I’ve often said that I can accept that people will disagree with me because I’m not always right about everything. A friend of mine often reminds me of that time I was wrong back in 2004, so I’m always circumspect when it comes to being too dogmatic about a particular issue. However, I find it confusing when people manage to disagree with themselves… sometimes in the course of the same sentence. Take these things as an example:

1. The Voice is unlikely to do anything positive for the Indigenous population and is just virtue signalling by the woke, inner city elites, yet it is an enormous risk which will give enormous power to one group and stall our government, as well as leading to vast sums of money being diverted to First Nations people.
2. On the subject of elites, why is the term “elites” directed at academics and “socialists” by people supporting the monarchy?
3. The recent Victorian Budget increased land tax on a second property. This will have the effect of hurting both renters and “mum and dad investors”. The latter won’t be able to afford it and will be forced to sell their properties, while the former will have the rents raised by the investors to cover the cost of this increase. What puzzles me is – if the cost is being passed on to renters – then how does it follow that the “mum and dad investors” will be worse off financially. On a separate note, when will someone point out that Rupert is a father and Gina is a mother, so that means that they qualify as “mum and dad investors”. (And yes, I know some of you want to add that Rupert is a mother too!)
4. When something like “Number 4 will really amaze you!” is included in a heading, it’s so obviously clickbait, but that doesn’t seem to stop a vast number of people going, “I wonder what No. 4 is”, and reading the whole article.
5. People who’ve banged on about the presumption of innocence being given to this person or that person suddenly pick up on some rumour about those who’ve accused the aforementioned unspecific person who still has the presumption of innocence owing to the fact that no court has judged them. After hearing this rumour those who banged on about the presumption of innocence state with absolute certainty that this proves that the whole thing was an outrage and that there was some massive conspiracy, completely throwing out the whole presumption of innocence thing because it no longer suits them. For example, George Pell was entitled to the presumption of innocence (even after he was convicted, according to some), but when the High Court overturned his conviction, many of the same people asserted that there was a criminal conspiracy and certain people should be jailed. (In using this example, I make no judgement about the guilt or innocence of anyone, merely the contradiction.)

Finally, some trivia that only makes partial sense:

1. Which cricketer was dropped for poor form after scoring a double century in his final test?
2. What is something that Scott Morrison and Malcolm Fraser have in common?

Answers:

1. Jason Gillespie. He was a bowler and therefore nobody cared about his batting.
2. Morrison and Fraser are the only two Liberal ex-PMs whose electorate is currently held by a Liberal. (Kooyong – Menzies, now Independent; Higgins – Holt, Gorton, now Labor; Bennelong – Howard now Labor, Warringah – Abbott, now Independent; Wentworth – Turnbull, now Independent.)