power is more important than making the right decisions. You make popular decisions instead. They often involved golf courses and motor-cycle races around the city. They are intended to provide opportunities to open hospitals which are too small or "expressways" to hide the lack of public transport planning.

Whyalla was one of those stages on the long journey to and from the remote location we lived in. It was where the sealed road started and ended. It rose dramatically out of the skyline as you crested the last low rise on the journey to the city. You could see the cranes rising into the deep blue of the summer sky and they grew clearer and larger as the car travelled towards them. 

We would stop in Whyalla. There was a place which sold milk shakes and we children would get out of the car and "just stand there" while Mum made sure we were clean enough and tidy enough to enter the shop. Once in she would have us sit at one of the two Formica topped tables and we would be allowed to have milkshakes before continuing on the long journey via the caravan park and "the facilities". We would go through Port Augusta and Port Pirie and onwards towards Clare but none of them seemed quite the same as Whyalla and the milk shakes. 

Whyalla was growing back then. There were schools the Senior Cat could have been sent to care for but we never lived in "the iron triangle". They were just places we travelled through. They were also places where people lived and worked. Now they live there but the work has gone.

How long will it take before we accept that the "clean green and renewable" dream is just that? 

The consumption of illegal tobacco

products is apparently on the rise again. It is said to be a major crime issue - and a health "addiction" problem.

I have never smoked. I have never tried to smoke. I have never even tried a single cigarette. I have also ingested far too much cigarette smoke from the cigarettes of other people.

Tobacco consumption is highly addictive. It also has serious consequences for the health and well being of those who consume it. Even more importantly it has serious negative consequences for the people around the smoker, especially children.

Our government has increased the tax on tobacco over and over again. It has been done in the vain effort to reduce consumption. It has not worked. Make something more expensive and then let people find another way to obtain the product at a lower cost? Of course they will go to the lower cost product even if they are purchasing something which is being provided illegally. It is a policy which makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to the Police Commissioner either. He has apparently commented that there should be "consequences" for the purchase of an illegal product. Yes, of course there should be consequences. 

When he said this yesterday there was apparently an outcry. We were told that tobacco consumption is an "addiction" and it needs to be treated as such. 

My answer to that one if that it can be treated as an addiction but the purchase of an illegal product should still have consequences. It should have serious consequences. The purchaser is aiding and abetting a crime. There are legal, if more expensive, ways of obtaining the same product. That the government is not getting the tax on the product is not simply theft. It is encouraging a crime.

Any solution is going to present difficulties. There almost certainly needs to be a range of measures. Yes, you could reduce the cost of a packet of cigarettes but I doubt it would make much difference.  You could require the smoker to get a licence to smoke from a medical practitioner, a licence which would require them to attend classes. You could gradually increase the age at which someone could legally start to smoke. It might take ten to fifteen years to reduce the habit to almost nothing but I believe New Zealand has looked at that option.  Then there is the "confiscation" option. It would require policing but a smoker would have to be able to produce evidence the tobacco they are consuming is legally bought. Without that evidence then they would be required to hand over any tobacco not consumed. 

Yes, I realise the last option is problematic for many reasons but it might well reduce the problem to more manageable proportions. Of course the real problem is that the consumption of tobacco is still legal. It should not be.