octave

I still have the classic flying and naked in public dreams from time to time. I think as a consequence of being an RAAF musician (I left 36 years ago) I still occasionally have a dream where I am getting ready for a performance and I can't find an item of my uniform (which would have been a big deal at the time). Often, I will have something in my wardrobe that resembles the required uniform but is somehow different. A related dream is that I am somehow about to go on stage for a play or musical, and I realise that I don't know the lines. Dreams about flying (in a plane) also plague me from time to time. I am usually renting the club's plane, but I can't seem to get everything ready in time, and the light is fading, or the weather is deteriorating.

One thing I use social media for is as a diary. Some people keep a written diary, but I am far too lazy for that, so it is mainly pictures and videos. Most mornings, I will be presented with memories from 1, 2, or more years ago, which is nice because I usually only post good events. This video came up today from 3 years ago. It was on a rail trail that we ride fairly regularly. The rail line, which is only 16km long, is used by a couple of tourist trains. One of these serves a three-course meal and has live music. Whenever I see this train, I will usually take a pic or two, but after a while, all the pics look the same. On this occasion, I thought about how I could video this from a unique angle. I think I may have posted this video before, but I think interesting enough for another airing. Untitled 556.mp4

Victoria has been losing a small number of people to other states, but not on the scale seen during the peak COVID years. In the year to March 2025: Victoria's net interstate migration was -2,318 people. That means about 2,300 more people moved from Victoria to other Australian states and territories than moved into Victoria from elsewhere in Australia. For comparison: State Net interstate migration Queensland +24,015 Western Australia +11,675 Victoria -2,318 New South Wales -26,560 So Victoria is still seeing a net outflow to other states, but it is relatively modest. In fact, recent government analysis noted that Victoria recorded positive quarterly interstate migration for the first time since the pandemic, suggesting the trend has been improving. According to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria’s population reached about 7.05 million people by March 2025, up by roughly 124,600 people over the previous year. That was a growth rate of 1.8%, equal to Queensland and above the national average of 1.6%. Victoria had: +33,730 people from natural increase (births minus deaths) +93,176 people from overseas migration −2,318 people from net interstate migration (more people leaving for other states than arriving from them) So the interstate migration loss exists, but it is relatively small compared with the gains from overseas migration and natural increase. Victoria is still adding well over 100,000 people per year overall.

I wasn't sure where to post this. For Victorians from today until July 31 there is a a 20% rebate available on your last year's vehicle registration. I have just registered, and I am expecting $139. One slight problem is that the website (Services Vitoria) is being overwhelmed and can be hard to log on to. For some reason, I just sailed through without any problems. It is not a huge sum of money but worth the effort.

Maybe, although the Hilton bombing and the Russell Street bombing were some time ago (less than 60 years). There were also bombings outside the Family Court in Sydney in the 80s. Where I live is quite safe (now we turfed the druggies out); however, about 2 suburbs away, there are weekly house fires that are considered suspicious. Sure, anyone can buy petrol and matches, but imagine if explosives were readily available.

Here is another true story. Back in the early 90s, we lived on 44 bush acres, and we built our own house. which we lived in as we built. Late on one afternoon, I was soaking in the bath after a session of building. He could hear my 4-year-old son out in our driveway. Our driveway was 100 meters long and dipped down substantially in the middle. WE would lock the gate so no one would drive down it, and my son would go to the high point at the gate and coast down to the dip. Lying in a hot bath, I could hear my son's delighted sounds and his request to his mother to "watch me" I heard a noisy vehicle followed by several gunshots. This was followed by my son screaming in a way I had never heard before. This was followed by my wife screaming obscenities. I truly believed my son or wife had been shot. I leapt out of the bath totally naked, and ran down the driveway. They were both OK but traumatised. This person had shot across our property, and I accept that they probably did not see my wife or son. We reported it to the police, but as they said, it would be a case of his word against ours. A couple of days later, I was getting my car fixed, and I related this story to my mechanic, who was a gun enthusiast. Being a law-abiding gun owner, he was able to, with our vehicle description, give me the name of this moron. We were able to give the police a name. We later learned that his guns were unlicensed. I think his guns were confiscated (I guess until he complied) Without rigorous licensing, this problem would have had no resolution. I am not against gun ownership, but it does need to be regulated. When I learned to fly, I had to reach a level of competency and jump through regulatory hoops.

I look up if any crimes have been committed using commercial explosives (not homemade). So, whilst with the present restrictions, it is somewhat rare that it has happened (despite restrictions). I guess we don't know what would happen if explosives were freely available. Commercial or Industrial Explosives Some Australian bombings have involved explosives that originated from mining or commercial sources: The Sydney Hilton Hotel Bombing is generally believed to have involved a substantial quantity of high explosive, although the exact source and perpetrators remain disputed. The Russell Street Bombing used a large car bomb. Reports from the investigation indicated the perpetrators used commercially manufactured explosives rather than something improvised from household chemicals. Criminal groups have occasionally stolen explosives and detonators from mines, quarries, and construction operations, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. Australia's large mining sector means that explosives such as ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil), emulsions, and gelignites are used legitimately in huge quantities, but access is tightly controlled.

Yes, I get that. I wasn't necessarily having a go at onetrack, just presenting an alternative view. To believe that if explosives were easily available, there would not be occasional catastrophic events is being overly optimistic. Back in the day, fireworks were occasionally used to blow up people's letter boxes or torture cats and dogs with. I am not offering an opinion on whether fireworks should be legal or not, only that they were not banned without reason. Some may say the reason wasn't strong enough. I am glad my ex-neighbour could not buy explosives.

Generally, no, but 2 years ago the property next door to us was empty for the first 7 years that we lived here. When we bought, we did not know it was a housing department property. Eventually, the housing department moved a single woman in who, it turns out, was involved in drug dealing. The worst thing was the constant visits from drug dealers, customers, and some pretty violent people. During this time, we had a man on our property, wielding a hunting knife. We got the police to intercept him and due to laws that some might find oppressive, the knife was confiscated. A man was arrested with a homemade pistol, and due to those oppressive gun laws, he ended up in jail. A neighbour confronted an obviously high man early one morning. The man lifted his shirt to reveal a pistol in his waistband. We had someone on our roof trying to evade the police (damaged a solar panel), a police man had his car rammed by someone escaping him. We actually have some pretty dramatic doorbell camera footage. Anyway, my point is that we fought these people tenaciously and we were able to get rid of them (about a year ago). We were able to do this by using the law, no doubt laws that some would find oppressive. Now my area has returned to the peaceful, friendly place it was before these morons moved in. Without these laws, sure, we may be a freer country, but we would still be living with fear and anxiety. We had to give evidence sitting across the room from the tenant of this property, and believe me, at this point, people being able to do "what they want, when they want and where they want" does not seem like freedom to me. Laws are crafted for the worst of us. Most people are good and decent, but what do you do about the ones who are not? Here is a picture of the "knife" man. Knife strapped to his bike. Earlier, he was waving this around. We called the police and they just arrived as he was leaving the property. Whilst he was not arrested, he was searched, and the knife, being illegal, was confiscated. I do not believe that this man's rights or freedoms were violated. He was not impressed. As he returned to the property, he was yelling, "if I found out who dobbed me in ...... (We didn't quite hear the specifics of the threat.)

Here is a fairly clear example. Between 1979 and 1990, I was a musician in the RAAF. We used to travel around 30000 km a year in various RAAF aircraft, buses, and coaches. When I first joined, I would get home after travelling, and I would hang my uniform in the laundry so as not to taint the clothes in my wardrobe with the smell of cigarette smoke. I think it was sometime in the early 80s when we were being given the briefing by the loadmaster in a C130, and instead of pointing out where the ashtrays were located, he informed us that as of today, smoking was prohibited in all RAAF aircraft and vehicles. You should have seen the faces on the smokers; there was almost a mutiny. Yes, they lost a right, but with good reason. The rest of us gained a right

If we removed these restrictions, my suburban neighbour would get the right to buy explosives and blow stuff up. If they did this in their backyard, then as a neighbour, I would lose some rights, such as the right to quiet enjoyment of my property and possibly personal safety. Substitute boat with aircraft. Should we give people the right to buy a plane and fly untrained through congested airspace? I sort of agree with this, although sometimes a rule can seem overly restrictive or dumb if you don't look at all the ins and outs. If we take down the "No Hunting" sign in a forest, then in my opinion, we are taking a right away from those who want to peacefully and safely bushwalk. I was on a domestic flight a couple of weeks ago. As I travel regularly, I am well aware of the rules. There has been a new "restriction" on passengers' rights. You can bring a battery power bank with you, but you have to keep it within reach, and you MUST NOT USE IT during the flight. One passenger argued with the cabin crew member about it. I think they used the word "rights" I don't think there has ever been a time when humans were able to "do what we liked, when we liked, and where we liked." The drug dealers who lived next door for 18months before we got them kicked out, and some of them jailed, believed they could do "what they wanted, when they wanted and where they wanted" including flying a drone into our backyard and using a jackhammer at midnight, as well as waving around all sorts of weapons, knives, a homemade gun, etc. When I confronted the guy flying the drone, he said, "he could fly it anywhere he wanted to. Also, it was 3:30AM The phrase " to do what we liked, when we liked, and where we liked " reminds me of something a teenager would say I think a problem is that we are well attuned to things we believe impinge on our rights, but certainly would complain less about the rights of people doing things that annoy us. If the restrictions against riding a pushbike or a horse through the Burnley tunnel were lifted, then a small group of people would gain rights; however, the majority of road users would lose the right to travel this route at a reasonable speed and unimpeded. There are things I would like to do, but cannot. There are also things I do that are restricted, but I do them anyway. As well as legal rights and restrictions, there are social rights and restrictions. I think to portray Australians as being oppressed is a bit of an overreach. If we line up every society on earth in order of freedom, we are definitely (in my view) more towards the free end than the oppressed end.

That is not really my point. I was commenting on the notion that our freedoms now are less than before. Sure, religion seeks to influence the government, but in terms of personal freedom, religious folks are not in any real sense degrading my freedom. I am saying that in the past, religion did have great control over the average person, but this power has decreased with time. So yes, I agree that religion does attempt to influence the government and does have its little victories; however, in issues like same sex marriage, divorce, etc., society has moved on from the old repressive rules (for most of society at least).

Absolutely, but I don't think this means we are losing freedom or rights. In our society, religion has lost much of its power to repress.

I guess I was referring to Australia. No doubt in the US, there has recently been a drift towards fewer rights for some, but I think the wealthy are doing fine! The reason I asked is that I am wondering if many people tend to fall into the "help, help, I am being repressed" way of thinking. My life has had much more "freedom" than my father's life.

I'm wondering what rights people think have been stripped away?

I know Teslas have auto headlights, and I believe this may be true for most EVs and modern IC cars, although I think it may be able to be overridden.

Trust Channel 7 to exaggerate a little. There has never been total standardisation. I seem to remember driving a car where the Reverse position was where you would normally expect 1st to be. Then there is the difference between manual and automatic, with the possibility of slamming your foot on the brake, thinking you are in your manual car and need to hit the clutch. An AI search could not find strong evidence for accidents occurring where someone mistook the drive selector for the indicator. It also seems that most cars with this system (EV or IC) have safeguards. They generally won’t allow Reverse or Park at speed. Many only allow an accidental movement to engage Neutral. Some require brake pedal input before a gear change. Others electronically ignore invalid inputs. I do think there could be a conversation to be had regarding how standardised cars should be; however, I think this article was a bit on the alarmist side. Cars have always differed (gear shift pattern, indicator, etc.)

When I sold my 44-acre property, I had to pay CGT on everything over 5 acres. I was, however, able to deduct the expenses of owning and maintaining this property. I am not expressing an opinion for or against CGT on the family home, but I imagine, like my house on more than 5 acres, deductions would be allowed.

Are politicians worse than they used to be? The problem is, it often comes down to your own perception. I asked AI: "Are Australian politicians of today more or less corrupt than in the past? Is there any way of knowing if politicians lie now more than in the past? " There’s a frustrating answer here: we probably can’t measure it cleanly across history — but we can say a few useful things with some confidence. Corruption: probably less blatant than in parts of the past If you go back through Australian political history, there were periods where corruption was remarkably open by modern standards: state “machine politics” in parts of NSW and Queensland patronage jobs and contracts cash donations with little transparency ministers mixing closely with developers, police, gambling interests, unions, or business figures weak anti-corruption oversight Australia has had major scandals across decades: the Loans Affair the WA Inc the Fitzgerald Inquiry The big difference today is not necessarily that human nature changed — it’s that: investigative journalism is stronger and faster digital records leave trails freedom-of-information systems exist anti-corruption commissions are more common donations and lobbying are at least partially disclosed politicians operate under constant media and social-media scrutiny Bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission now exist federally, which would have been politically unimaginable decades ago. So in terms of brown paper bag corruption — direct bribery, obvious cronyism, outright abuse of office — Australia is probably cleaner than some earlier eras. But modern corruption is often subtler Many people argue corruption today has shifted form rather than disappeared. Instead of obvious bribery, critics point to: revolving doors between politics and industry lobbying influence political donations pork-barrelling jobs for former ministers opaque consultancy contracts “legal but questionable” conduct This creates a strange effect: fewer spectacularly crooked politicians perhaps but more sophisticated systems of influence A lot of public distrust comes from the feeling that powerful interests still get privileged access, even if it happens within legal frameworks. Do politicians lie more now? This is even harder to measure. People often feel politicians lie more now, but there are several complications. 1. We see vastly more of them Past politicians could make contradictory statements in different towns and there might be no recording of it. Today: every interview is clipped every tweet archived every contradiction shared instantly So modern lying is much more visible and searchable. 2. Media cycles reward rapid messaging Modern politics runs 24/7. Politicians are constantly reacting: breakfast TV radio social media press conferences podcasts That environment encourages spin, simplification, evasiveness, and talking points. 3. “Lie” is difficult to define There’s a difference between: being mistaken exaggerating changing position using selective statistics deliberate deception Historians can identify some famous past lies easily: war justifications broken promises concealed scandals misleading parliament But systematic fact-checking barely existed historically, so comparisons are shaky. One thing that has changed: public tolerance Australians may actually be less tolerant of political dishonesty now than in some earlier periods. There’s more expectation of: transparency accountability resignation after scandals evidence for claims At the same time, partisan media and online tribalism can make supporters more willing to excuse dishonesty from “their side.” The paradox Modern politicians may not necessarily be morally worse than earlier generations. But: they operate in a more media-saturated environment every flaw is amplified trust in institutions has declined generally political communication has become more professionalised and strategic So people often perceive politics as more dishonest even if some forms of outright corruption have actually decreased. A historian might summarise it this way: Old corruption was often cruder and more direct. Modern corruption, where it exists, is more procedural, legalistic, and hidden inside systems of influence. And political lying probably hasn’t been invented by the internet age — we just now possess a permanent searchable archive of it.

So I managed to cobble a career together from my dubious musical talents. I like to say that I strived for mediocrity and damn near made it. One of the joys in my life has been meeting and working with people who, although much more talented than we would no the less interact kindly with me. When I lived in Braidwood, NSW, a friend of mine talked about a well-known musician who had moved into town and asked if I knew them. This musician was called Martin Armiger. This name struck a chord with me. In the late 60s and early 70s, my parents were involved in amateur musicals. One of the orchestral conductors was a woman called Joyce Armiger. It turns out that Martin was her son. Being a small town with a vibrant art scene, I eventually crossed paths with Martin. I played in a concert where I could see Martin sitting in the front row, head bobbing with the music. After he came up and discussed the piece I had played with great enthusiasm. Although I guess we were never best friends, we did get invites to his house for lunch. Martin had an early career success with pop music in a band called "The Sports" Later, he became a noted film composer https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0035469/ Whilst attending a lunch at Martins, he retrieved a clarinet part from a film score he was writing and asked for my opinion, which I found flattering. My wife and I performed at a concert wth his very talented wife. He was also commissioned to write the ABC News theme circa 2012. He complained that he had to write 13 seconds of music and it had to reference the traditional theme and had to be given the OK by a committee, a tough ask. Later in my work, I came across students who were studying film composition at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School under Martin. They all spoke highly of him. In 2009, Martin gave evidence in the copyright trial of Men at Work's "Down Under" In the mid 70s, Martin was the lead guitarist in a band called "The Sports" Martin died at the age of 70 in 2019. He was one of the kindest people I've ever met in the music industry. There are many pictures of him online, but this one, in my opinion, catches his kindness and affability. Martin is the guitarist in the light grey jacket

BRS, one person, claims he is innocent. Twenty soldiers who served with him and risked everything to bring these alleged atrocities to light. I support the 20 against the one.

True, but the government funding I thought was quite standard (the RAD and DAP). I just ask out of curiosity, having done this twice, once for my dad and then again a couple of years ago for my mother, who is still in care. We had the option of paying a variable refundable deposit, which would then determine her monthly accommodation fee. Bigger RAD equals a small monthly fee. The lump sum deposit is returned in the end, though.

I am not sure what your situation is, but in my mother's case, she paid $250k. This is a bond, though and will be returned upon her death (RAD refundable accommodation deposit). Other than that, she pays a monthly fee that is most of her pension, but she also gets an English pension

I totally agree with this, but I guess I understand if others have a different view. We downsized substantially at the age of 55 in order to retire while still young enough to actively enjoy life. We are unconcerned about leaving an inheritance. We have one son who, thankfully, is much more economically successful than we are, so he is unconcerned about whether he gets anything from us when we go. Moving to a smaller place frees up time and money from maintenance tasks. Throughout our working lives, we mostly pursued jobs we were interested in rather than money, and at times lived on little money. Through super and the sale of our property, we are now quite financially secure, although not wealthy. I do find it unfortunate when people have an asset that they may have struggled to pay for throughout their life, and are not able or willing to enjoy the fruits of it in their old age.

My positive today was a walk we did up Flinders Peak. It is a very foggy day here, but we climbed up and out of the fog into a beautiful sunny day. Then we climbed down into the fog, which still persists here at sea level. 1000011323.mp4