Name your top three pet peeves.

The promotion of a propagandist for imperial power under the cover of diversity – major pet peeve.

What does this mean?

We all welcome cultural diversity on the television, in the media and in film. Increasing the representation of people from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB), persons with disabilities, transgender and LGBTQI+ communities – that is all well and good. With all due respect to Chris Hemsworth, Kylie Minogue, Margo Robbie, Paul Hogan – enough of seeing Australians as only white-skinned, blonde haired people.

It is refreshing to see a hijab-wearing Muslim woman on the television, voicing her opinions. If the topic about which she is speaking is the Middle East, the issue of Islam, the Israel-Palestine conflict, that is great. Finally, people of Arab/Islamic background are getting time on our television screens to express their opinions.

When that person is Fatema Al-Arabi, then it is time to question whether it is respect for cultural diversity that earns her media exposure. You see, Al Arabi is an employee (in Bahrain) of several organisations with ties to Israeli military intelligence. She has promoted the Zionist side of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Her opinions about the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, perfectly align with the misinformation talking points advocated by the Israeli government.

It is not wrong to have an opinion that differs from the Palestinians. However, when you are employed by organisations that have intimate links with an intelligence service (in this case, Israeli), you stop being a journalist and become a paid propagandist. This exercise is couched in the seemingly innocuous motivation of respect for cultural diversity. Are you not in favour of seeing marginalised groups on the television?

Please do not disguise imperialist, pro-genocide propaganda as a harmless, even positive, advocacy of cultural diversity.

The claim that generative AI is a word calculator – this is highly misleading and patently false.

I am quite certain that all of us use a calculator to do basic maths. Who wants to do long division manually? Calculators save us time and mental energy performing basic arithmetic. Surely, generative AI is a word calculator? No, it is not.

Generative AI hallucinates, invents sources and citations, recycles the simulation so it becomes our reality. Amazon – be honest, that word made you think of the tech company, not the gigantic river in South America. AI collects our data, targets us with advertising, shapes and influences our ethical dilemmas. Learning with AI produces shallower outcomes than traditionally face-to-face learning.

If you type 6 * 6 into a calculator, and you see the result 25, you stop and think to yourself, what’s gone wrong? Did I mistype? You still have to know how to multiply. Calculators did not require the construction of huge data centres, consuming vast amounts of electricity and water.

Calculators did not create an anarchic race between companies to produce the most effective super efficient gadget. The anarchic AI race, while consuming ever larger amounts of natural resources, is also one gigantic circular financial bubble. True, there have been bubbles before. The AI bubble, when it bursts, will see billions go down the drain.

Pete Hegseth; you are the defence secretary, not the war secretary, no matter how many times you call yourself that.

Hegseth has rechristened himself the secretary for war, even though no-one in the Congress has actually authorised that particular change in function. He remains the defence secretary, despite his own delusions of grandeur. He gave a speech to 800 top US generals earlier this year, in which he exhorted the military to be more ‘manly’. Lose weight, shave the beards, do push-ups, and get ready for war.

I am not a military expert, but I can unequivocally state – wars are not won by the side with the largest hulking biceps. If you think you will be more ‘manly’ by building up your biceps until you resemble Schwarzenegger, that is your decision. However, being ‘masculine’ does not win wars. Hegseth has been watching too many Hollywood movies, and has fooled himself into believing that ‘manly men’ go out and kill.

In World War 2, the Soviet Union did not win because their soldiers, being ‘manly men’, flexed their superior biceps thus terrifying their German opponents. The Soviets organised their economic production to sustain themselves throughout war-imposed privations. They continued to develop their technology, surpassing their German enemies.

The Nazi leadership, having written off the Russians and other Soviet nationalities as ‘subhuman’, were shocked that the Soviet military was capable of startling innovations. The hubris of the Nazi side was the seed of their own undoing.

Having a non-woke military, if that is what you want, is all well and good. Being ‘manly men’ will do nothing to confront the fact that Russia is currently winning the war in Ukraine. Not only have sanctions failed to undermine the Russian economy, Moscow’s ability to militarily outproduce the NATO powers is plain for all to see. Another infusion of millions of euros, or another batch of missiles to Kyiv, is not going to change the outcome.

Both the collective West and Moscow quickly adopted Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)s as crucial instruments of warfare. Moscow has revolutionised drone doctrine, and has created an entire branch of its military dedicated to drones. Even the major corporate media are admitting that Moscow has achieved remarkable success in drone warfare. All the bulging biceps in the world are not going to change that.

So, Mr Hegseth, if you want to deceive yourself that hulking muscles will win wars, no-one can stop you. Please, stop asking the rest of us to share your hallucinations.