[Ivory]

Now, I wonder if you've read her maiden speech in its entirety. I have and I agree that the 'swamped by Asians' was a very poor choice of words. It displayed a fear of the unknown, because I do believe she'd led a very insular life, in a stratum of society with little desire to learn about other cultures.

As to her 'xenophobic' comments regarding Islam, I'm in complete agreement. Have you read the Koran? Are you in agreement with subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, 'honour killings' and the directives to lie to the 'infidel'? You may be of the view that these views are held by a small minority of Muslims. This is simply not true. A simple YouTube search will yield umpteen videos of Islamic preachers calling for death to all Jews - now that's xenophobia - and the subjugation of the entire world to Islam. As a nurse in the emergency ward of a large Sydney teaching hospital, I had many, many interactions with Muslim men who treated me and all female staff like dirt.

What you see as 'manipulation of the disenfranchised', I see as telling the truth. Every European country which opened its arms to the influx of young men of fighting age from North Africa and the Middle East, is now doing their best to totally stop new arrivals and in fact, are taking steps to deport as many as they can. A classic example is the NHS in the UK. They are so stretched, both financially and personnel wise, that the entire system is in danger of collapse. Albanese is importing thousands of migrants who add to the critical housing shortage, particularly in Sydney. It's simply a fact that we don't have the infrastructure to support our level of immigration.

Saying that Australia should 'arm itself to the teeth' is simply common sense in view of the situations in China and the Middle East. To me, she's talking about having the ability to defend ourselves adequately, which we can't do now. 'Warmongering' implies attacking other countries, and that's not what she's suggesting.

As far as privatisation is concerned, I agree with your assessment. I can't think of a single entity that was improved by privatisation.

The union question is a dicey subject. Having been union members during our 40+ years of employment, my husband and I have little time for unions these days. They've become too greedy and I believe for the most part, they're more interested in lining their pockets than they are in their members.

For at least 10 years I've been writing that the myth of anthropogenic climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Prior to 2016, I was a staunch believer in this nonsense, but I decided to investigate the other side of the debate and after reading and listening to people like Ian Plimer and Judith Curry, I realised that the earth has been much hotter and colder than it is now, long before the industrial revolution allegedly turned us all into environmental vandals. The thing that annoys me most about the climate change debate is the effect it's having on our children. Left wing social commentators are constantly blaming climate change for the fact that there's a huge increase in the number of kids with mental health issues. They're being bombarded with doom and gloom at school and at home. It's not the place of teachers to influence children on topics like this, and our kid's are being 'brainwashed'. This campaign has nothing whatever to do with the environment. It's about controlling the supply of electricity and gas. Control energy and you control the people. Simple as that.

Of course the 'burqa stunt' was designed to provoke, and it worked. I simply cannot conceive of any situation in which it's necessary for a person to be able to be identified, where it's permissible to have your identity hidden. Banks, courts and many other public places have a right to know who they're dealing with. And if you're unaware of situations where men have worn burqas to hide their identities, again, plenty of videos available online.

I think it's important to bear in mind that large corporations are our major employers. They pump billions of dollars into the economy, and while I take your point, looking critically from both sides of the debate, I have to say I'm on the fence with this one.

In conclusion, I note that the sources you quote are all left of centre. I grew up in a home where the Sydney Morning Herald was the only newspaper we read. I regard The Guardian as a sensationalist rag and give them little credence. I was raised in a home where the ABC was the only radio station and later television station that was listened to and watched. When we married in 1968, the only media outlet that we watched outside the ABC was the local channel for the local news and the Rugby League once a week. We both voted Labor for over 50 years, but no longer. In our view, the ABC is nothing more or less than the propaganda arm of Labor and the Greens. I guess you and I will never see eye to eye, but I totally respect your right to your opinion.

Brilliantly written

 

[Knell]

Now, I wonder if you've read her maiden speech in its entirety. I have and I agree that the 'swamped by Asians' was a very poor choice of words. It displayed a fear of the unknown, because I do believe she'd led a very insular life, in a stratum of society with little desire to learn about other cultures.

As to her 'xenophobic' comments regarding Islam, I'm in complete agreement. Have you read the Koran? Are you in agreement with subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, 'honour killings' and the directives to lie to the 'infidel'? You may be of the view that these views are held by a small minority of Muslims. This is simply not true. A simple YouTube search will yield umpteen videos of Islamic preachers calling for death to all Jews - now that's xenophobia - and the subjugation of the entire world to Islam. As a nurse in the emergency ward of a large Sydney teaching hospital, I had many, many interactions with Muslim men who treated me and all female staff like dirt.

What you see as 'manipulation of the disenfranchised', I see as telling the truth. Every European country which opened its arms to the influx of young men of fighting age from North Africa and the Middle East, is now doing their best to totally stop new arrivals and in fact, are taking steps to deport as many as they can. A classic example is the NHS in the UK. They are so stretched, both financially and personnel wise, that the entire system is in danger of collapse. Albanese is importing thousands of migrants who add to the critical housing shortage, particularly in Sydney. It's simply a fact that we don't have the infrastructure to support our level of immigration.

Saying that Australia should 'arm itself to the teeth' is simply common sense in view of the situations in China and the Middle East. To me, she's talking about having the ability to defend ourselves adequately, which we can't do now. 'Warmongering' implies attacking other countries, and that's not what she's suggesting.

As far as privatisation is concerned, I agree with your assessment. I can't think of a single entity that was improved by privatisation.

The union question is a dicey subject. Having been union members during our 40+ years of employment, my husband and I have little time for unions these days. They've become too greedy and I believe for the most part, they're more interested in lining their pockets than they are in their members.

For at least 10 years I've been writing that the myth of anthropogenic climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Prior to 2016, I was a staunch believer in this nonsense, but I decided to investigate the other side of the debate and after reading and listening to people like Ian Plimer and Judith Curry, I realised that the earth has been much hotter and colder than it is now, long before the industrial revolution allegedly turned us all into environmental vandals. The thing that annoys me most about the climate change debate is the effect it's having on our children. Left wing social commentators are constantly blaming climate change for the fact that there's a huge increase in the number of kids with mental health issues. They're being bombarded with doom and gloom at school and at home. It's not the place of teachers to influence children on topics like this, and our kid's are being 'brainwashed'. This campaign has nothing whatever to do with the environment. It's about controlling the supply of electricity and gas. Control energy and you control the people. Simple as that.

Of course the 'burqa stunt' was designed to provoke, and it worked. I simply cannot conceive of any situation in which it's necessary for a person to be able to be identified, where it's permissible to have your identity hidden. Banks, courts and many other public places have a right to know who they're dealing with. And if you're unaware of situations where men have worn burqas to hide their identities, again, plenty of videos available online.

I think it's important to bear in mind that large corporations are our major employers. They pump billions of dollars into the economy, and while I take your point, looking critically from both sides of the debate, I have to say I'm on the fence with this one.

In conclusion, I note that the sources you quote are all left of centre. I grew up in a home where the Sydney Morning Herald was the only newspaper we read. I regard The Guardian as a sensationalist rag and give them little credence. I was raised in a home where the ABC was the only radio station and later television station that was listened to and watched. When we married in 1968, the only media outlet that we watched outside the ABC was the local channel for the local news and the Rugby League once a week. We both voted Labor for over 50 years, but no longer. In our view, the ABC is nothing more or less than the propaganda arm of Labor and the Greens. I guess you and I will never see eye to eye, but I totally respect your right to your opinion.

Thank you for your response Joydie. You asked for examples and I provided them and stand by them. Instead of he said, she said, my final thoughts on the matter are more philosophical and a bit long - sorry.
When I look at the rise of far-right politics, both in Australia and globally, it’s hard not to feel a deep concern. Figures like Pauline Hanson and the broader One Nation movement often tap into the frustrations and fears of many, but what I find unsettling is how easily these movements can become vehicles for division. They push a narrative of "us vs. them"—one that’s rooted in fear of the "other" and a longing for a past that, frankly, may never have existed in the way it's portrayed
But history tells us that divisive politics of this nature rarely ends well. We’ve seen it time and again: populist leaders use fear and resentment to build a following, but this kind of rhetoric typically fractures societies. It fosters anger, distrust, and a sense of alienation, not only within the broader community, but also within families and friendships. It chips away at the very fabric of what makes a nation strong: its sense of shared purpose, mutual respect, and cooperation. In the end, these movements often leave behind societies that are more divided, less secure, and less able to work together toward common goals.
By contrast, I believe Australia’s strength lies in its diversity. We are a nation made richer by our multiculturalism, and in this, I see hope for the future. It’s easy to forget that Australia, despite its challenges, is an example of what can happen when people from different walks of life come together and create something bigger than themselves. The fact that we are a relatively peaceful society, living in harmony with each other, is something to be celebrated, especially in a world where so many nations are torn apart by division.
Some may point to conflicts like the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine, where sides are drawn sharply and bloodshed seems endless. While it's understandable to feel sympathy for one side or another, Australia's approach, especially in terms of diplomacy, has been to encourage dialogue and a neutral, cooperative stance. We don't seek to escalate tensions by taking sides, but rather, to maintain a peaceful, open attitude. This isn't just a political stance; it reflects something deeply human: the desire to live in peace, to build bridges rather than walls.

 

[Da Freddo]

High bluesbrother,

I very unfortunately & mistakenly gave you a 'Thumbs Up".

I didn't mean to give that to you at all. ONE HELL of a huge mistake BY ME.

I'd like to ask a "?' to you.

What on earth of a country do you want Australia to be & to live in?

We are allowed to make comments at this point in time. Which we all have to be thankful for, but, for how long, one would ask.

Your comments belong down the "SHIT HOUSE" dunny. GRRR, GRRR,GRRR.

Totally agree.
Some comments can be so

 

[Da Freddo]

Well, Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes had a Degree in Neurosurgery and a Masters in Nuclear Medicine and he "knew nothing"!

Sgt Shultz, JOHN BANNER does he hold any Uni Degrees.
ANSWER IS NO.
Put this question to Google Search..
You are thinking of your hero Bruce Banner aka The Hulk.
Who holds 1MD and 7 PHD's
PS they are fictional

 

[Joydie]

Thank you for your response Joydie. You asked for examples and I provided them and stand by them. Instead of he said, she said, my final thoughts on the matter are more philosophical and a bit long - sorry.
When I look at the rise of far-right politics, both in Australia and globally, it’s hard not to feel a deep concern. Figures like Pauline Hanson and the broader One Nation movement often tap into the frustrations and fears of many, but what I find unsettling is how easily these movements can become vehicles for division. They push a narrative of "us vs. them"—one that’s rooted in fear of the "other" and a longing for a past that, frankly, may never have existed in the way it's portrayed
But history tells us that divisive politics of this nature rarely ends well. We’ve seen it time and again: populist leaders use fear and resentment to build a following, but this kind of rhetoric typically fractures societies. It fosters anger, distrust, and a sense of alienation, not only within the broader community, but also within families and friendships. It chips away at the very fabric of what makes a nation strong: its sense of shared purpose, mutual respect, and cooperation. In the end, these movements often leave behind societies that are more divided, less secure, and less able to work together toward common goals.
By contrast, I believe Australia’s strength lies in its diversity. We are a nation made richer by our multiculturalism, and in this, I see hope for the future. It’s easy to forget that Australia, despite its challenges, is an example of what can happen when people from different walks of life come together and create something bigger than themselves. The fact that we are a relatively peaceful society, living in harmony with each other, is something to be celebrated, especially in a world where so many nations are torn apart by division.
Some may point to conflicts like the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine, where sides are drawn sharply and bloodshed seems endless. While it's understandable to feel sympathy for one side or another, Australia's approach, especially in terms of diplomacy, has been to encourage dialogue and a neutral, cooperative stance. We don't seek to escalate tensions by taking sides, but rather, to maintain a peaceful, open attitude. This isn't just a political stance; it reflects something deeply human: the desire to live in peace, to build bridges rather than walls.

I applaud your view of the ideal world, and wish it could be so. Unfortunately, there are too many groups, powerful groups, actively working to ensure that this can't happen.

The first time I was called a cynic I was eight years old. I prefer the term 'clear eyed realist'. While ever the human element is involved, world peace and harmony will never occur. Whether people like it or not, there are too many very wealthy men moulding the world to their view, for peace and harmony to ever occur.

 

[GoodEnough]

Elitist, much? I have two degrees, teaching and nursing, and I'm here to tell you that every deadset idiot I've ever met has a uni degree. You only have to look at the idiots currently stuffing up Australia to know that the uni educated, elitist lawyers don't have a clue. Give me a down to earth person who's had a few struggles in life every time.

Not elitist. Realistic.

Pauline's lack of education is on display almost every time she opens her mouth. There are so many important things that I'm sure you and I both know, that she doesn't.

Knowing she left school at 55 and has made the millions she has from the taxpayer is an insult to everyone who has worked hard on the education. How can we say to kids "You need to get a h=good education" when they can point at Pauline and say otherwise?

 

[GoodEnough]

No more ignorant than many of her political colleagues?

Well, literally, she is! She comments on climate change without even basic scientific knowledge. And it shows.

 

[Joydie]

Not elitist. Realistic.

Pauline's lack of education is on display almost every time she opens her mouth. There are so many important things that I'm sure you and I both know, that she doesn't.

Knowing she left school at 55 and has made the millions she has from the taxpayer is an insult to everyone who has worked hard on the education. How can we say to kids "You need to get a h=good education" when they can point at Pauline and say otherwise?

You can look at things in that light if you wish, but I prefer to take the view that her story proves that anyone can make a success of their life without a tertiary education. That's providing you regard financial gain as success. I personally don't.

There are many thousands of Australians with little to no education who are much wealthier than Pauline Hanson, and those people didn't always get their money honestly.

I agree with you that she isn't a polished speaker, but many find that easier to relate to than the crop of smarmy politicians grabbing photo ops these days. As a matter of fact, since she rose to prominence in the 90s, I've said that she's the wrong person saying the right things.

 

[GoodEnough]

I applaud your view of the ideal world, and wish it could be so. Unfortunately, there are too many groups, powerful groups, actively working to ensure that this can't happen.

The first time I was called a cynic I was eight years old. I prefer the term 'clear eyed realist'. While ever the human element is involved, world peace and harmony will never occur. Whether people like it or not, there are too many very wealthy men moulding the world to their view, for peace and harmony to ever occur.

Not just men. Gina Rinehart has no interest in anybody else's wellbeing, not even her own kids.

 

[marni]

Those who struggle through such adversity unaided are the few and should develop sufficient empathy for the those in similar circumstances to understand the need for the Centrelink safety net, not begrudge them any assistance they may receive.

I agree but surely those that cannot be bothered to put in the hard yards are benefitting from the give me mentality. I remember the baby bonus did not help those deserving, but just allowed teenagers to get the money, often not even spent on the children it was meant to help. One family near me bought a car, which was repossessed after six months because they did not pay any further payments.

 

[marni]

Not just men. Gina Rinehart has no interest in anybody else's wellbeing, not even her own kids.

I am no fan, but please check your facts. Gina shares her wealth with many organisations.