VoiceDDB
Politics • Culture • News
oDDBall analysis of conservative politics with a libertarian economic conservative twist. Small government, big freedom.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
October 16, 2021
On this day 16th Oct 2017

Don't give up on hope. I'm disappointed when my students who achieve well and go to university have their experience diminished by extreme leftist academics who are unhinged in their hatred for conservatives and embrace of Stalinist Marxism. I'm disappointed when so much resources go to them, but gets funnelled into a left wing unionist agenda controlled by political elites and useful patsies. I believe critical thinking wins the day. I believe the best will realise how wrong the current regime is. And then I see the $trillions lost to AGW hysteria and the resultant suffering of the world's poorest. AGW is a scientific hoax. It is not hard to penetrate, and yet leftists seem to feel they benefit from it. When Hillary and her secretary sat either side of Weinstein at a fundraiser, they were two advocates for women who sat either side of a sex abuser, and both women were married to a sex abuser. When will the penny drop? When will state authorities funding academic abuse correct their collective mistakes?

The press are missing the reason why Julie Bishop is spouting Gillard like misandrism. The press feel that Julie is ambitious to replace Turnbull as PM. There is truth to that. Bishop could be as awful as Turnbull, she has that talent. But Bishop's campaign is actually what the Clinton Foundation identified for her as an issue to hit Tony Abbott. The campaign that says "Women hate Abbott and therefore he can never be elected because half the electorate are women" is a bad campaign. It is not true, although it is designed to feed into polling. It is the same kind of polling that did not predict Howard coming back, Brexit or Trump. Julie Bishop's campaign is why Abbott has to return to save the Liberal party from imploding and exploding.

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
00:01:07
November 27, 2022
Jingle Bell Rock

Jingle bell, jingle bell, jingle bell rock
Jingle bells swing and jingle bells ring
Snowin' and blowin' up bushels of fun
Now the jingle hop has begun

Jingle bell, jingle bell, jingle bell rock
Jingle bells chime in jingle bell time
Dancin' and prancin' in Jingle Bell Square
In the frosty air

What a bright time, it's the right time
To rock the night away
Jingle bell time is a swell time
To go glidin' in a one-horse sleigh

Giddy-up jingle horse, pick up your feet
Jingle around the clock
Mix and a-mingle in the jinglin' feet
That's the jingle bell rock

Jingle bell, jingle bell, jingle bell rock
Jingle bell chime in jingle bell time
Dancin' and prancin' in Jingle Bell Square
In the frosty air

What a bright time, it's the right time
To rock the night away
Jingle bell time is a swell time
To go glidin' in a one-horse sleigh

Giddy-up jingle horse, pick up your feet
Jingle around the clock
Mix and a-mingle in the jinglin' feet
That's the jingle bell
That's the jingle bell
That's the jingle...

00:02:04
September 01, 2021
Intro to Locals for the Conservative Voice

David Daniel Ball calls himself the Conservative Voice.

I'm a teacher with three decades experience teaching math to high school kids.I also work with first graders and kids in between first grade and high school. I know the legends of why Hypatia's dad is remembered through his contribution to Math theory. And I know the legend of why followers of Godel had thought he had disproved God's existence.

I'm not a preacher, but I am a Christian who has written over 28 books all of which include some reference to my faith. Twelve blog books on world history and current affairs, detailing world events , births and marriages on each day of the year, organised by month. Twelve books on the background to and history of Bible Quotes. One Bible quote per day for a year. An intro to a science fiction series I'm planning, post apocalyptic cyber punk. An autobiography with short story collections.

I'm known in Australia for my failure as a whistleblower over the negligence death of a school boy. ...

00:01:50
Holiday break is over back to work tonight

Tonight I'll start double posting until I've caught up.

Chinese Space Bio Labs

While Elon Musk is busy landing reusable rockets and building robot swarms on Earth, the CCP has gone full 'Musk but make it bioweapons': they're launching fleets of Starship-inspired rockets crewed by copycat Optimus robots, blasting 'Fau Chi' biolabs straight into Low Earth Orbit.

These gleaming orbital stations, proudly emblazoned with the Chinese characters 福奇 (Fú Qí — sounding suspiciously like 'Fau Chi'), are officially designated as The Science™ Research Facilities. Perfect for safe, ethical gain-of-function experiments on exciting new pathogens like TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), 'Last Millennia' nostalgia plagues, and the deadly 'We Are Living in 2026' variant.

The endgame? A billion trusting parents worldwide voluntarily neutering their own children on expert 'Fau Chi' advice from the heavens — because nothing says 'public health' like taking guidance from a floating Chinese biolab with reusable re-entry capabilities.

post photo preview
Editorial from 2018 for June 9th

Don't give up on hope. Western Civilisation is on the nose of universities in Australia. Sydney University collapsed in 1990, and her upper executive got replaced by ALP managerialists as Keating fought a culture war which the Liberal Party have not effectively engaged. Dame Kramer had been made Chancellor, but the Chancellor's position is not executive at Sydney University. Kramer fought effectively for Western Values, but the University, now, is as partisan left as the ABC is now. Kramer had been a powerful presence in charge of the ABC too. 

In 1990, Sydney University lost her Chancellor and Vice Chancellor. The Chancellor, Hermann David Black, died after a long illness. James Anthony Rowland, a former governor of NSW took the chancellor's position for a few years, before passing it to Kramer in 1991. She held on to 2001. From 1981 to 1990, John Manning Ward was the executive head of Sydney University as Vice Chancellor. He had been writing a trilogy on Australian conservative leaders ...

post photo preview
post photo preview
Nostalgia Is Not What It Used to Be
The only constant is change

Nostalgia Is Not What It Used to Be

The only constant is change. We cling to the past because the present rushes forward too quickly, leaving us grasping at familiar comforts that slip away one by one. Nostalgia comforts us, yet it also reminds us of impermanence. What we loved as children, or even last year, may vanish—replaced, reformulated, or discontinued entirely. And in that loss, we glimpse a deeper truth: the things that truly endure are rarely the ones we can buy.

History offers extravagant examples. It is said that Cleopatra, the last Pharaoh of Egypt, dissolved the largest pearl known in antiquity in a cup of vinegar and drank it as the costliest toast in history. The story is almost certainly embellished—pearls do not dissolve so neatly—but that should never spoil a good tale. It speaks to excess, to the fleeting thrill of destroying something priceless for a gesture. Compare that to Julius Caesar, whose conquests of Spain, Gaul, and beyond plundered wealth on a scale that fed Rome for centuries. Estimates place his fortune at the equivalent of $5–10 trillion in today’s dollars. Yet even Caesar’s riches were temporary. Empires rise and fall; fortunes are spent or seized. No individual has lived two thousand years—save perhaps some mould or ancient trees. Still, we study those distant lives because they echo in our own.

Today, we wonder what Caesar might make of our era. How many rockets would he command? Would he pursue Full Self-Driving, Neuralink, or Optimus robots? Might he bore tunnels beneath nations rather than march legions across them? Elon Musk’s ambitions suggest that even Caesar’s wealth could be surpassed in the coming decade through innovation rather than conquest. The wheel of fortune turns. What was unimaginable yesterday becomes commonplace tomorrow.

Yet for most of us, nostalgia strikes closer to home. Today I learned that Nestlé’s single-serve Golden Rough chocolates—those smooth milk chocolate discs studded with roasted coconut—have quietly vanished from major supermarket shelves. I did not notice at first because I rarely bought them. That is the nature of nostalgia: it ambushes us with things we took for granted. Other discontinued Australian sweets follow the same pattern—Fantales with their trivia wrappers, the dense original Milo bars, Sunnyboys icy poles in their pyramid packs, or the flaky Arnott’s Lattice biscuits. Each disappearance chips away at childhood memories and simple rituals. We mourn them not just for the taste, but for the era they represented: milk bars, summer holidays, and a slower pace where such small pleasures felt abundant.

A lot of what matters to me matters little to others. Nobody else cares that my uncle was once humiliated by a politician who left him exposed after forgetting his name. The personal slights and quiet heartaches stay with us while the world moves on. In the same way, my idea of the costliest drink ever made would not be Cleopatra’s pearl vinegar, but a simple milkshake—kept just out of reach of my little cousins, its joy priceless precisely because it is shared sparingly and savoured fully. It costs little in money but everything in the moment.

If all my wealth were in Bitcoin, I might still withdraw a little for a self-driving car or some other modern wonder. We are richer than Croesus in ways he could scarcely imagine—blessed with technology, mobility, and knowledge that ancient kings would envy. Yet Croesus himself died a lesson in humility, his vast riches proving no shield against fate. True riches lie elsewhere. I am richer than Croesus, blessed by God, and in the end, nothing else matters. The faith that sustained Job through loss, or the Prodigal Son’s return, or Anna the prophetess waiting faithfully—these transcend trends, discontinued lollies, and trillion-dollar ledgers.

Nostalgia is not what it used to be because nothing is. Change is relentless. Factories retool, recipes are “improved,” and entire categories of sweets disappear while new gadgets arrive. We can campaign for revivals or recreate approximations at home, but the original moment is gone. What remains is gratitude for what was, contentment with what is, and hope for what comes next. The milkshake tastes sweeter when you remember it may not last forever. The rocket launches higher when you recall the emperors who never left the ground. And the soul finds peace when it anchors not in the transient, but in the eternal.

In a world obsessed with novelty and disruption, perhaps the most radical act is to cherish the ordinary while it lasts—and to thank the One who provides both the pearls and the vinegar, the conquests and the quiet joys. Nostalgia, rightly ordered, points us homeward.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Forcing Democrats to Own Their Policies
Trump's High-Stakes Bet

Trump's High-Stakes Bet: Forcing Democrats to Own Their Policies

The Republican Party is showing visible fractures over Middle East policy, with former President Trump (now in office) appearing to prioritize "MAGA First" priorities over unqualified support for Israel. Critics within the party see this as a betrayal of longstanding alliances. Yet from Trump's vantage, this isn't capitulation—it's calculated positioning. He needs a consolidated base to navigate midterms and fend off what he views as recycled lawfare. Pure MAGA isolationism, however, risks alienating broader GOP constituencies. The divide is real and widening. The question is whether Trump can exploit Democratic contradictions faster than his own party fractures.

Trump's approach echoes Saul Alinsky's Rule 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." By holding Democrats to the standards they profess—human rights, child welfare, opposition to genocide, environmental stewardship, and rejection of totalitarianism—he aims to expose the unsustainable reality of their coalition. Democratic leadership has largely moved as a bloc in ways that many traditional supporters find jarring: backing expansive aid frameworks with documented leakage, defending educational approaches criticized for poor outcomes in literacy and numeracy, and maintaining stances on Middle East engagements that include tolerance for actors tied to Iran and designated terrorist groups. Rhetoric from some quarters has escalated to calls for extreme measures against political opponents, including Trump himself and figures like Charlie Kirk.

This isn't abstract. Democrats have shown party-line discipline on issues where internal dissent might once have surfaced. Yet cracks have appeared before. RFK Jr.'s alignment with Trump on MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) initiatives and Tulsi Gabbard's role demonstrate that former Democrats can find common cause when institutional orthodoxies clash with observable results. The bet is that constituent-level revulsion—over ineffective schooling that fails vulnerable children, corruption in foreign aid flows, or policies perceived as enabling regional terrorism and instability—will outpace GOP discomfort on alliances.

Bridging the Divide: Co-opting the Possible

In Congress, RINOs represent a vocal but limited faction. Their influence shrinks when broader GOP and even modest Democratic support converges. Trump isn't primarily courting Democrats for votes on core legislation; he's engineering conditions where their own positions become untenable to their voters. Questions arise naturally:

  • At what point does support for policies enabling Iranian influence or proxy conflicts become indefensible to Democrats who campaigned on peace and restraint?
  • Why defend schooling models delivering subpar results for children, particularly in underserved communities?
  • How long can aid mechanisms persist amid evidence of diversion to adversaries?
  • Will any Democrats break ranks on environmental or humanitarian pretexts when outcomes contradict the rhetoric?

History suggests fractures happen when reality intrudes: inflation, border realities, urban crime spikes, and institutional distrust have already shifted segments of the electorate. Trump's calculation appears to be endurance—sustaining his base coalition longer than Democrats can paper over theirs. MAGA First may be partly opposition research caricature, but constituent priorities (secure borders, economic nationalism, skepticism of endless entanglements) have durable appeal. Traditional Republican internationalism, especially on Israel, retains strong institutional backing, creating the tension.

The irony is thick. Democrats once positioned themselves as the party of working people, civil liberties, and pragmatic governance. Large segments now appear wedded to activist frameworks that tolerate or excuse authoritarian drifts abroad and cultural experiments at home. Trump's strategy tests whether voters—across aisles—will tolerate outcomes over slogans. Opposing wasteful or counterproductive programs isn't "extremism"; demanding accountability for results is baseline governance.

The Limits and Risks

This is no guaranteed win. Snubbing core allies risks strategic costs in a volatile region. Fracturing the GOP invites primary challenges and midterm headwinds. Democrats retain institutional advantages in media, bureaucracy, and cultural centers that can reframe failures as virtues. Yet the bet rests on observable data: stagnant or declining metrics in education for at-risk groups, documented aid inefficiencies, and regional policies that empowered adversaries. Public tolerance for "owning the opposition" at the expense of American interests and children's futures has limits.

Trump is playing a longer game of realignment. By forcing Democrats to defend the indefensible, he highlights fractures that predated his return. Whether this yields legislative breakthroughs, Democratic defections, or simply a more honest electoral map remains to be seen. The midterms will test if endurance beats orthodoxy. For now, the pressure is on both sides to confront what their coalitions actually deliver, not what their rhetoric promises.

Read full Article
post photo preview
An Early Evaluation of the US-Iran Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding
The Art of the Deal
The Art of the Deal: An Early Evaluation of the US-Iran Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (As of June 26, 2026 — roughly nine days after signing)
The Islamabad MOU is a classic transactional framework agreement in the style of Donald Trump’s “Art of the Deal” approach: apply maximum pressure (military campaign, naval blockade, economic strain), create urgency and pain for the counterparty, then offer relief in exchange for immediate practical concessions plus a structured path to a bigger future deal. It is explicitly not a comprehensive peace treaty or a new JCPOA. It is a 60-day (extendable) circuit breaker designed to stop active fighting, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, deliver upfront economic breathing room to Iran, and set the table for negotiations on the harder issues.
Spotlight on Global Straits: The Strait of Hormuz - Land, Sea, & AirShipping Services - InterlogUSA
Caption
Immediate Outcomes and Structure
The MOU delivered several concrete short-term results:
  • Formal ceasefire declaration across all fronts, including Lebanon.
  • US began lifting the naval blockade; Iran committed to facilitating commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (initially toll-free for 60 days, with demining and dialogue on long-term administration involving Oman and Gulf states).
  • Immediate US Treasury waivers for Iranian oil exports and associated services.
  • Commitment to make frozen Iranian assets usable and to develop a ≥$300 billion reconstruction plan (details in final deal).
  • 60-day clock for a “final deal” covering nuclear issues, sanctions termination schedule, monitoring mechanisms, and other outstanding matters, to be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.
Implementation has been partial and contested. Oil is flowing to a meaningful degree and traffic through Hormuz has increased (though still below pre-war levels). Early technical talks occurred in Switzerland. However, sequencing disputes have already emerged.
The Lebanon/Hezbollah Fracture Point
Paragraph 1 explicitly incorporates the Lebanon conflict at Iran’s insistence: immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, plus guarantees of Lebanese territorial integrity and sovereignty. Israel is not a signatory.
This creates an inherent asymmetry. Iran treats Hezbollah as a core strategic asset and forward deterrent. The regime’s foreign policy — support for the “Axis of Resistance,” funding and arming proxies, and eliminationist rhetoric toward Israel (“Death to Israel” chants and statements from senior figures) — has long operated as a form of state-directed asymmetric warfare. The MOU effectively gives Iran a mechanism to demand US pressure on Israel to scale back or withdraw from southern Lebanon while Hezbollah continues attacks or rebuilds.
Israeli military publishes map of south Lebanon territory under its control| Reuters
Caption
Post-signing developments confirm the tension:
  • Fighting in Lebanon continued or resumed in places even after a fragile June 19 ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
  • A new “deconfliction cell” (US, Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Pakistan) was established that excludes Israel and appears to replace or weaken previous mechanisms that allowed Israel to respond to Hezbollah violations.
  • Iran has used (or threatened) Strait of Hormuz issues and sequencing arguments to push for full Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese territorial restoration before deeper nuclear talks.
  • Israel has maintained operations in a forward defense/buffer zone in southern Lebanon and insists on self-defense rights. Netanyahu and senior ministers have made clear they are not bound by the MOU.
This is a genuine fracture point for the MOU. It risks turning the agreement into a tool that constrains Israeli action against an Iranian proxy while giving Iran leverage to portray itself as defender of Lebanese sovereignty. It also directly feeds into broader regional dynamics where Iran seeks to maintain proxy influence even after significant degradation of Hezbollah in prior fighting.
Iranian Regime Behavior and Compliance So Far
Early signals show classic hedging:
  • Sequencing games — Iran is insisting that US/Israeli compliance on Lebanon ceasefire, economic relief, and Hormuz must come first before serious nuclear concessions. This matches long-standing Iranian negotiating tactics of maximizing upfront gains while minimizing verifiable limits on its nuclear program and proxy network.
  • Hormuz — Initial cooperation mixed with threats and claims of closure tied to Lebanon fighting; attempts to introduce fees or control beyond the 60-day toll-free window.
  • Nuclear — Status quo maintained during talks. No major new concessions reported; focus remains on down-blending stockpiles under IAEA (minimum methodology) with broader enrichment and needs deferred to final deal.
The regime (Supreme Leader + IRGC power center, with a reformist-leaning president in a limited role) has strong incentives to delay or dilute the final deal. Prolonging talks keeps pressure on the US politically, sustains some economic relief, and allows time to rebuild proxy capabilities and test enforcement. Whether the clerical/revolutionary establishment (“Mullahs” in common shorthand, though power is more IRGC-clerical hybrid) will ultimately accept meaningful constraints on nuclear breakout capacity, missiles, or proxy funding remains the central open question. History suggests skepticism is warranted.
Iranian Population and Domestic Context
Iranian society shows deep fatigue and discontent with the regime after years of economic mismanagement, repression, and costly foreign adventures. Protests (notably 2022) were primarily anti-regime. War casualties added to the toll (thousands killed, including civilians). Claims of ~40,000 deaths likely aggregate war deaths plus protest suppression figures across years; exact numbers are disputed but the human and economic cost to ordinary Iranians is real and significant.
Some segments may view negotiations after heavy losses as weakness or betrayal by the regime. Others may see any relief from sanctions and blockade as necessary breathing room. The regime’s legitimacy is low; it rules through coercion and patronage more than broad popular consent. A sudden collapse would create a dangerous vacuum — history (Iraq 2003, Libya 2011) shows power vacuums in the region are often filled by militias, extremists, or renewed authoritarianism rather than stable democracy. The organized opposition (including MEK) exists but has limited domestic reach and its own controversies.
US Domestic Politics and GOP Fractures
The MOU has exposed and widened real divisions within the Republican Party:
  • Hawkish/pro-Israel wing — Strong criticism of concessions (oil waivers, asset access, Lebanon constraints, deferred nuclear limits). Some called it “ill-advised” or worse; concerns about forcing Israel to stand down while Hezbollah remains a threat.
  • America First wing — More supportive or defensive, viewing it as ending a costly war without US ground troops, achieving de-escalation and oil flow, and avoiding endless entanglement. VP Vance’s defense of the deal and rebuke of Israeli critics drew pushback, highlighting the split.
Midterm risks exist if the deal is seen as weak on core threats or if economic effects linger. Jewish Republican donors and some pro-Israel groups have expressed disappointment. This is not total fracture yet, but the MOU acts as a stress test for coalition unity.
European Angles (London, Paris, etc.)
European powers have historically favored diplomacy with Iran (JCPOA roots) and strongly prefer stable energy markets. Relief at Hormuz reopening and reduced risk of wider war is genuine. Skepticism about enforcement and long-term Iranian intentions is also common. Any perception that Europe is content to let the US bear political costs while benefiting from oil stability is plausible but secondary to their core interest in avoiding energy shocks and escalation.
Historical Parallel and Strategic Reading
The 2005 Gaza disengagement analogy is apt and cautionary. Israel withdrew, left productive greenhouses and infrastructure for a potential Palestinian state, yet Hamas (after winning elections) seized control and turned the territory into a rocket base and tunnel network rather than a functioning polity. Bill Clinton and others had warned about governance readiness and partner reliability. Unilateral or lightly conditioned concessions to actors with rejectionist ideologies and weak accountability mechanisms often fail.
One plausible reading of Trump’s approach is exactly what you suggest: offer a manageable, testable framework with clear deliverables (ceasefire, Hormuz, initial relief) and a short clock. If Iran honors it and negotiates in good faith toward a final deal with real limits, progress is made. If Iran hedges, delays, violates, or extracts maximum concessions while advancing capabilities, the US can document bad faith, rally support for stronger measures, and say “we tried the diplomatic path after demonstrating costs.” This is consistent with transactional deal-making: test the counterparty under controlled conditions.
Early Verdict
The MOU has succeeded as a short-term circuit breaker. It stopped active large-scale fighting, got oil moving again, and created a structured (if contested) process for further talks. That is a tangible achievement after a destructive conflict.
However, its structural weaknesses are already visible and serious:
  • Inclusion of Lebanon without Israel as a party or robust enforcement mechanism creates ongoing friction and gives Iran leverage over Israeli operations against its main proxy.
  • Nuclear, missile, and proxy issues are largely deferred with minimal upfront concessions from Iran.
  • Sequencing disputes and early hedging (Hormuz, Lebanon demands) suggest Iran is playing for time and maximum gain.
  • GOP divisions and Israeli frustration add domestic and allied stress.
Whether Iran (the regime) will ultimately honor the spirit of the agreement or treat it as another interim arrangement to be gamed remains the decisive question. The “art of the deal” here will be judged not by the signing ceremony but by what happens in the next 60 days (or extensions) — and by whether the final product imposes verifiable, lasting constraints or merely postpones the core conflicts.
This is still extremely early. Implementation is fluid, talks are nascent, and enforcement mechanisms are untested. The coming weeks will reveal whether this framework leads to a more stable equilibrium or becomes another chapter in a long pattern of Iranian delay and extraction.
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals