Suburban Eastern Australia.

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

unique groups of homo sapiens.

But today we observe a small tribe akin to a group of mere cats that gather together

atop a small mound to watch question and discuss the current events of their city,

their country, and their world at large.

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

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

We are back episode 394, Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

I'm Trevor a K A, the Iron Fist, not with me because of internet issues.

It's got the Velvet Glove.

He's disappointed with.

Optus in his writing, angry emails, which given he's got internet

problems, is possibly a waste of time.

Jay, the tech guy, as a tech guy, was there a point in writing nasty

emails if your internet is failing?

I

think he's using his mobile phone to bind to his laptop

to, so he's got some internet?

Yes.

Just not streaming quality.

No, it's not.

So welcome aboard to you, Joe, the tech guy.

So I'm not here on a solo show.

Thank you for that.

It's a pleasure.

You were saying before we were rudely interrupted by the seven 30

start of this podcast, you might be moving to Fiber to the premises.

Yeah, I'll kidding.

Are they?

They I, I got an email, well, in fact I got a card through the

letterbox from em, un going, Hey, five is available in your area.

And then I get an email from Telstra who said, ring us.

So I did, got put on hold and then an hour later the call dropped

whilst I was still on hold.

Course, and I got another email today.

So I texted them and said, call me instead.

And they did and went, yeah, if you upgrades to the a hundred meg service,

you can have the upgrade for free.

And the guy's coming around next week to do the first step.

So what will be the change in speed?

I mean, in theory, I'm on the a hundred meg plan now,

although I'm getting 50 odd megs.

Mm-hmm.

and this is a hundred meg plan again.

Oh, that's all.

yeah.

I think they do a two 50 meg.

If I move to another provider, there's some that do a gigabit,

ah, I thought you were gonna

tell me a story of amazing, you know, 2000 something.

No,

no.

It's, it's much more about reliability.

Oh, okay.

Fiber doesn't suffer from lightning strikes.

Fiber doesn't suffer from water in the pit.

Okay.

Fi fiber is just a better technology.

I.

Okay.

Alright.

Enough of tech, no tech stuff.

this is a podcast where we talk about news and politics and sex and religion tonight.

Mostly religion and race actually.

So Alison's in the chat room.

Hello Alison.

Hello to your mom, Bev, who's no doubt watching beside you.

Alison, I'm gonna be quoting from your Facebook page.

I hope that's okay about the, the census question.

So I'm gonna be quoting a quickly message if that's not appropriate.

But yeah, maybe I should just give everyone, tell anyone to join your

Facebook page and I could cut 20 minutes off my regular podcast

if people were to read Allison's become friends with Allison.

So yeah, if you make a friend request, just tell her the trailer sent you.

yeah.

What are we gonna talk about?

we're gonna be talking about the secular Agenda podcast, global land temperatures.

Little follow up, the census question.

Trump facing a few more criminal court charges, yet another poll on the voice

and we're gonna talk about the voice in the remaining time after that, where

I think I'm going to just pick through some statements that people have made.

Pretty much the ones where people have said, if you vote no, you're a

racist, and, and probably just address where those statements have been

made and offer an alternative view.

That's my plan at the moment.

So, Anne's in the chat room.

Hello Anne and Don as well.

So, and we just, let me just change a few things with this screen before

I go too much further, Joe, so I can actually read my notes and look

at the camera at the same time.

So, oh, just one other thing.

Dear listener, I've started a second podcast.

This is a really niche topic as you know.

I still are supplies.

I've started a podcast called the Art Supplies Experts.

So if you want to hear more of me talking about, definitely not news

and politics and the section of religion, but instead art supplies.

Look that one up.

And I did one on the color ultramarine blue.

If you're interested in the history and the ins and outs of the color, ultramarine

blue, then check out the art supplies.

Experts subscribe to that and instantly, I, I'm guessing it's not a panel show.

No, it's just me, but occasional, I say I had a guest on, on one

episode, expert from Royal Talons, and I'm getting other art supply

experts to interview and talk to.

So sometimes just me, sometimes with other people.

Yep.

So there you go.

If you don't get enough of my voice, you can listen to me

waxing on about ultramarine blue.

Right.

so that was that one.

And now Joe, do you subscribe to the Secular Agenda podcast?

No, the Rationalist Society.

Anyway, they put out another episode of their podcast.

S is the host of that one.

It's sort of an irregular podcast when they've got something to say.

Mm-hmm.

And on it is our very own Mel and our very own Allison talking about

religious instruction in Queensland.

So well done Mel and Allison on that one.

Mel was talking about the process of getting the religious instruction motion

up at the recent Labor Conference.

So, so yeah, that's called the Secular Agenda Podcast.

Look that one up.

And you can hear our very own, I've adopted them, our

very own Mel and Allison.

So yeah, Shay says, gosh, that is niche.

Yes, it is.

It's very niche.

in Landon.

Oh, I can't wait for the history of colors.

Good.

Joe, last week we were talking about global temperatures, average

temperature increasing by 2%.

You looked at the graph and you said, hang on a minute, if it's

a global temperature mm-hmm.

Why is it increasing during July and decreasing in December, January?

Yeah.

Kind of in line with the northern hemisphere, if in fact it's

a global average temperature.

Mm-hmm.

I don't know how long I wasted on this job.

Trying to find the answer to it.

Okay.

Could not find the answer, but I'm, I'm surmising something.

Okay.

Try this one.

That maybe it's to do with land mass.

So, Land has smaller heat capacity than water.

There is more land in the northern hemisphere.

About 68% of the land, mass of earth is in the Northern Hemisphere, and

this leaves about 32% of the land mass for the southern hemisphere.

So the heat capacity of land is smaller than water.

So maybe that explains why the average temperature in say, July is

higher because the greater landmass in the northern hemisphere is

heating up compared to the smaller landmass in the southern hemisphere.

What do you think is that is a theory.

We've got

two hypotheses now.

What's the second one?

Well, the fact is that there's more landmass in the northern hemisphere,

therefore there's more weather stations.

Yes.

Surely they adjusted for that though.

Who knows?

Yeah.

Anyway,

so, so yeah, I'm, look, both are hypothetically plausible.

Mm-hmm.

whether it's one the other, a combination of both, there's another

factor that we haven't considered.

Mm-hmm.

But certainly, it's very plausible.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you Joe.

That's what I'm going with at the moment.

Okay.

If anyone can enlighten us as to why the daily global surface air

temperature seems to increase in July compared to January and December,

and therefore follows a northern hemisphere pattern for a global average.

Other than the reason I've just given, let me know.

Dunno any

meteorologists or climatologists.

So, yeah.

Right.

Census question.

This has been an ongoing issue on this podcast for, I don't know how

long now is the census question.

Because in other countries like New Zealand when asking people about

their religion, the census is framed as you know, do you have a religion?

Are you religious?

And if so, what?

Religion?

Whereas in Australia, the question is what is your religion?

And only recently has no religion sort of made its way to the top of the list.

Mm-hmm.

It was previously down the bottom.

But it does pre presume a religion.

It's sort of a, a framing of a question if you say to somebody that, I mean, if,

if you were to phrase the question, are you deluded?

If yes, what is your religion?

Yes.

I I'm sure you'd get a very different outcome.

Yes.

You believe in that stupid mumbo bun mumbo jumbo shit.

Exactly.

If,

if so, which,

which ex, which type of shit is that Exactly.

Which flavor of mumbo

jumbo do you like?

It's all about framing.

That's right.

Mm-hmm.

And other surveys, you know, suggest a much higher proportion of the population

is in fact, are in fact non-believers.

The census seems to understate compared to other surveys and those

other surveys, you know, might use the sort of, are you religious initial

question and then which religion?

And, and then there's the other question about

the whole spiritual, but not

religious.

Mm-hmm.

And then atheism being in the religion column as well.

Well, exactly.

You know, which religion and atheism is a choice Under which religion, which, which

color do you prefer No color.

Hmm.

So, dear listener, the Australian Bureau of Statistics is according

to Allison's Facebook page.

and it is, I did, I did click on the link.

They're looking for feedback.

so, as according to Alison, as a result of lots of lobbying, the Australian

Bureau of Statistics is reviewing the design of the census religious

affiliation question and the response categories and wants feedback.

One option being considered includes introducing a filter question to

understand whether someone has a religion before asking which

religion they are affiliated with.

However, this would mean that data may not be comparable with

data from previous censuses.

So the Australian group of statistics likes to be able to compare like

data with, like data and track the movement of opinion over time.

So they're arguing, eh, not sure we want to change the question because

our comparison of data will be different, might not be as valid.

The comparison.

Mm-hmm.

So anyway, they're looking for feedback.

There will be a link in the show notes, hopefully, if not just

Google and you should get there.

But hopefully I'll remember to put, definitely the patrons will get it

because it'll be in the printed one.

I'll try and remember to put it in.

Can, can they do a, a dual survey?

Maybe not in the actual census, but ask people the two questions.

So, so pick two groups of a thousand people and at random give them

either the original question or give them the new pair of questions

and see what statistical bias you

get that's been done.

Okay.

So the National Secular lobby paid, I think it was essential pole to do that.

Okay.

And that was part of what had been previously presented to the

Australian Bureau of Statistics.

But then if we know what the statistical biases

with the questions mm-hmm.

They can factor that into future results.

Yes.

And say that prior to this date we were asking this question, which

has a round a, whatever it is, 10% statistical difference with this

question.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Allison says, you can, and you can, you sort of go in there and provide feedback.

Mm-hmm.

So you're encouraged to do that.

Dear listener, if this is important to you, if you're listening to

this podcast, it probably is.

And, she's given a suggestion of what she said, which was essentially

getting an accurate answer is more important than having, than continuity.

Yes.

A bad, bad data reproduced.

Just so you can compare bad data is essentially what she was saying.

Good argument.

Allison, maybe dear listener, if you go in, you can put something

similar that ultimately having the correct most accurate data is more

important than, than being able to compare bad data with bad data.

Anyway.

I, I've already done that.

Have you?

Hmm?

Yeah.

You're on the ball.

And what did you say?

roughly the same.

That effectively, we were getting inaccurate results and that, E it

led to, religious groups that were minorities being able to claim more

influence than they actually have.

Mm-hmm.

and therefore it was not an accurate reflection of the demographics,

and led to unequal outcomes of in terms of funding and, attention paid

by politicians and other groups.

And I've said that, it's to be expected that those who are most

privileged by the, skewing of this data will complain heavily.

Mm-hmm.

and that they should stand firm against it and worry about the

integrity of the data rather than making certain demographics happy.

Very good, Joe.

Wow, you really launched into a spiel there.

Yeah.

Good.

Yeah.

In the chat room, Alison says there's no point in comparing

data if the data is skewed.

Don says, I don't need religion as I read comics and already

have plenty of imaginary friends.

And, Jack h says, that's where my mind went.

Trevor landmass, but also the type or amount of Laura in the area.

Joel says, is it just me or does Trevor look like Goliath from the chase tonight?

I've never watched it, so I don't know.

I don't know.

I have no idea.

and don't ask whether we'll be discussing model kit base.

No.

Well, this is in your paint expert.

Yeah.

If you've come in late, I need you to go to the art supply experts

and subscribe, boost my download numbers, and maybe listen to the one

on Ultra Marine as your first one.

Right.

Donald Trump, Joe never heard of him in trouble.

Mm.

Grand jury has indicted him for multiple alleged crimes in

connection with his efforts.

A, a grand

jury of.

Normal citizens, not politicians, not members of the Democratic

Party, but people off the street have chosen to indict him on

the strength of the evidence.

Was

it in New

York?

Grand?

No, it's Washington DC I think.

Okay.

Yep.

Because he's complaining that Washington DC is a swamp.

Yes.

Actually it wa wasn't it Rhonda, Satan, who's complained?

Well, when you say they're ordinary citizens,

they came from Washington.

Does, are they, does that count still,

Joe?

So they're not politicians?

No.

But you know Julian Assange mm-hmm.

And with indictments and things mm-hmm.

They, they do that in a district mm-hmm.

That is known to be full of, of government spooks and employees.

Like, there's a high percentage of, of home affairs department

employees and things, but, but also

DC.

Itself is a very, very poor area that is, has a high per percentage of

black people or, Latinos and whatever.

and actually leans very, very left wing.

And, and this is the, the argument against it.

Mm-hmm.

So the spooks and all the rich gov, the, the cushy government jobs live

outside of DC and commute in, and if you're actually picking people from DC

they're generally, the cleaners, right.

They're, they're, they're not the people in power actually.

Have you been to Washington?

Baltimore,

but not Washington.

Okay.

Not a bad place to visit in terms of American places to visit.

I never want to go back to America at all.

But, in the scheme of things, if you had to go, it is not a bad place.

An interesting public.

Where's

the aeronautical or Space Museum?

I can't remember if that was in Washington or not.

No, it was

Washington or Baltimore.

I can't remember.

'cause my grandfather used to live in Baltimore.

Right.

so we've wanted to be

B W A A B W I, years ago, my brother and I as unaccompanied miners and mate,

my grandfather, met us at the gate, walked us to customs in Immigration.

Says to the customs guy, it's all right.

The ambassadors asked me to take these young gentlemen through and walks us

straight through customs in immigration.

Was that bullshit?

Of course, right.

He, he, he had an, he had a very put on English accent.

He drove in a Rolls Royce, a secondhand Rolls RoCE.

And he called himself Lord Bennett, and he, he just took the Americans

for everything that he could.

He was a shyster.

Fantastic story, Joe.

Yeah.

I dunno, you get away with it this day and age, but back in the

eighties.

Washington's, Washington.

Allison says, Washington was very interesting.

Saw a deer in a residential street and lots of squirrels.

You can see deer in Brisbane streets, Allison, there's lots of, there's

a big deer problem over at, sort of the northwest western suburbs.

really around, yeah.

around gender.

Lee Jamberry Heights around there.

gee, I digress on this podcast, but I know a guy who was a former s a

s guy and one of his jobs was to occasionally shoot problem deer.

And there was a deer that was lurking on the tracks at Clayfield railway tracks.

So one day he had to go out in the middle of the morning mm-hmm.

And just sit there and wait and, and shoot a deer.

That was, a job he had.

He also took the Broncos out to find, sort of, on hikes out into.

Borough and made them live rough.

And it was amazed when, when the, when the front rowers cried.

When they had to kill the chickens.

They weren't looking after in order to eat them.

Yeah.

I had a similar experience going out bunny hunting.

We went ferreting.

Yeah.

And this tough young Ladd, who was one of our next door neighbors, was all upset

that we were gonna kill this poor little

bunny rabbit.

Yeah.

Being a chicken strangler.

Mm-hmm.

Which is the nickname for the ss a s guys.

He had no problem strangling chickens.

It strange that it was strange.

Yeah.

He just thought it was amazing that these big tough front way forwards

hesitated in killing chickens when they were, it was, that was all

they were gonna have for dinner.

I don't think the Broncos do that anymore.

That was a while ago now.

But, full of stories, those guys.

Hmm.

Anyway, this time Trump is facing charges relating to the January 6th incident

and in particular, The aftermath of it and his actions in trying to have the

election overturned, counting, delayed, and basically objecting to the legitimate

counting of the electoral result.

It sounds like he's in a world of trouble with that one and unlikely to escape.

yeah.

I saw a lawyer going through it saying it's a bit how much trouble

he'll get in is, is debatable.

Mm-hmm.

But certainly there's a lot of, there's enough evidence to think

there's a chance of a conviction.

Yeah.

It's not a groundless

case.

No.

Well, what I was reading was a pretty, pretty strong, I listened to occasionally

opening arguments as a podcast.

Is that still going guessing?

Yeah, it is.

Yeah.

Despite their big bust up.

Mm-hmm.

The, the lawyer is, still running that one, so.

Okay.

Yeah.

interestingly on this one, Joe, the Trump case has been assigned to US District

Judge Tanya Chikin and Chikin, and Obama Appointee is the only federal judge in

Washington who was sentenced January 6th.

Defendants two sentences longer than the government had requested.

So she's not a Trump judge at all.

That's what gives me real confidence that he's in real trouble this time

is he's got the wrong judge, only

if he's found guilty.

Mm-hmm.

obviously the judge does a sentencing, the jury decides on guilt.

Yes.

So, as assuming you get a jury to convict, then Yes.

Mm-hmm.

he's moving.

He's, asked for the judge to recuse themselves because he says, there's

no way he'll get a fair trial.

Mm-hmm.

And DeSantis has said, He's moving that, any defendant has the right to move there.

if he becomes president, he'll make a law that says you can be tried

in your home state rather than in

DC Yes.

'cause DC is a CPO Yes.

Of some sort.

Yes.

Mm-hmm.

In

other words, it lead against Democrat.

Yes.

All true.

Mm-hmm.

We'll see where it ends up.

And apparently, Trump's lawyer has been on TV a number of times and

dropped him further in the shed by saying, well, of course he broke the law.

But that's okay.

He's allowed to

effectively Yes.

His immunity from everything.

Yes.

I think is the latest, the latest defense is a new concept of just

total immunity for former presidents.

Well, first of all, it's his first amendment.

Yeah.

So, so, and as someone was saying, I can't remember who it was he

was interviewed, said, Well, every crime has the freedom of speech.

It doesn't mean that you can commit fraud just because you're

expressing your freedom of speech.

Mm-hmm.

so sure his speech was protected, but he was committing a fraud.

Mm-hmm.

and, interestingly enough, Pence, sounds like he's going to provide

or be a witness for the prosecution.

Mm-hmm.

And there's some very damning evidence coming out of Pence's mouth.

Yep.

Stating, stating that Trump knew that he'd lost and still went

on to ask, for various Yeah.

to find more votes and to do other fraudulent

things.

I think Trump's only chance is an argument where he says, my lawyers

told me it was okay to say this.

Mm-hmm.

But in the indictment, they've already shown plenty of other.

Well-placed people told him, you cannot do this.

Mm-hmm.

It's illegal.

It doesn't matter what these nut cases are saying.

Yeah.

It's just not legal to do what you're gonna do.

So that's his only chance, I think, is if he can run that argument.

and

it's interesting about Pence, because obviously Trump

set the lynch mob after pence.

Mm-hmm.

you, you know that they had a set of gallows and that they, it, it looks

very likely that they were intent on hanging pence on January 6th.

Yes.

If they were able to get hold of him.

Yes.

'cause he hadn't done what the Furah had demanded.

Exactly.

there's a fictional workout, I'm gonna buy it about the breakup of the union

and the Civil War, kind of a dystopian, futuristic type of novel, and, um mm-hmm.

I think that'll be one of the first fiction pieces I've bought for a while.

right.

I think I'm gonna get that one.

The last one I bought was, Margaret Atwood with, her stuff.

Mm-hmm.

Just always dystopian religious stuff.

Mm, right.

well, it just wouldn't be a podcast lately, Joe, if we didn't

have a poll about the voice.

If all wanted to talk about the voice.

Oh, in the chat room.

let me see.

Alison's also got foxes and Julia has heaps of deer in Pull and

Veil and Landon's making bad puns.

And so is Joel.

Right.

Another poll on the voice this time from Essential Dear you listen to, you might

remember when we were first doing polls.

Well, when we were first doing polls, we were doing polls six years ago on this.

I've been t trawling through all old episodes and finding stuff.

We were talking about the voice back in episode three.

We've been talking about this a long time.

In more recent, it's still a bad idea.

Yeah.

Yes.

Funnily enough, as I was listening to my arguments in episode three, they sounded

unerringly like what they are now.

where was I going with this?

Yeah.

In recent 12 months, 18 months since it was declared there was gonna

be a referendum, initially the Yes vote had a sort of a strong lead.

Mm-hmm.

In essential poll, it dipped a little bit, came back, but then a number

of the other polls, news, poll and Resolve, and other ones started to

show some really bad results in terms of bad results for the Yes voters.

And now there's another one from, the latest one from Essential.

So this is the poll that has previously been quite favorable for a yes vote.

It's now showing, not so great.

So in July, the yes vote was 47% and the no was 43.

And in the latest essential poll, that is reversed.

So the yes vote has dropped to 43, the no to 47.

That's in the overall vote in Australia.

And I'll just give you the no votes.

in the different, well, I'll give you the different states.

47, new South Wales.

47%.

No.

41.

Yes.

Victoria is the only state that seems to be in favor of a yes vote.

And that's by 1% by 47 to 46 Queensland.

51 to 40 saying no South Australia, 48 to 45 saying no.

Western Australia, 48 to 39 saying, no, there we go.

It's really, Joe, you wouldn't want much money on a Yes vote getting up.

It's not looking.

I don't think so.

Mm-hmm.

So, so that's where that stands.

But we still have to talk about the, and apparently

Albanese has said there won't be a second chance.

If it doesn't get up, he's not going to put it up again.

Yeah.

I think he made the comparison with, the Republican vote.

Mm-hmm.

He said, well, once that failed, it was off the agenda

for quite a while and still is.

And I think that's probably a, a fair call.

Fair enough.

A full fair call.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

Exactly.

So, so I, dear listener, yeah.

Back in episode three, I.

We were talking about it because, and I think I might put the clip

from episode three at the end of tonight's episode when we are finished.

I think I'll tack it onto the audio if you wanna hear how we were talking

about this nearly eight years ago.

Yeah.

because at that time, Noel Pearson had been on a q and a episode and had proposed

this idea and Scott was a bit, Hmm.

Dunno if that's a good idea.

I was a definite, I don't think it's a good idea.

Scott was saying this seems to be quite divisive rather than uniting us.

And I was going, yeah, that's right.

Anyway, my son came across for some reason, he was, looking at episode 99.

I don't know what reason why.

I can assure you he's got lots of better things to do than to troll

through old episodes of this podcast.

But for whatever reason, he was listening to episode 99.

So I'm gonna play a bit of that one now.

It goes for about five minutes.

Give my voice a rest.

And not only does it just give our initial impressions at that

time, so was that six years ago?

But also it then moves on to a discussion about Noel Pearson and

the foul mouth of Noel Pearson.

So, dear listener, language warning in the extreme at this point, if you've

got young kitties who are nearby, you do not want them listening to the next

five minutes and 47 seconds of this podcast, particularly the last half of it.

So definitely keep them away from, from some of this.

So here's an excerpt from episode 99 to demonstrate, it's probably been on

this topic a long time, and just some of the nuggets of gold that are there

in the back catalog for you to enjoy.

Here we go.

Uluru statement right wing Tanya.

I had a bit of a discussion about, constitutional changes that yeah,

I'll listen to that are looking for, and and I don't know where I stand

on that anymore, but, I do think that, asking for a representative

body is, is probably a step too far.

Mm-hmm.

And I think that, that won't fly in the, I don't think that'll fly with the public.

Well, here we go.

They've asked the public, according to essential report, they said last week

the, Willow RU statement was released calling for a number of policy measures

relating to indigenous Australians.

Do you support or oppose the following measures?

And they've listed four different ones there.

enshrining and indigenous voiced to Parliament in the Constitution,

negotiating a treaty, creating a treaty commission, creating

a Truth and Reconciliation commission on all of those things.

More people were in favor of it than were against, which surprised is that right?

Yes.

It was a high level of support for people for any of the four options, which.

It scares the bejesus outta me, Scott.

It does scare me too.

And I know that, some of our more left wing listeners will accuse me of, racism

when I say this, but I do think that we should as a nation, concentrate on what

unites us rather than what divides us.

And, I do think that if we create a, if we create a separate body

within the parliament, just for indigenous people, then that'll be

concentrating on more what, what divides us through what unites us mm-hmm.

As well as being racist in that certain people, depending on their it is racist.

Yeah.

On their, genealogy will be entitled to certain benefits, which isn't a good idea.

Mm-hmm.

The other reason that it scares me, Scott, is that Noel Pearson

could be, well, one of those people who gets elected to that position.

And, dear listener language warning coming up.

'cause we are referring to, we gonna quote Noel Pearson and, and, and

this guy, it could get a little blue.

Yeah, swing is like nobody else.

And this article is about how much he swears.

So turn the volume down if there are any children in the vicinity.

And if you don't like s swearing, maybe fast forward about five

minutes to the next item.

So, so last year, November 25th, where there was a meeting, of constitutional,

you know, the usual suspects all at a meeting and at it, Noel Pearson

put up his proposal and basically got feedback from the Prime Minister

and others that it wasn't gonna fly.

And after the meeting, I.

Pearson, verbally assaults Prime Minister Turnbull, and there

are various witnesses to it.

And, liberal mp Warren Eng was not at the meeting but said he's been

told by witnesses of what was said.

And there are other people who, are also seemingly able to confirm statements.

But basically this, this people have the impression, oh, okay, let's

allow the Aboriginal voice into our parliament and it'll all be reasonable

and they'll do the right thing.

And if Noel Pearson is one of 'em, then he might well stand up at point.

So at some point and use language like this, he's alleged to have

called, let me just get this straight here in the, Malcolm Turnbull.

Yeah.

He took, he called Malcolm Turnbull, a white cunt.

He called Indigenous Minister Ken Wyatt, a black cunt, indigenous labor senator.

Pat Dodson, a fucking black cunt.

He just, at least he was non-discriminatory in his language.

Like he, he went for everybody.

That's true.

He just has got the foulest language and this is the one of

the most eminent leaders of the Aboriginal community and Exactly.

And it just goes around racially abusing people.

Well, this is the best they've got to offer.

Is, this is the thing that I found absolutely disgusting was that,

whether you like him or love him or loathe him, he's the prime minister.

Hmm.

And he deserves a lot more respect than being described as a white cunt.

Yes.

You know, it is a.

Ah, it's, it's not a one-off event.

Last year, Queensland Department of Education Director General Jim Motson

claimed a letter to Pearson that he'd been abused and that he had abused and

intimidated department staff calling some asrs, coverer, maggot and bucket of shit.

last year, Pearson denied he had abused Queensland Minister of Education, Kate

Jones, calling her a fucking white cunt.

Hmm.

Ms.

Jones stands by the claims.

he talks of racism and bigotry.

he can't talk with a degree of pious cue yourself prepared to

stoop to using racist terms.

He's an awful man and this is one of the characters who could well be

lobbed into parliament as part of the,

the beginning blast from the past.

Joe, you managed to latch onto the last part of that from your phone.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Because you weren't getting the audio for some strange reason.

Yeah.

Ah, they'll

be going.

Oh, I have to say, I agree with him on Malcolm Turnwell.

Well, you shouldn't be on the voice either, Joe.

I mean,

after all, it's not the first time a politician has I implied similar

things about another politician.

Yeah.

Mind you.

Mm-hmm.

It's pretty racist language, so

Well highlighting somebody's color.

Yes.

Yes.

It's quite funny.

I've used the term black fella in front of English friends and they've been choked.

Mm-hmm.

and yet I don't think it has a pejorative meaning over here.

I.

I think it might be one of those words where if indigenous

people use it, then it's not racist.

It's okay.

Is it a bit like the N word?

We are only, we're only, I

I, I don't know that it's ever been used as an epithet, as as an insult.

Yeah.

I dunno where the current Deandre lines are on that one.

I don't think I'd use it.

I think I'd tread away from that one.

it, it's like

using the term mob.

Yes.

I think mob's okay.

But, but again, I've had English friends go, what?

You can't call a tribe a mob.

And it's like, that's, that's the, the pigeon English, isn't it?

Mm.

Yeah.

So, yeah, it's, it's interesting.

I.

People's sensibilities around language.

Yeah.

Dear listener, I was going to launch into a bit of a stu point

about can grievance be inherited?

also looking at, well, is everybody disadvantaged in the indigenous community

or is it only some, we got here first, therefore we have more rights than you.

rights can be transferred through ancestry, bit like Noble Englishman can.

his indigenous decision making, democratic, are there class

divisions in indigenous communities are inherited privileges fair?

is identity politics divisive?

Where does Martin Luther King fit in all of this stuff?

You know what, I've already done it.

Episode 2 1 3.

Just go and listen to it.

I did it with the 12th man.

Mm-hmm.

And Scott was missing again.

Scott had some sort of internet problem.

I don't know what he had on, but it's unreliable.

That guy.

I, I dunno.

Yeah.

Just kinda getting the

staff.

It's good.

I think he'd gone and walk about, I I think

you should slash his pay.

I think so.

Yeah.

it's all there.

Episode two and three, just all the, the hard rational shay unemotional arguments.

The Mr.

Spock approach to this whole thing is there in episode 2 1 3.

Did it with the 12th man, as you know, dear listener, the 12th man

and I sort of fell out eventually over different things, mostly to do

with Covid and that was not unusual.

Like lots of people fell out with people over covid, didn't they?

And we were just, that was, you know, we were, we were in that situation,

but on indigenous matters, we were pretty much of the same mind

of on most things and still are.

I would think so.

so yeah, if you miss the 12th man's voice and you wanna hear

those arguments, then episode 2 1 3 is there, go and listen to it.

I thought what I might do is just, oh, in the chat room,

Broman says, read your audio clip.

It sounded me like you were talking about the voice as a possible

third chamber of parliament.

That's not what we are considering now, of course, I think at the

time we weren't quite sure.

Broman where it was gonna be like, that was four years

ago, episode 99, 6 years ago.

Anyway, yeah, bear in mind there, it's sort of a bit of ancient times

that we were talking about it there.

so I thought I'd, I've been keeping a collection of things that people have

been saying and I, I think for the remaining 16 minutes might just run

through some of them and just through some thoughts that I had, and see if

it promotes any thinking with you.

Dear listener.

So, Joe, I got one here.

This is just sort of ideas that I, I wrote down mm-hmm.

At different times.

can the Yes.

Promoters give a single example of an idea that will be tried or raised because of

the voice that hasn't already Just one.

Positive initiative.

I'm genuinely can't I, I hear the argument that if we are listening to the voice,

then we will get more information.

We will get what people, what indigenous people want rather

than what white people impose.

And I'm yet to hear an example of, for example, if only there'd been the

voice, we would've had this program in place or that program in place.

Oh, we wouldn't have had, yes.

So if somebody could tell me that sort of thing, I would be interested to know.

The only thing I can think of is what that education lady was saying about

indigenous education last week, as the only example of what she would like

to institute if a voice is around I, I

wonder whether the Northern Territory intervention would've happened.

Had there been a voice.

But, but again, I, I think the community was divided.

I think there were some people that thought it needed to

happen.

Yeah.

Shaa also said that

mm-hmm.

The intervention.

here's another one, like if we had an indigenous Prime

minister, would we need the voice?

I mean, it's all about people not listening to us not being heard.

If actual Prime Minister was indigenous, would that satisfy that requirement?

I was gonna say, did, did women feel heard when Julie

Gillard was Prime Minister?

Hmm.

Just a thought out there.

If you, if, if the argument is that indigenous voices are not

heard, if for example, there was an indigenous Prime Minister, would

that satisfy that need to be heard?

Joel is saying the cashless welfare card, but I think, I think that was class

warfare rather than colored warfare.

Mm-hmm.

and the cashless card, what did indigenous people say about that?

I mean, it would've been a mixed review on that card.

Probably.

I dunno, it would've been hard to get an agreement on

that card, I would've thought.

I think the majority of people thought it was a bad move.

Mm-hmm.

because, it, it had unforeseen consequences.

Mm-hmm.

for instance, you couldn't buy secondhand, you had to buy from a shop.

Mm-hmm.

so yeah, it, it, it had more impact than was immediately obvious.

Mm-hmm.

and, and I dunno whether having a black voice to Parliament would've been

any more beneficial than having white people who were equally affected by it.

Mm.

just if there was an indigenous Prime minister, I mean, b Barack

Obama was a black president.

Mm dunno that he did anything for black people in America that was

particularly be official for them.

didn't he bombed the Iraq?

Yes.

can't think of too much that he did that was actually, beneficial

in particular for black people in America that No, no, he wouldn't

have happened.

He, he was less shit than the previous president.

Yes.

Wasn't pretty low bar.

Yes.

Yeah.

I, I've always maintained that Obama was the best Republican

president we've had in years.

Hmm.

yes.

Well, Tony Blair was the best conservative.

Yes, yes.

And really, wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said something like, You know,

the best measure of her success was that she was succeeded by Tony Blair.

Yeah.

Because she had transformed the Labor Party into her own image.

So it didn't matter whether the Tories were in or not.

yeah, I mean, given that Kinnick, I think was the previous labor leader.

Mm-hmm.

and was very, very different.

Mm-hmm.

I guess the point I'm making here is if you get people in who

represent the identity group that you are worried about mm-hmm.

It doesn't mean that they actually do, or the identity group what you might hope

they would do, which is counterproductive to the, you know, I wasn't really

running an argument, I was just sort of asking if there was an indigenous

Prime Minister, would that satisfy you?

These are thought experiments for you to argue about in the chat room.

I can see from and furiously typing and probably Shay as well.

I guess it might depend if the indigenous PM was the right

sort of indigenous man or not.

yeah.

Again, define the right sort.

Yes.

in Britain, just recently, I remember seeing an example where gender and skin

color, ranked beneath economic philosophy when it comes to good decision making.

So there was a Minister for Women and Equalities, she was female and

she was arguing that wanting women to be supported through menopause in

the workplace was a left wing idea.

So it was a tour, e m p female who was arguing against, menopause leave

and things like that for women.

So just because you get somebody in who is on the face of it, part of your

identity group, doesn't mean they'll actually do things for your identity

group.

Well, isn't it Javid, whatever a name is.

Mm-hmm.

Who is I believe of Indian heritage who is anti-immigration.

Yes, exactly.

it's, it's, it's like hanging Your parents were immigrants.

Yes.

And now you are

anti-immigrant.

Funnily enough, if you happen to be in the billionaire class, you generally

do support billionaire policies.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Strange

that.

Yeah.

And of course Rishi, whose Yeah.

Wife is the

daughter of India's Infosys.

Infosys, one of the huge tech companies in India.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yep.

let me scroll through some things.

some of the people I followed on Twitter, who I would normally agree

with on things, emergency bushfire kits.

If you think the voice will be racist, please detail which inequality

you'll suffer, what discrimination you'll experience, and which of

your rights will be oppressed by.

first Nations people having a voice on issues that specifically

affect First Nations people.

So,

but they aren't

asking for a voice that merely speaks on issues that,

overly affects indigenous people.

They're asking for the ability to, comment on all laws, aren't

they?

So presumably, so far as they affect in, in the way that all laws, in the

way they might affect indigenous people is what they're being asked to do, but.

Let me read a definition of racism from Wikipedia.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.

It may also include prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed

against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity, or the

belief that members of different races or ethnicities should be treated differently.

Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of

biological differences between peoples.

These views can take the form of social actions, practices, or beliefs or

political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently

superior or inferior to each other based on presumed shared inheritable

traits, abilities, or qualities.

The essential part of all that is, the belief that members of different races or

ethnicities should be treated differently.

That's kinda racism and.

But racism's.

Okay.

As long as you're helping the people.

Yeah.

Well this is the point, because somebody has suffered racial prejudice,

implementing a racist policy to overturn the outcome of prior

racial prejudice is a racist policy.

Well meaning, though it may well be, and somebody who objects to the

implementation of a racist policy to, you know, to overturn a previous unjust

result, that doesn't make them racist.

Not agreeing to affirmative action doesn't make you racist.

In fact, you are the opposite.

The people who are wanting the racist policy are being racist,

well-meaning well-intentioned with all the goodwill in the world for a,

but race is well-meaning racism requires power.

And the black people don't have power, therefore they can't be racist.

Well, it doesn't require power because the most, powerless

person in the world can make a racist statement to anybody or treat somebody.

You can be a, you don't need power to be racist.

Well, this is not what they're arguing.

Yeah.

So, so yeah, I find that, I find dear listener, I was listening to the

7:00 AM podcast today, Schwarz Media, where this lady got on and she was

talking about Peter Dutton adopting the Martin Luther King statement.

You know, the one judge people by the content of their character,

not by the color of their skin.

And she was saying it is ridiculous for Peter Dutton to be using that

argument in the context of the voice.

And look, Peter Dutton's a crummy guy.

His motivations in this are not good.

But even a stops clock, even a stop clock is correct twice.

What infuriated me was she just said, it's ridiculous to use that statement in

this context, and it's not ridiculous.

It's actually a really appropriate time to use it.

And she was also, she was also trying to argue that Martin

Luther King would've been in favor of racist affirmative action.

And that was not what Martin Luther King was about.

He was in fact about just equal rights for everybody.

And in fact, as we've mentioned on multiple occasions, dear listener on

this podcast, he was about class and he spent a lot of time talking about,

gathering in and drawing in the poor working class in the same fight.

For better conditions and, and equality, both rights and financial.

And this woman was just rewriting Martin Luther King history, as we

previously discussed in this podcast.

in the early days, I, I argued that Malcolm X was in fact arguing for

a race-based response to issues.

But even in his later days, he also converted to a class-based argument.

So really super annoyed me.

I'm almost tempted next week to play the 7:00 AM podcast and just, and just really

I'm finding that the argument for the Yes vote when criticizing the no vote

just says things like it's not racist.

It's, the no vote is ridiculous, but doesn't actually

examine the points that are.

Up for discussion, doesn't try to pass the arguments, dig into it and really

talk about whether it is or isn't.

Just saying stuff doesn't make it so you have to explain it and justify it.

So, ah, and

you also found that article that was reasons why we should say Yes to a voice.

Mm-hmm.

But then proceeded to come up with a whole bunch of arguments that just didn't

explain why we needed a voice and how a voice would've fixed any of those things.

Yes.

So,

did I, yeah, yeah.

I got so many articles.

I've lost track

of them, Joe, but yeah, I'm reading it going, is this

honestly your best argument?

Yeah.

Really poor arguments.

I.

Dare I delve into the chat room here.

ah, no, it's there for posterity.

I'll let you guys argue amongst yourselves for a little bit there.

here's one Ipsy Dixon Tweet.

I'm Jewish.

Most of my family died in concentration camps or ghettos.

Jews were treated as second class citizens.

Now we have a voice.

Everyone deserves a voice.

I am voting.

Yes.

Well, indigenous people have a voice.

It's called a vote a

as much as the Jews do.

Yes.

It's called a vote in Parliament.

There are 11 representatives that we know of in federal

parliament who are indigenous.

If the whole point of being a member of parliament is that you represent your

constituency, whether that be mm-hmm.

At a geographical district level.

Or whether that be at a gender level or whether that be at a sexual

preference level, or you bring into the parliament your experience in

life and and represent the people that you know from your life experience.

What, what are these 11 people doing if they're not in the cabinet and

in the shadow cabinet and expressing the views of their constituents,

who wouldn't include one of, one

of them?

Send a price so we know the

answer.

Yeah, it's, you know, you would read these comments as if indigenous

people didn't have a vote.

Honestly, if you were coming from the outside, fresh into the debate mm-hmm.

With no knowledge of what has gone on.

Say you'd grown up in Columbia or something and you popped in

here and you go, it's terrible.

I.

In people don't have a vote.

We've got to fix that.

That's how you would think if you were reading these comments.

Ah, what have we got here?

I mean, Jewish people obviously have

Israel.

Mm-hmm.

How's that?

How's that working out with, keeping the vision there?

Well, of course they were promised the land by God, but then the Palestinians

believed that they were there first.

Mm-hmm.

and there seems to be a bit of tension

there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But surely if you got there first, that counts.

Well, apparently not special rights, special ancestral rights.

I mean, no, not according to America in English, nobility.

Own all that land and just pass it down from Duke to Duke.

That's all good.

We don't look at that and complain.

I, I

watched, Imperial War Museum documentary on the troubles

in Northern Ireland, and of course that goes back 400 years.

Mm-hmm.

and so obviously even 400 years on after a colonization, the,

the Protestant North effectively were, Protestants from Scotland.

Mm-hmm.

So they, they certainly feel after 400 years they are members of the

land, that, that is their home.

and the unionists, sorry, the, the nationalists think that they're

still invaders after 400 years.

Then you go back, and Britain was an Anglo-Saxon land that was

invaded by the Normans in 10 66.

But prior to that, the Anglo-Saxons, well, the s and the Saxons were invaders

from Germany and pushed the Celts out.

So should the Celts, are you, are you saying that we were here

first as not a good argument, Joe?

Well,

I'm, I'm saying should the Celts be demanding reparations

from the angles and the Saxons

is the point.

Dear listener, if your argument is that they were here first, it'd be like if

we said to both people, well, we don't really want you here, but you can come in.

By the way, there's certain representative bodies that you'll never

be entitled to be a part of because you, 'cause you weren't here first.

Now we don't do that because we are compassionate towards

both people when they get in.

Or we should be and say, well, once you're in, you're a full citizen.

You've got all the rights of everybody else.

Assimilate, we're all in this together.

There's no hierarchy.

It's not a good system of social structure to reserve special rights for people

who are here first, or were descended from people who are here first and in

places where they're attempting to at.

At what point do you give in and say, okay, we're all one now.

We've mixed, we're done.

It's over.

At what point I, I think the answer is we need a war.

Right.

That'll bring us together.

It's, it's

amazing how unifying a war is for a nation.

Yeah.

I

I do mean that kind of tongue in cheek about needing a war, but, it seems

after the war people just argue about the same stuff anyway.

Don't they?

Like America's been at war.

America's been at war.

Whatcha are talking about America's been at war for its entire history.

And they're more

divided than they joke.

They're, they're, they're foreign wars, though.

They're not

threats to no extension.

You need, you, you need one in your own soil.

A true, absolutely existential threat to bring you together.

Mm-hmm.

And

maybe not war I, it's more bushfire, tsunami.

There is something about a adversity mm-hmm.

That makes people forget about the differences and work together.

Yeah.

I think, I think it has.

I think it wears off a,

Andrew says those ess have it coming.

It's like we lost the first time round.

We're not going for a second round.

Yeah.

Uh uh Oh, where are we?

look, if you're gonna write me a nasty email, just listen to episode 2 1 3.

First off, a lot of sorts of things that I've just sort

of skimmed over have been, I.

Examined more in detail there more justification for the flippant

ranting that I've done at this point.

But, but it does boil down to we were here first is not a good argument.

Inherited ancestral rights are not good.

As a lefty, I'm looking at taxing inherited property rights.

Like they shouldn't be passed on forever and ever.

There's gotta be a redistribution, grievance is not inherited if

you didn't suffer it yourself.

My father was a prisoner of war against the Japanese.

I do not inherit his grievance against the Japanese.

Doesn't work that way.

There's, a whole range of, I.

Just concepts that are accepted here in this argument that are not accepted,

if you think about it rationally and applied in other circumstances.

But that's often the case.

Special pleading always comes out, doesn't it?

Yeah.

Part of it is this empathy thing.

I was reading a book.

There is a book by Paul Bloom about empathy.

I've got it here, which was really, they do these experiments where they

say to people, I think there was one where they, a girl who was a

terminal illness or something, cancer.

Put yourself in her shoes.

Think of her physician.

Think of her family.

Think of the final weeks she's got left.

Think of the sadness in the family.

Immerse yourself in the, in the feelings that she and her family would have now.

The hospital has to make a decision about waiting lists.

And do you put this girl at the front of the list or not?

And of course, people who had done that empathetic immersion mm-hmm.

Said of course she goes to the front.

Meanwhile, of course there was a whole bunch of other people who

therefore are then pushed back when this girl gets to the front.

And the control group who weren't imbued with, who weren't told, immerse yourself

into empathetic feeling for this girl.

But just think about this and what's the right thing to do would

come to a different conclusion.

And I think there is a lot of that happening where people feel that

there's been terrible things done, terrible suffering has happened in

the past that needs to be rectified and this is the only way to do it.

And this will asua white guilt.

It might assuage white guilt.

I don't think it'll fix things, and I don't think it will assuage the

people who are feeling hard done by.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

talking about the whole empathy thing, there have been lots of cases

with, drugs that are either incredibly expensive where there's been a

political push to get these drugs, you know, specialist cancer drugs for

people who are terminally ill mm-hmm.

Funded, and they're like, yeah, a hundred thousand a year or something.

And they're going, we could treat one person with maybe a

20% chance, it'll help them.

Or we can fund, you know, a hundred people with something that we know cures them.

Yes.

and with limited resources you have to prioritize.

And the other one was, in America, they now have a right to try law.

Where if your terminal or none of the medications have worked,

you have the right to try,

something that's not f d a approved

or whatever, which allows them to bypass all these approval

process and sneak in the back door

effectively.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

So there we go.

the chat room's been busy.

I hope it's still being quite civil in there.

I think it has been.

I think you're pretty good in there.

Yeah.

That even if you disagree, then there

might be some light-hearted teasing, but

yes, I think generally pretty good.

One of the things I'm proud of in this podcast, Joe mm-hmm.

Is the chat room has a good mix of male and female and is generally civil.

Yeah.

In fact, I, I think we can agree

to

disagree on many things.

Yes.

Yes.

Full marks to the chat room for your civil commentary.

Well, an hour and 10 of.

There's only so much you can do with this indigenous stuff.

But yeah, I do recommend episode 213.

It's quite well laid out, I think.

Have a listen to that and, we will talk again.

Yes, Don, you get gold stars,

right?

I think.

And now, next week we were, this week we're supposed to have Liam

and Scott arguing over the greens, but Scott had internet issues and

Liam coincidentally had another engagement, so fingers crossed.

Dear listener, next week we will have, Scott and Liam debating the greens.

That'll be fun.

Hey, you're providing boxing gloves?

well, Liam's in Brisbane.

Scott's in Rockhampton.

Uzbekistan somewhere.

Yeah, I think we'll be fine.

How's that counter offensive in the Ukraine going, Joe?

Are they apparently there has been a breakthrough police snuck, right?

You are kidding.

What?

Seriously.

Yeah, seriously,

there has been, are Ukrainian

break

are Ukrainian breakthrough?

Yeah, there's been a Ukrainian breakthrough.

We'll talk about that next

week.

Be interesting to see how it goes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Alright.

Shay says she will start being, if Scott's internet stuff's up, go on Shaney.

You're always welcome back.

Alright, we'll be back next week.

Thanks for tuning in.

Bye for an hour.

Alright, well it's a good night from me and it's a good night from him.