Marty_d

They must be very selective. Mine was fine!

I know you're coming from an enlightened place here - so if the best people were a mix of women and cultural minorities, with not a single middle-aged white man in view, you'd be fine with that. That's admirable and in that respect I agree with you. There's a "but" coming. Please bear with me a little as I try to elucidate my thoughts. Firstly I think that a mix of differences in life experience is hugely important in any senior role, especially government. Just like you don't want all Labor politicians to be ex-trade union bosses, and you don't want all Liberal politicians to be ex-IPA, I would argue that EVEN if the "best" candidate (and what does that mean for government?) happened to be, in every electorate, a middle-aged white man, it would not be a good thing for the government to be compiled of them. With the best will and intentions in the world, a group of men cannot make the best decisions regarding the welfare of women, for example. And the reverse is true. They simply do not have the lived experience of the gender to inform their decision-making. Something they consider a good policy, having considered its impact on the other gender, may in fact turn out to have a subtle component which is negative in the long term for the other gender. If there was someone of the other gender on the team they may pick up on it immediately and say "Hey - but what about..." Obviously the same goes for gay/lesbian (not saying you have to have a transgender person in government - but at least someone who knows what it's like to be in that non-traditional bucket), immigrants, cultural background, religion (including lack of). Secondly is visible representation. Australia is a multicultural society. We say that, but I think for many people they still think of Australia as a mainly white "christian" country. According to Wikipedia, northern European accounts for between 55 and 70% (the 15% who put "Australian" in the ancestry census question are probably mostly white). So at least 1/3 of the population is ethnically diverse. As for religion, as at 2021 "Christianity" was 44%, followed closely by "No religion" at 39%, then around 3% each for "Islam" and "Hinduism" and about 2.5 for "Buddhism". (I think I read somewhere that "No religion" had actually overtaken "Christianity" in a later census). Now obviously it would be almost impossible for the government to be a true representation of every ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and religion. There are only so many seats in each house for a start. But, I would argue that if 50% of the population (women) look at the major parties and saw 0 women in cabinet positions, they would probably think that politics is not a healthy place for ambitious women. Same for ethnicity/religion (and disability). If you see only white people in government, no hijabs (not including Pauline), no Jews, no Asian/Indian/Arab/Indigenous faces - then you would probably feel somewhere deep inside that you're not truly being represented. The (relatively) recent same-sex marriage laws would probably not have happened if there weren't gay people in Parliament who initiated, pushed for or supported bills. Of course you have internal fights and factional plotting. You mentioned Plibersek - pushed out because Albo doesn't like her (I think more likely, he correctly sees her as a threat). Same with the Libs. After a series of disastrous leaders (Abbott, Morrison, Dutton) they finally choose their first female leader who was probably the best of a bad lot, only to tear her down in 6 months and put up another useless twat whose biggest claim to fame was posting an applauding comment to his own Facebook page. Anyway - the point is, I think there are subtle benefits to having a variety of personal attributes and backgrounds in leadership groups. Sorry it took such a long post to say this!

How exactly did Iran's evil become any different than it has been for the last decade?

This is looking like amateur hour. The US have lost 4 aircraft, not to their enemy, but to friendly fire and a midair collision.

And what makes it worse, is those on the far right with dreams of authoritarian rule in Australia and other countries are encouraged by what they see in the US.

Yep. A few hot, enthusiastic and very experienced lasses would be far better than 70 virgins. Mind you they must've been very naughty in life to end up with that duty.

I'd get a restraining order if I were you.

If the answer is Clive, I can't imagine the question.

There's a lot of disinformation involving Pauline, a lot of it with AI altered photos or cut/paste, all of it showing her in a good light and Labor losing arguments with her. ABC Verify have traced it to some people in Vietnam. I reckon that meme above is one of them. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-11/foreign-fake-news-pauline-hanson-one-nation/106436702

What we need is a party that's SLIGHTLY right of centre and a party that's SLIGHTLY left of centre. Unfortunately we have 4 parties right of centre, one by a little (Labor) and 3 by a lot (Libs, Nats, PHONey). The only party still left of centre are the Greens, with some sensible independents. Listening to David Shoebridge from the Greens this morning, you could be forgiven for thinking it was someone from Labor (about 10 years back).

There must be something in the water in South Australia. Not only is Cory Bernardi running for PHONey, the Libs have preselected some religious nutter who also holds insane views. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-07/cory-bernardi-stands-by-bestiality-claim-ahead-of-sa-election/106423186 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-11/wright-liberal-candidate-social-media-comments/106423750

I don't think Canavan has ever made a statement that I agree with. Watch the Nats slide even further to the insane right, if that's even possible.

Dubya partied when Rump was elected, because he was no longer the worst president.

Wouldn't her kids be scarier?

F****d it up again, more likely

JFK

The ancient Greeks invented everything, even sex. But it took the Italians to think of involving women.

Diesel was 1.10 where you are? It hasn't been much below 1.80 here for years.

I remember my Dad saying that if fuel ever got to 50c a litre, he'd sell the car and buy a horse. He didn't, of course, but shows what it used to cost. Mind you, I was probably about 10 then so that would be in 1982. House prices (and wages) were a lot less than 1/4 of today's, so fuel hasn't risen in price as much as other things.

Oh! And I thought he was talking about tyres. (I did cotton on eventually)

FlightRadar24 is your friend.

On brighter news, review of the new electric Honda WN7 bike. https://www.visordown.com/reviews/2026-honda-wn7-first-ride-ride-review

By that logic he should have stopped after the first time... He got a hole in one!

Joining a site like this is like joining any other group of people that have known each other a while. You've got existing cliques, well known stances on various issues, a bit of background on most people, and the occasional mad uncle (you know who you are). The point is, you show a bit of restraint and respect until you're established and part of the group. After 2 days, starting a post with "You're full of it." And ending with "...keep running off at the mouth with a half assed understanding" shows neither respect not restraint.

Yeah ... Predicting the death of a 96 year old. Amazing!