Page 11 of 109

On the Vilification of Prime Minister Scott Morrison

January 2, 2020 / Augustus / 0 Comments

There has always been an unpleasant edge to public discussion of politics. It is much easier to vilify people who see things differently from you, than to engage with them and to see this engagement as an opportunity to learn.

The rise of Facebook and Twitter have exacerbated this tendency to personal insult and hasty dismissal instead of reasoned discussion. It is not uncommon for posts on political issues to be met with one word responses: “Fascist!” “Racist!” “Redneck!” “x, y, or z Phobe!”

It is just as common to find these words used to describe politicians or other public figures, as if screeching names or slogans said anything about the person referred to or issues at stake.

One of the most obvious recent examples is the media’s calling down of a rain of fury on the Prime Minister, because he took a short break with his family.

Fire and emergency management are, of course, the responsibility of the states. Despite this, the Prime Minister met with state leaders to talk about strategies and resources, and offered them everything they said they needed. He has visited affected communities, and talked with families, farmers, and firefighters.

So why should he not take a break with his family, his first since becoming Prime Minister, during school holidays when he can spend time with his children? There is no reason at all.
“But it’s a bad look! He doesn’t care!”

Rubbish. It is only a bad look because the media says it is a bad look. The Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews was on a longer holiday, while the Premier of Queensland, Anna Palaszczuk, decided to pack up and go on a cruise. But fire and emergency management are their responsibility, not Scott Morrison’s.

I couldn’t care less about Andrews or Palaszczuk having a holiday. What is alarming is the hypocrisy, and the extent to which people are willing to be outraged simply because the media tells them they should be.

Scott Morrison recognised that volunteers are not in it for money but because they care about their communities. He is also the first political leader to recognise that while small businesses want to support, they cannot pay wages indefinitely to people who are not working, and volunteers need to pay bills and buy food for their families. Consequently he has offered the states money to compensate fire-fighters and others who are off work for extended periods of time.

Again, it is worth noting that this is despite the fact emergency services are a state responsibility.

It is interesting to look back on the media reaction to former PM Tony Abbott’s actually being on the frontline of fire-fighting. See the article from The Guardian below. There is no pleasing some people. Because for some people the issues are not the issue, it is about the tribe.

The Guardian berates PM Tony Abbott

Should Tony have stopped volunteering and focussed on running the country? Should Scott never go on holidays, and stop eating and talking to people and focus on running the country?

He seems to be doing a pretty good job of that.

Australia faces economic challenges, including high energy prices, global trade tensions and a devastating drought. Yet Australia has maintained its AAA credit rating.

Australia has first current account surplus in 40 years, and the lowest welfare dependency in 30 years.

The budget is in balance for the first time in 11 years. Inherited debt is being paid off. Over four years, this will mean $13.5 billion that no longer needs to be spent on debt interest.
More than 1.4 million new jobs have been created in the last five years. Record amounts are being invested in schools, hospitals, aged care and disability support.

Following the biggest tax cuts in twenty years, household disposable incomes have had the fastest increase in a decade. This means more money can be put into building a strong future, and caring for Australians in need. This includes $4.2 billion in accelerated infrastructure projects, $1.3 billion in increased support for drought relief and 10,000 more home care packages for older Australians.

Is everything perfect? Of course not. I still have major issues with some government policies, including the absurd decision to buy slow, noisy submarines which are not only untested but will be out of date before the first one is delivered. Our defence forces deserve the best equipment we can afford, and for resources to be allocated according to an evidence-based, long term strategic plan.

But it is also important to recognise what is being done well, and to acknowledge that most politicians on all sides are decent, hard-working people, who want to make Australia and the world a better place.

Outer Worlds Review – Tips

November 10, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Woah, woah, woah! It’s Rizzo’s!

That is stuck in my brain now, along with “Fruity oaty bars, they make a man out of a mou-ouse!”

Never mind.

I started playing Outer Worlds on the day of its release. I finished it last night.

Outer Worlds

By “finished” I mean I got all the companions, completed all the companion quests, got all the science weapons, got warring factions talking to each other, rescued runaways (or reported back that they were dead), talked to the mad scientist (who wasn’t so mad after all), starred in a movie, killed Akande (she started it), and saved the galaxy. Or one little bit of it anyway.

I don’t have much time to play, and this took about thirty hours to complete. I got it on xbox gamepass. I would have been annoyed if I had paid full price (about $80) for it. It is fun, great, even, but just too short to justify that kind of price.

Character development is good, quests are not grindy, graphics are good if not dazzling (it uses the Unreal engine). The dialogue is very good, brilliant in places, and often funny or insightful.

The designers say you can develop your character and play any way you want. That is another way of saying that how you develop your character makes no real difference. Essentially you can put points anywhere and the game will still play out identically. The only exception is that to achieve the best outcome (getting different sides to talk to one another) in one particular scenario on Monarch, the second world you visit (not counting Groundbreaker), you must have a persuade skill of 55. Other than that, do what you want.

On the other hand, points into stealth/hack are pretty much wasted. There is always a way forward that does not require those skills. Put a few points into defence and whatever weapon group you prefer. Points in leadership raise your companions’ health and damage, but I think there is a better way to do this, and that is to raise science skills.

Science enables you to tinker with your and your companions’ armour and weapons, massively raising their damage and protection, and directly raising the damage of any science weapons you use. My weapons of choice were the prismatic hammer and the euthanasia kit, until I got Phin’s Phorce in Phineas Welles’ lab right at the end. That is one good gun.

The basic rule is, “Do the right thing.” Don’t steal, don’t kill anyone you don’t have to. Don’t kill anyone just because someone else tells you to. You can accept those quests, but talk to the intended victim first. In the case of Akande, when you get to her, just say no. She will attack you. Do what you need to do. Even though this is the right thing to do, this means you have no choice but to fight what is effectively the final boss, RAM, a well-amoured robot. This is the only fight in the game where you will need to think ahead.

Unless there was some reason not to (eg a companion quest that belonged to another companion) I used Sam and Felix for most missions. But when you get to Tartarus, take Parvati and Felix. This is because Parvati has a very useful knockdown effect which enables you to get past RAM’s armour. You can alternate her knockdown with using your own tactical time dilation to cripple him briefly, each time whacking at him with your plasma based weapon.

Equip Felix and Parvati with plasma weapons too. Kill the drones first if you can, so you can concentrate on RAM. Keep your companions alive for as long as you can. If you have taken one of the perks that enables you to revive them during a fight that will help, but the chances are you will have to finish the fight on your own.

You beat RAM by crippling him, whacking him, and then running away until your tactical time dilation has recharged. Using foods that boost health or health regeneration will help, but once I understood the mechanics, it was no problem at all.

Then you rescue Phineas Welles, he makes a speech about how wonderful you are, and there is a nice slide-show previewing a hope-filled future in which the remaining colonists on the colony ship Hope are revived and Halcyon moves ahead.

It is engaging and well-written, but is too short for the price, and has little (none, really) replay value. Don’t pay full price for it.

Australia, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press

October 22, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

The free flow of information is a vital characteristic of a free society. There is a strong correlation between freedom of speech and a free press, and individual freedom and prosperity.

But the “public’s right to know” has never been without limits.

For example, the public has no right to know the content of your private conversations with family and friends.

It may not be in the public interest for the public to be fully aware of matters relating to national security. Not every member of the public, nor every member of the press, has Australia’s best interests at heart.

Where there are sensitive negotiations with foreign powers over trade or border issues, it may seriously undermine those efforts, and the welfare of all Australians, if details of Australia’s strategies and bargaining positions are made known.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade routinely prepares reports on foreign leaders and governments, which may list personal interests and weaknesses, and potential risks. It is important that these reports be fact-based and forthright. But it may damage relationships if they were to be made public.

Matters which are commercial-in-confidence are also protected. Like governments, businesses must make assessments of competing interests, and develop acquisition and marketing strategies. It would undermine their future viability, their ability to provide employment to Australian men and women, and their returns to shareholders (in many cases superannuation funds providing support and security to ordinary working people) if those confidences were to be betrayed.

As one further example, it is well-established that the public’s right to know does not extend to personal details, names and addresses of victims and witnesses in some criminal trials.

Being a journalist does not mean an exemption from rules which protect Australia’s national security. Nor does it mean journalists are exempt from laws relating to defamation, trespass, contempt of court or border violations.

Cardinal Pell. The Appeal.

August 25, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

I have so far refrained from any comment on the outcome of Cardinal Pell’s appeal. To say I was disappointed with the outcome would be an understatement.

I have written extensively about this case here:

and here:

The prosecution case was based entirely on the evidence of a single person, some twenty years after the events.

The fact that it was a single person, and the delay, do not in themselves mean the complaint has no foundation. But those factors make both prosecution and defense more difficult. That is part of the reason the Victorian DPP decided not to proceed with prosecution, leaving (highly usually) the Victorian Police to prosecute the matter.

It has been suggested that the existence of a single witness/complainant should not be a barrier to a finding of guilty, and that in some instances, murder and sexual assault, for example, there may be only one witness, or none.

That is correct. But in the case of murder, there is no doubt that a crime has occurred. There is a body, blood, at least a missing person with additional evidence of criminal activity.

In the case of allegations of rape or sexual abuse, the prosecution normally requires some additional evidence besides the word of a single complainant; bruising, semen, witnesses who can corroborate at least part of the complainant’s story.

It was unremarkable, though sad and disappointing for her, that Victorian Police did not prosecute Kathy Sherif’s long-standing allegation of rape against Bill Shorten, an assault she alleges occurred at a Labor Party function in 1986 when she was sixteen. Kathy was able to produce witnesses who corroborated many aspects of her story.

The case against Cardinal Pell was far weaker: A single complainant who came forward only in response to public requests for complaints, who offered changing and inconsistent evidence, no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence of any sort, and multiple witnesses who gave evidence that they were with the then Archbishop throughout Mass and while he greeted parishioners immediately after, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. For details and more information about the background of the case, read my two articles linked above.

The first trial ended in a mistrial, with jurors reportedly voting ten to two in favour of a not guilty finding. The second trial took place after months of inflammatory reporting, especially in the Guardian, on the ABC, and in Louise Milligan’s scurrilous book, Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell.

There was a carnival atmosphere in the press, a feeding frenzy of malice and bigotry, the like of which we have not seen since the Chamberlain case. John Bryson’s book on that case was titled “Evil Angels” the evil angels being the Australian media.

Some of the comment on social media has likewise been almost demonic in its hatred and disregard for truth. If people have not carefully examined the evidence and the background, then their comments say nothing about Cardinal Pell and his guilt or otherwise, but say a great deal about themselves.

Like the media-driven guilty findings in the Chamberlain case, the guilty finding in the Pell case is an indictment, not of Cardinal Pell, but of the Australian media, and to some extent, the Australian judiciary.

The dissenting judge in the Appeal, Justice Weinberg, was the only judge of the three with any history and significant experience of criminal cases. Part of his opinion can be found here:

Cardinal Pell – The Media and Judiciary’s Disgrace

August 11, 2019 / Augustus / 1 Comment

I have been frustrated by news stories today suggesting that “disgraced” Cardinal George Pell has broken the law by posting material to social media.

Firstly, Cardinal Pell is not “disgraced.” It is the media and the Australian judicial system which are disgraced by the verdict against him, which was based on the evidence of a single witness, a person of zero credibility, whose testimony was inconsistent, and in several places demonstrably false. I have written about this before and will not repeat those discussions here. If you are interested you can find the relevant articles and others by me at this link.

Secondly, and obviously, Cardinal Pell did not post anything to social media, because he has no access to social media. He wrote a letter to a group of people who have supported him in prayer and fellowship. They posted a scanned copy of his letter in on Twitter.

Is there a law against publicising correspondence received from prisoners?

I hope not, because I have transcribed it and copied it below. It does not reference his alleged offences, or the accuser, or anyone involved in that sorry excuse for a trial. It is simply a pastoral letter from a minister of the Gospel to a group of friends.
……………………………..
Melbourne Assessment Prison
1/8/19

Dear Kathy and brothers and sisters in Christ of the Support Cardinal Pell group.

First of all let me thank you for your prayers and messages of support, these being immense consolation, humanly and spiritually.

A word of explanation. I have received between 1500 – 2000 letters and all will be answered. So far I have only responded to letters from my fellow prisoners (to nearly all of those who wrote) and a few other special cases. Your kindness is not forgotten and will always be fondly remembered.

My faith in our Lord, like yours, is a source of strength. The knowledge that my small suffering can be used for good purposes through being joined to Jesus’s suffering gives me purpose and direction. Challenges and problems in Church life should be confronted in a similar spirit of faith.

We must always remember that the Catholic Church is one, not just in the sense that good families stick together whatever their differences, but because the Church of Christ is based in the Catholic Church, which constitutes the Body of Christ. One ancient saying teaches that there must be unity in essentials (Jesus’s essentials) but there can be diversity in non-essentials. But everywhere and in everything we must have charity.

I agree that we have reasons to be disturbed by the Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazonia Synod. This is not the first low quality document the Synod secretariat has produced. Cardinal G. Müller, formerly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has written an excellent critique. I am no expert in the region but I have been to Ecuador and Amazonian Peru, where a Sydney priest Fr John Anderson runs a parish of exemplary piety, pastoral activity and orthodoxy. As in the Amazon a lot of water has yet to run before the end of the Synod.

One point is fundamental. The Apostles’ Tradition, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, taken from the New Testament and taught by Popes and councils, by the magisterium, is the only criterion doctrinally for all teaching on doctrine and practice. Amazon or no Amazon, in every land, the Church cannot allow any confusion, much less any contrary teaching, to damage the Apostolic Tradition.

The Spirit continues to be with the Church. You have every right to make your voices heard, reasonably and in charity. We need not expect the worst.

Yours in the Lord,
Your grateful brother
+George Card. Pell
……………………………

Fear, Faith and Folau

June 27, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Freedom of speech is an essential characteristic of any successful society. If people are not free to say what they believe, there can be no testing of ideas against each other and against reality. Without that, there can be no progress in science, in art, in literature, in education, in society and policy.

But the fact that freedom of speech is essential does not mean there are no limits. Famously, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Unless, of course, there is a fire. Speech that would cause grave harm by generating panic is rightly proscribed.

A just society is also right to place limits on hate speech, where hate speech is words intended to generate hatred against an individual or group, and to cause deliberate harm. Words which demand actions which are proven to be harmful to individuals or groups may also be restricted. For example, persons purporting to be health professionals should not be able to suggest to worried parents that bleach enemas will cure their child’s autism.

Beyond these extreme examples, a free and open society should be willing to tolerate a wide range of views, even when those views make some groups or individuals distressed or angry.

On social media I will unfriend and even block people who repeatedly post holocaust-denying material, or anti-semitic news or cartoons, including claims Israel has no right to exist or to defend its borders, or who post anti-vaccination propaganda. All of those views are dangerous, and misinformed if not deliberately ignorant. I want no part in sharing them or passing them on. But I would not want the government or employers to enforce rules which meant those people could not express their views without risk of fines, imprisonment or loss of employment.

There are some obvious exceptions. You should not expect to be able to work for the Salvation Army, for example, while publicly expressing the view that the Salvation Army is stupid, and its views on drugs and alcohol are oppressive. You cannot expect to work in a paediatrician’s practice while publicly maintaining that childhood vaccinations are a dangerous scam designed to make doctors more money.

Holocaust denial is simply silly, and is almost always based in malice. But making the expression of such views illegal creates the impression there is something to hide, or of fear of the truth. As far as possible, where it does not cause grave and immediate harm, the expression of any opinion should be permitted.

But being entitled to express your views does not mean anyone is obliged to listen to them. Nor is any person or business obliged to give you a platform for your views. When social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Google shut down conservative writers, they are not impinging on anyone’s freedom of speech. They are sovereign companies and can enforce whatever rules and policies they like. No one forces you to use them. If your views are not welcome there, find somewhere else.

Nor does freedom of speech mean you are free from the natural consequences of what you say. If you are free to say what you wish, people are free to respond as they wish. They may decide they don’t like you, or that you are stupid or a bigot. They may decline to invite you to their home or to events, they may block you on social media. They may decide not to do business with you.

At what point does government or an employer have the right to demand someone keep their views to themselves? Most people would say when there is clear danger of grave and immediate harm. Israel Folau’s Instagram post a few weeks ago, and his comments at church, caused deep offence in some circles. Do they cross that line?

Taking offense is not always an unreasonable or juvenile reaction. There are ideas and graphics on social media I find offensive. When they appear I either ignore them, or if the person who posted them seems open to reason and discussion, I may try to engage in some fact-based discussion. What is juvenile is demanding that someone else take action because you are offended. Especially when, as in Israel Folau’s case, people appear to have gone out of their way to find something to be offended about.

No one is obliged to follow Israel Folau on any social media platform. I don’t. Nor is anyone obliged to go the church he goes to. If you don’t like something someone says on Facebook or Instagram, either engage with them and show them where they are wrong, or ignore the post, or unfriend or unfollow them.

But wait just a gol-darned minute.

If someone is whipping up hatred against another person or group, it does not matter whether that takes place in an auditorium or a phone booth. If speech is intended to cause deliberate harm to others, and is foreseeably likely to do so, then society not only has a reasonable interest in imposing restrictions, but a responsibility to do so.

I have gay friends. The best man at my wedding, my best friend at the time, is gay and is a supporter of the re-definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. I have gay family members. I would be distressed and angered if anyone suggested they were less worthy than others, or somehow less human, and that it was therefore appropriate to hate or exclude them.

Is that what Israel Folau was doing? If you follow only the mainstream media you might have got that impression. His post on Instagram and subsequent comments in church have been framed as a deliberate and malicious campaign against gay people and their rights by a militant homophobe. But media and corporate lobbyists are often wrong, so if we want to arrive at a fair appraisal, we need to look at what Israel Folau actually posted and said.

The Instagram post that started the furore was a quote from chapter six of St Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

The focus of this passage of scripture is twofold. First, sin separates us from God. When we choose to step outside God’s perfect will for us, we turn away from what gives us life. It is as if a plant decided it no longer needed sunlight and water and was going to go its own way. The results of our choosing to do it our way are all around us – loneliness, frustration, anger, despair. The ultimate result for us as individuals if we continue to choose our own path rather than God’s, is eternal separation from Him, not by His will but ours.

Paul tells us that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of us. That is the point of the list quoted by Folau. It is the opposite of singling out any group for derision. I am on the list at least twice. Everyone is on the list. We have all turned aside, we are all lost, none is better than any other. Incidentally, although it often goes unmentioned, this is the reason homosexual persons male or female are safer and more respected in predominantly Christian countries, or countries with a long history of Christian influence, than anywhere else. Yes, homosexual acts are sinful, and so is lying, disrespect for parents, drunkenness, laziness, etc, etc. To homosexual persons who say “But you are saying we are sinners and will go to hell” St Paul, Israel Folau, and other Christians reply “Yes, exactly like all the rest of us.”

The second focus of St Paul’s list, and its ultimate purpose, is to let people know that whatever the nature of their particular temptations and sinfulness, no matter how far they have turned off the path, it is always only one step back. St Paul’s list, shared by Israel Folau, is an invitation to everyone to return home, to find life, light, hope, and peace again, and most importantly, an eternal life of joy. Again, this is the opposite of singling out a group for hatred and exclusion. It is a universal invitation to love and fellowship.

“Well, OK,” some might say. “But what about his targeting of trans-gender kids? There can be no excuse for that.” And that would be right, if that were what had happened.

But it wasn’t. Folau said that children needed to be protected against early sexualisation. It didn’t matter whether gay or straight. Just let children be children. That is a long way from attacking children.

He also suggested children needed to be protected against activist practitioners and bureaucrats and misguided parents into being pressured to make decisions they could not understand, which would cause them serious harm, and which they would later regret. There is a large body of experience and evidence to support this point of view.

Johns Hopkins Hospital was one of the pioneers of sex-change surgery. It no longer performs sex-change operations because it found a high level of profound regret post-surgery, higher levels of depression, and far higher levels of suicide. Its psychiatrists and surgeons formed the view that gender dysmorphia is a psychological problem that needed psychological solutions, and that attempts at surgical intervention were counter-productive, even destructive.

You may disagree, and you are free to quote other studies or experiences to support your point of view. But that does not mean that Israel Folau’s views are hateful or malicious.

As I write, today’s news reports that Maria Folau, a Silver Fern, a member of New Zealand’s national netball team, has been targeted by the ANZ and another corporate sponsor, and her dismissal from the team demanded, because she has not publicly rebuked her husband or distanced herself from him. The ANZ, for heaven’s sake, that champion of social justice and paragon of corporate responsibility.

You have to wonder whether in omitting the context of Folau’s views and the passage of scripture he shared, and the distortion of his comments, and now the targeting of his family, his accusers are not doing exactly what they indict him of; singling out an individual or group for exclusion and hatred.

There has also been ridicule and hatred directed at the Folau family because they asked for support in meeting legal costs. But here too, there are other things to keep in mind. Israel Folau has already put over $100,000 of his own money into paying legal bills and countering persecution neither he nor any member of a free society should have to face. He has assets, but that does not mean he has large amounts of cash. Footballers have a short career, generally no more than fifteen years to build up assets to provide for their families for a lifetime. Folau has done this responsibly and carefully.

My wife and I give over $400 per month to various church groups and charities. If I choose to give $20 to Folau’s defence fund this is in addition to, not instead of anything else. I suspect this is the case for most who have contributed. It is interesting that so many people seem to have discovered an interest in sick children over the last few days, and are suddenly inspired to claim loudly that sick children are more important than justice. Both are important.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with Israel Folau or not. If you have ever posted anything on social media anyone could disagree with or find offensive, or ever said anything in any gathering that an over-zealous employer could claim had potential to bring his or her business into disrepute, eventually the mob will come for you.

Who will stand with you then?

ITP, Parkinsons, Levodopa

June 16, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

A friend in her late fifties developed Parkinson’s type symptoms; bradykinesia, rest tremor, forward falls, speech difficulties, some twelve months ago. The disease progressed rapidly to the point she is no longer able to work. Difficulties in accessing good neurological services mean that she has not yet had a full diagnostic review.

Her GP prescribed Levodopa, which even though it has been in use for forty years is still the treatment of choice for Parkinson’s. A positive response to Levodopa was supportive of the diagnosis of Parkinson’s.

She had a splenectomy in her early teens as a treatment for ITP (Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura), and had been symptom-free since that time. Shortly after commencing Levodopa, she began to notice a recurrence of symptoms of thrombocytopenia including spontaneous skin bruises and petechiae.

There have been multiple reports of the spontaneous development of thrombocytopenia in patients treated with Levodopa, but these have not been common, and tend to occur after an extended period of treatment.

As at June 2019, no research has been conducted on the possibility of increased risk of recurrence of thrombocytopenia symptoms for patients with ITP following treatment with Levodopa.

Thrombocytopenia is not trivial. Although symptoms are most commonly spontaneous bruising and petechiae, there is also increased risk of internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage.

Pending research, practitioners treating patients with Parkinson who have a history of ITP should consult with a haematologist prior to prescribing Levodopa. If Levodopa is appropriate, they may wish to consider prescribing in conjunction with Prednisone to reduce the risk of recurrence of symptoms of thrombocytopenia.

Keywords: ITP, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, thrombocytopenia, parkinsons, parkinson’s, levodopa, prednisone, levadopa, dopamine, dopamine agonists

The Deletion of Faith

June 7, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

I was very pleased today to see the Google doodle commemorating the life and achievements of Elena Cornaro Piscopia, who lived from 1646 to 1684, and who in 1678 was the first woman in the world to receive a PhD from any university.

Google doodle of Elena Cornaro Piscopia

I was less pleased to see no reference in the doodle to Elena’s faith as a Catholic Christian, which was her guide and her motivation throughout her studies and her life. So deep was her faith and commitment that at age eleven she took a vow of chastity, and in 1665 at age nineteen became a Benedictine Oblate.

She was guided and encouraged through her academic career by priests who were both friends and tutors.

This is part of her Wikipedia entry:
“As a young girl, Lady Elena was seen as a prodigy. By the advice from Giovanni Fabris, a priest who was a friend of the family, she began a classical education. She studied Latin and Greek under distinguished instructors, and became proficient in these languages, as well as French and Spanish, by the age of seven. She also mastered Hebrew and Arabic, earning the title of “Oraculum Septilingue”. Her later studies included mathematics, philosophy and theology.

Elena came to be an expert musician. She mastered the harpsichord, the clavichord, the harp and the violin. Her skills were shown by the music that she composed in her lifetime. In her late teens and early twenties she became interested in physics, astronomy and linguistics.

In 1669, she translated the Colloquy of Christ by Carthusian monk Giovanni Lanspergio from Spanish into Italian. The translation was dedicated to her close friend and confessor, Fr. Gianpaolo Oliva. The volume was issued in five editions in the Republic from 1669 to 1672. She was invited to be a part of many scholarly societies when her fame spread and in 1670 she became president of the Venetian society Accademia dei Pacifici (The Academy of the Peaceful).

Her PhD was conferred on 25 June 1678, in Padua Cathedral in the presence of the University authorities, the professors of all the faculties, the students, and most of the Venetian Senators, together with many invited guests from the Universities of Bologna, Perugia, Rome, and Naples.

The Lady Elena spoke for an hour in classical Latin, explaining difficult passages selected at random from the works of Aristotle. She was listened to with great attention and when she had finished, she received plaudits as Professor Rinaldini proceeded to award her the insignia of the laurea, the book of philosophy, placing the wreath of laurel on her head, the ring on her finger, and over her shoulders the ermine mozetta.”

Elena is not alone in having her firmly and repeatedly expressed views of what guided her work and gave it value, deleted without mention from secular re-tellings of her story.

The latest example is the film biography of JRR Tolkien, which somehow manages to get through two hours of story-telling without even a passing reference to the fact that Tolkien was a Catholic Christian, who was vocal throughout his life about the fact that his faith was his light, his guide and his motivation.

If you leave out the central motivation and guiding principle in someone’s life, you are not leaving something out, you are simply not telling the story.

This deletion of any references to faith in the lives of Christian artists and scholars extends into their work. Peter Jackson’s shallow but commercially successful parody of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is a perfect example.

Tolkien described The Lord of the Rings as a work of Catholic theology, and it is. But any references to faith, to providence, the nature of sacrifice, service and leadership, the structure and meaning of the universe, to sacraments; for example the baptismal saving of the company from the servants of death through the wild waters of the Bruinen, the Lembas or waybread given to sustain the hobbits on their journey, and the absolution of Boromir, are carefully skirted around or left unmentioned.

I won’t even start on Disney’s appalling mockery of the Narnia stories. If you take out the heart of a story, there is no story left, only cheap thrills and silliness.

Perhaps the most egregious omission from Peter Jackson’s movies was the huge gap in the story where Tom Bombadil should be. A casual watcher of the movies, someone unfamiliar with the books, would probably not notice the absence. But Tom Bombadil and Goldberry tell us half of the purpose of the quest.

Defeating evil is not just about destroying evil in the form of Sauron (sauros, Greek, means lizard or dragon) and the ring. It is about restoring the good.

In Bombadil and Goldberry, in their laughter and song and dancing, in their imperviousness to evil, and in Bombadil’s naming of animals, Tolkien paints a picture of Adam and Eve before the fall, and therefore of God’s original plan for humanity – a life of joy, of laughter and dancing and song, of bliss in the little things, without fear or sickness or knowledge of death, or the possibility of using others or being used by them.

The quest is not simply the destruction of an evil object, but the restoration of hope, of love and truth and joy and peace. Bombadil and Goldberry show us what that can mean; the end point and purpose. The Lord of the Rings is not the story Tolkien told without them.

Faith is essential to Narnia, to the Lord of the Rings, and to making sense of the lives of Tolkien and of Elena Cornaro Piscopia. Our understanding of them, of their work, and of the meaning and purpose of our own lives, are very much poorer without it.

Israel Folau and the Hateful Intolerance of the Lovingly Inclusive

April 12, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

A few days ago, rugby player and Wallabies team member Israel Folau posted a quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10 on Twitter and Instagram.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce immediately claimed this was homophobic, and threatened to withdraw Qantas’s sponsorship of the ARU unless Folau’s contract was terminated.

The ARU caved instantly: “We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.” Well, no. He never claimed he did.

“In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract.” In other words, unless Israel Folau is willing to grovel, apologise for offending Mr Joyce, and promise never to quote the Bible again, he will be fired.

Chairman of the Australian Rugby League, Peter Beattie, has already announced that Folau will be excluded from any future NRL team.

These actions are grossly hypocritical for two reasons. I will explain why in a second.

But first, let’s note that in his letters to the church in Corinth, Paul is addressing Christians. Some people in that congregation, despite claiming to be saved and living in the grace of God, continued to act in ways which were not compatible with the Gospel.

Paul goes on to say in the next verse “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” In other words, you are a new creation. You are no longer to think or act in the ways you did.

There are plenty of things in his list to be offended about, if you are inclined to take offence. Paul mentions drunks, adulterers, liars, thieves… He is not targeting any particular group of people. He is challenging all Christians to live in accordance with the commitment and promises they have made, and the grace they have been given.

If they don’t, then as much as they persist in actions which are contrary to the teachings and example of Jesus, to that same extent, they reject the love of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is not condemning anyone.

Nor was Israel Folau when he repeated Paul’s words. He is noting that their actions and attitudes condemn them, and calls them (us!) to repentance, so they (we!) might find and continue in abundant and eternal life. Paul and Israel Folau are not homophobic, liar-o-phobic, or thief-o-phobic. If they are phobic about anything, they are phobic about sin itself, as every Christian should be.

If you are a Christian this should not be a source of anger and offence, but of reflection and thankfulness.

If you are not a Christian it does not relate to you at all, so why would you be offended by it? People in other religions believe lots of things I don’t believe. Hindus think it is terribly wrong to eat beef. Muslims think it is an abomination to eat bacon and that anyone who wilfully does so will end in the fires of hell. Buddhists believe that if you were born disabled or caught some dreadful disease or suffered some tragedy, it is because you deserve it, and there is no point in trying to help you. I might think these beliefs are regrettable, but why should I be offended by them? They don’t apply to me.

Even more, why would I try to stop people who hold those beliefs from expressing them? To do so would be unkind, exclusive, and judgemental.

It is just as unkind, exclusive, and judgemental when Alan Joyce uses his considerable financial power to stop Israel Folau from expressing his beliefs.

This is the first point of hypocrisy. That in the name of inclusiveness and diversity, Joyce uses his power to bully, silence and exclude someone who sees things differently from him. Unless Folau recants (he won’t) he will be fired. This will affect not only him, but his family. Who is really being hateful and exclusive here?

The second is that while condemning Israel Folau, Qantas under Alan Joyce’s leadership continues to partner with the national airlines of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Public flogging, stoning, crucifixion and amputation are all accepted and practised punishments under their Islamic law. In 2014 an Asian housemaid was stoned to death in Abu Dhabi. In 2010 an 18 year old woman who had been gang raped by a police officer and five other men withdrew her complaint after the courts threatened her with flogging and a lengthy jail sentence for extra-marital sex. She was still required to serve a year in jail. Homosexual acts are capital crimes in both Qatar and the Emirates.

None of this seems to be of any concern to Alan Joyce and Qantas executives. But when a hardworking and talented young Australian of Tongan extraction quotes the Bible to call other Christians to repentance, they publicly vilify him and demand he be forced out of his job.

Fair enough? I don’t think so.

Christchurch Terror

March 18, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

It is important to try to understand the mass murder in Christchurch, but it is just too early to make any sound or meaningful assessment. Despite the manifesto, we do not know enough about Tarrant’s background and thoughts, and we know nothing about any of the others who may have been involved. That hasn’t stopped the mainstream media with its screeching headlines. More on that in a minute.

I know Christchurch a little. My mother was born at Lyttleton, Christchurch’s port and a very pretty place, and I have spent time in Christchurch and worshipped at the cathedral. That poor city has had more than its share of troubles.

Christchurch Cathedral

Lyttleton Harbour, Christchurch

What we can say, and the first thing we must say, is this. There is no excuse, ever, for religious or political violence against ordinary people. Whatever their background, the victims thought they had found a home in New Zealand, and were entitled to feel safe and welcome.

What we cannot justifiably do, at least yet, is make the judgments about Tarrant’s views some media organisations have made.

Someone who hates capitalism, corporatism, and conservatism, who despises President Trump’s economic and foreign policies, who describes himself as a former communist, now an eco-fascist, who recently visited Pakistan and said he liked and respected the people there, and whose most admired country is communist China, is neither a white supremacist, nor right wing.

If he wrote the manifesto in his name, he is highly intelligent, and thoroughly evil.

To repeat, there is no excuse, ever, anywhere, for acts of terror against civilians. All such acts, wherever they occur, and by whoever they are committed, must be condemned, and every step taken to stop them recurring.

Tarrant suggested he was trying to defend the West and its traditions. The opposite is true. He has comprehensively betrayed our values and our history.

The Climate Youth Brigade

March 15, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

The history of the twentieth century is replete with radical groups scaring children about the future they are to inherit, and encouraging them to take to the streets to shout slogans they did not understand, to denounce their parents, and to demand political changes they could not comprehend. It is not a happy company.

The reason children cannot make major life decisions for themselves, and cannot vote, is that they do not yet have the perspective or background or thinking skills to understand scientific and political issues, or the long term outcomes of environmental or economic policies. Like greenies, they have difficulty with complex ideas and situations, and are not good at weighing different theories, or the objective analysis of risk. They are impressed by scary stories and scary pictures, and suggestions they will miss out or are being hard done by through the irresponsible actions of businesses, politicians and parents.

Children need to be exposed to a wide range of views, and encouraged to think about them carefully and critically.

Advocacy is a great and necessary thing, most of the time. It can also be a very dangerous thing, when the facts are incorrect, or theories wrong. Think of children in Communist China chanting Mao’s slogans in the street during the cultural revolution. Before taking sides, we need consider the sides carefully. A good education encourages and supports children to do this.

Become emotionally engaged, certainly. But be sure you have your facts right first, or you will do more harm than good. Good intentions, divorced from reality, are a fast track to disaster.

Schools and other authorities which encourage activism in children without ensuring facts are correct, and without encouraging critical analysis of diverse scientific and political views, are using children rather than aiding them, and indoctrinating them rather than educating them.

Have children been indoctrinated rather than educated?

Have they been told that current global temperature is between eight and ten degrees below the average for the last 200 million years?

Have they been told we are still in an ice age (it is an ice age whenever there is ice at the poles), and that there has been ice at the poles for less than 20% of earth’s history?

Have they been told that warming over the last 150 years amounts to less than one degree Celsius – a difference so small you would not even notice it moving from one room to another?

Have they been told half of this minor increase occurred before any significant human output of CO2, and that over the last twenty years, as CO2 output has increased, there has been no measurable change in global temperature?

Have they been told that changes far greater, in both directions, have happened frequently in the past without any human influence?

Have they been told that since the beginning of the current inter-glacial period, it has been both warmer and colder than now, and that the general temperature trend for the last 10,000 years has been downward?

Have they been told that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more than ten times higher than they are now, with no ill effects?

Have they been told that CO2 is vital for all life on Earth, and that at the beginning of the twentieth century, CO2 levels were almost catastrophically low, near starvation level for many green plants?

Have they been told that if the atmosphere were a stadium of 10,000 people, only four of those people would be CO2, and only one of those possibly of human origin?

Have they told that this minimal increase in this vital, non-toxic trace gas has resulted in new forest growth, more resilient grasslands, and better crop yields?

Have they been told there is no correlation between human production of CO2 and changes in global temperature?

Have they been told that Tuvalu and Kiribati, islands which were to have sunk by 2015, and from which we were expected to take the entire populations as desperate climate refugees, have actually grown in size?

Have they been told the origin of the media claims that 97% of scientists agree with catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, and given the opportunity to consider the merits of those studies?

Have they been encouraged to consider the work of leading climate scientists, geologists and physicists like Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Will Happer, Murray Salby, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, John Christy, Willie Soon, Ian Clark, Ernst Beck, or the thousands of others who have raised questions about the computer modelling behind the climate scare, and suggested that the scare is not supported by the data?

No?

Then they are being used rather than aided, and indoctrinated rather than educated.

Cardinal Pell Sentenced

March 13, 2019 / Augustus / 13 Comments

On March 13^th, Cardinal George Pell was sentenced to six years jail on charges of child sexual abuse. He will be eligible for parole in three years and eight months.

Some people have pounced on comments at sentencing made by Pell’s defence team, suggesting that these were admission of guilt. This is not the case.

In both Australian and UK courts, once a jury delivers a verdict of guilty, the defence may not dispute that finding (until any appeal is lodged) but has to address the court as if the fact of guilt were now established.

The presiding judge is under a similar obligation, so Justice Peter Kidd’s remark prior to sentencing that his comments and sentencing were made on the assumption that the offences took place as alleged is striking and unusual. I have been present during a number of criminal trials, and I have never heard any judge say anything similar, almost as if he were distancing himself from the verdict, and making it clear he was going through the motions as required.

Why would he do this? Perhaps because the evidence falls far short even on a balance of probabilities basis, let alone where guilt is required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a principle in English and Australian jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable explanation of the evidence that is consistent with the defendant’s being innocent of the charges, a verdict of not guilty must be returned.

Not only were there reasonable alternative explanations of the evidence, but on the evidence given in court by multiple witnesses, it was simply impossible for Cardinal Pell to have committed the offences as alleged.

Some people have suggested that since the court was closed, no one can know what the evidence was, and therefore no one apart from the jury knows the full story. But this is not the case. The court was not closed. Several journalists and members of the public attended throughout. Media suppression is not the same thing as a closed court. That simply meant that details of the case could not be published in Australia until the suppression or der was lifted.

The prosecution’s case was that following Mass at the Cathedral, Archbishop Pell had found two boys in the sacristy drinking altar wine, and had forced them to give him oral sex. The “second victim,” who died before the case came to trial, had said specifically that nothing of the sort ever took place. The entire case against Cardinal Pell was the testimony, more than twenty years after the alleged events, of a single person whose credibility was not permitted to be challenged in court.

The prosecution did not dispute that after Mass Archbishop Pell had been at the door of the Cathedral greeting parishioners as they left, or that after this, he had been in the company of several other people until he left for another function.

The only time in which the alleged offences could have occurred were in the period after the final blessing, until the exit procession arrived at the main doors.

In summary, this is what the prosecution claimed on the basis of the word of a single, uncorroborated witness:

As the procession was forming to leave, two choir boys absconded, unnoticed by anyone at the time or later. At about the same time, the Archbishop, celebrating in his Cathedral for one of the first times, also absconded, also unnoticed by anyone else in the procession, or the hundreds of other people in the Cathedral. The boys returned to the busiest room in the Cathedral at that time, the sacristy, where they found some altar wine which they began to drink, even though altar wine is never left there unattended.

According to the alleged victim, neither the sacristan nor any of the other altar servers or helpers, who would normally be constantly in and out of that room at the time, were anywhere to be seen. Archbishop Pell entered the room, unseen by anyone, and demanded the boys give him oral sex.

It was not disputed that he was wearing his eucharistic vestments. These consist of a close fitting cassock with thirty-nine buttons from top to bottom, a cincture – a wide band around the waist of the cassock, an alb, a long white robe tied with a rope or cord (both cassock and alb are full-length garments, reaching from neck to floor), and over these a dalmatic and a chasuble, both heavy brocade garments reaching to the knees.

Evidence given by the prosecution’s single witness was that these garments were pushed aside. They cannot be pushed aside. It is just possible that they could be lifted enough to give access to everyday clothes underneath, and that these could then be opened, but the cassock, alb, dalmatic and chasuble would need to be held with one hand the entire time. It would tight and uncomfortable, and movement would be almost impossible. This would still be the case even if Pell were wearing only an alb, stole and chasuble over his street clothes, as some parish clergy do.

The prosecutions’ case is that having taken a few minutes to lift these tight, heavy garments and open his normal clothes underneath, the Archbishop, with very limited movement and one free hand, chased the two boys around the sacristy, unnoticed by the large number of people moving between that room and the sanctuary, forcing each of the boys to give him oral sex.

He then masturbated to completion, rearranged his garments, walked back through the Cathedral and re-joined the procession before it arrived at the Cathedral door, again without anyone noticing, while the two boys re-joined the choir, also without anyone noticing either that they were back or that they had been gone.

All of this, according to the prosecution, from the time the procession left the sanctuary to the time it arrived at the door, about one hundred metres distance, took place in about five minutes. In reality (I have been to mass at that Cathedral) about three minutes. Three minutes!

The story is manifestly ludicrous. It is impossible, simply silly.

Juries get things wrong. Facts can be complex, laws confusing, and trials long. But the finding of the jury in this case is unaccountable. The verdict is not an indictment of Cardinal Pell, far less the Catholic Church as a whole, but of Australia’s mainstream media, and Victorian Police.

Operation Tethering, the Victorian police investigation into Cardinal Pell, started in 2013. It was not set up to consider complaints of criminal behaviour; there hadn’t been any. It was set up to generate them. This campaign included the placing of advertisements in Victorian newspapers inviting people to make complaints. If you invite complaints, you will get them. The police had their man. They just needed a suitable victim.

Comparisons have been made between the calumnies heaped on Pell by the media, and the feeding frenzy of hate and condemnation directed at Lindy Chamberlain between 1980 and 1988. The media have been evil angels in both cases, and in the case of Henry Keogh, and of Archbishop Wilson, and others. A rush to gleeful condemnation has become an ugly, but presumably profitable, feature of some parts of Australia’s mainstream media. But at least in the Chamberlain and Keogh cases, something had happened which required investigation. Juries in both cases were misled by mind-bogglingly incompetent forensic experts. For Cardinal George Pell, there were no incidents or complaints to investigate. Police had to go hunting for offences with which to charge a man they had already decided was guilty.

The verdict will be overturned on appeal. But massive harm has been done, to Cardinal Pell himself, of course, to the credibility of Australia’s media and judicial system, and not least to genuine victims.

For Whom the Pell Tolls

March 4, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

The guilty verdict in the trial of Cardinal George Pell is a travesty. It will be overturned on appeal, as was the equally baseless and vindictive conviction of Archbishop Wilson of Adelaide.

Thoughtful commentary here from gay activist Milo Yiannopulos. Having been the priest in charge of a small cathedral, and having frequently been involved in Sunday worship and other services at larger metropolitan cathedrals, I know the scenario described by the single accuser is simply impossible. A bishop in attendance is always in the company of a priest, during preparations before Mass, and when greeting parishioners after.

Cardinal George Pell during his trial for historic child sex abuse.

My view of this from general experience is confirmed in this particular instance through communication with observers present at the trial, and one person who also was present at the first, which was declared a mistrial after the original hung jury, which reportedly voted not guilty ten to two.

According to those observers, the trial was a “slam dunk” for the defence, which not only showed Cardinal Pell did not commit the offences alleged, but that it was simply impossible for him to have done so.

Flinders Chase. No to More Visitors? Why?

March 2, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

The campaign against the Australian Walking Company’s proposal to build eco-friendly lodges at two locations on the KI Wilderness Trail is a perfect example of the dog in the manger negativity that hurls itself at every new project on Kangaroo Island.

Some of the arguments are beyond ludicrous. One was: A completely different company built some completely different buildings somewhere completely different, and they are ugly, so we all need to unite in opposing this project. Um.. OK.

The lodges will not be visible from the main track. The argument that they might be visible from part of the beach below reminds me of the story of the elderly woman who rang police to complain about her neighbour exposing himself. Although this happened at night, and he was in his own home, the woman insisted he was doing it deliberately to upset her. An officer called and looked through her window as directed. “His curtains are closed. I can’t see a thing.” “Of course not,” said the woman “you have to stand on the cupboard.”

Or there is the theory that this is the “thin edge of the wedge” (time to come up with some new clichés, people) and that the park will be ruined by private development. On the contrary, AWC have a strong interest in maintaining the wild beauty of the park – that is why people come.

This project will bring new people to the island, and create thirty full-time equivalent jobs. Those opposed perhaps need to remember the park is not their private playground. It belongs to all Australians, and new facilities constructed at no cost to the tax-payer which give visitors more choices make it more accessible to ordinary Australians, not less.

If you don’t want to stay at the new lodges, that’s fine. You don’t have to. Just keep walking. Why try to spoil it for others?

Further thoughts on this, which may appear in print over the next few days:

Unlike ninety percent of those who gathered at Parliament House on Wednesday to protest the Australian Walking Company’s proposed eco-friendly accommodation on Kangaroo Island, I live and work on the Island.

The proposed development is not about “privatising the park,” as was claimed. It does not “set a dangerous precedent,” it will not “reduce visitor access to the park.”

Private investment in National parks around Australia is an important contributor to meeting the need for infrastructure and facilities for visitors. Whether for cafes, accommodation, or ski facilities, private investment improves accessibility and user friendliness. The planned new Falls to Mt Hotham wilderness trail, for example, specifically includes provision for accommodation and other amenities along the trail to be constructed with a mix of public and private funding.

Private investment means improved facilities without the need for additional tax-payer funds, and at the same time provides additional income to parks for conservation and maintenance.

Flinders Chase is some 320,000 hectares in size. The proposed development will occupy about 1 hectare (approximately half a hectare at each site). The lodges will not be visible from the main track, nor interfere with anyone’s view or movement along the track.

AWC have a history of building and managing high quality, eco-friendly accommodation along some of Australia’s premier trails. They responded to a state government call for expressions of interest in providing such accommodation on the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail with a proposal to spend some $4 million on the Island, and to create thirty FTE jobs.

The new accommodation will enhance the accessibility of the Trail, for example for older or disabled people who may prefer to walk in a group or with a guide, and for whom camping is not an option.

I am sure most of those who turned up to protest as instructed thought they were doing a good thing. But we do not need a low-information rent-a-crowd to tell us, nor to tell politicians on our behalf, what development is appropriate for Kangaroo Island.

Dead Fish, The Murray, and Blaming Cubbie Station

January 15, 2019 / Augustus / 0 Comments

The problem with Greens like Jeremy Buckingham and Sarah Sea Patrol is that, being dwellers in an alternative Starbucks-half-shot-low-fat-pumpkin-latte-with-a-dash-of-organic-breast-milk-from-an-Ethiopian-shepherd-girl universe, they are completely unfamiliar with the nature they wish so desperately to save.

When they do encounter nature, they are terrified, for example, Jeremy Buckingham’s horrified discovery that natural gas (swamp gas) is both natural and flammable, and his certainty that this meant we were on the edge of the apocalypse. I can only assume he thought natural gas was made by specially trained Oompah-Loompahs, and served a merely symbolic purpose, gas ovens and hot water supplies actually being powered by organically grown pixie dust delivered in chemical-free hemp handbags.

Or if they are not terrified, they are disgusted. For example, poor Jeremy’s throwing up at the sight of a dead fish.

Jeremy Buckingham vomits at the sight of a dead fish

One of the Groan’s most cherished fantasies is that prior to invasion day, the Murray-Darling was a constantly flowing, ever-clear stream. Anything short of this, therefore, is considered proof of human greed and disregard for nature and also the dangers of capitalism. Also, white people are bad. Especially men.

In reality, before European settlement, the Murray Darling was, for most of its length, a series of interlinked waterholes which, every couple of years after heavy rains, changed into a massive, roaring river, gradually settling to a gentler flow, and then returning to its default; dry riverbeds and muddy ponds and lakes.

Fish died, frogs died, things dried up. Until the next flood. A bit like that poem:

I love a butthurt country, a land of weeping swains,
of plump transgender penguins roaming proud across the plains.

Or whatever.

Jeremy Buckingham says the lack of flow downstream is all the fault of Cubbie Station. They’ve got plenty of water, which they are meanly holding back so everyone downstream has none. Because they are mean, and have paid off the government. Or something.

A summary of Cubbie Stations’ recent water use and water diversions can be found on their website. Cubbie diverts less than one quarter of one percent of the Murray’s flow. That is a lot, but it is nothing like the gigalitres allocated for irrigation downstream. And Cubbie’s allowance is almost entirely taken during the once in ten years or so storms that send massive amounts of flood water down the system. Cubbie’s storage acts as a flood mitigation system, reducing flood damage downstream, and catching water that would otherwise be lost to evaporation.

The water currently in Cubbie’s storage is water that would have been lost if Cubbie were not there. Despite the claims made by Jeremy Buckingham and others, Cubbie Station’s water allocation does not reduce flow lower in the system, nor reduce supplies available to irrigators downstream.

But if Cubbie is not the problem, what is?

The Murray-Darling is no longer a series of muddy water holes linked only in times of flood. By installing locks and pumps, we have essentially turned the lower half of the river into a massive canal and irrigation system.

We have also created a huge artificial fresh water lake system at the bottom of the Murray. Because of evaporation, the lower lakes require approximately 2500 gigalitres of fresh water flow from the Murray every year to maintain levels. This is in addition to local rainfall and inflows.

The simple fact is this: there is enough water to maintain irrigation and steady levels in the Murray, or enough to maintain the lower lakes, but not both.

The simple solution is this: build a weir at Wellington, remove the barrages, and let the Coorong and lower lakes return to their natural state.

This will return 2500 gigalitres per year of water to the Murray, and restore the natural habitat of the lower lakes and Coroong.

All that is need to solve the problem is politicians for whom the future of the country is more important than popularity.

Qohel