willedoo

The ANZUS alliance is non binding and doesn't mandate automatic armed intervention. What that means is if we didn't have U.S.assets here that are in their interests to defend, we'd be rooted in the event of a capable force attacking us. That means it's in our interests to allow them to have defendable interests here. The situation is that Australia is militarily weak, the U.S. is not a charity, and we need to give them something if we're asking for something.

I don't have a problem with it at the level and numbers it is now. They're our major defence ally and it would be a bit rich to tell them we don't want them on our soil but still expect them to spill blood for us in the event we are attacked. Any defence alliance is a two way street and has to be mutually beneficial with all parties paying their dues. The U.S. has bases all over the world and the amount we have here is buggar all compared to a lot of other countries. The reality is we don't have the capabilities to defend ourselves against a major adversary, hence the alliance with the U.S.. We have to pull our weight in the alliance and not expect to bludge off them.

Same thing in this district, a lot more noticeable in the last twelve months. Mostly younger people doing it.

I hadn't seen a picture of Clive for a long time; it looks like he's lost a fair bit of weight. It was Pauline's birthday yesterday and she was kind enough to let him have some of her birthday cake to fatten him up a bit.

Actually, now I think about it, he used a Fisher and Paykel smart machine. Something to do with the way he rewired it, he said was the reason for that model.

Technology is frustrating sometimes. With facebook messenger, if you are halfway through typing a message to someone and a message comes in from someone else, from that point on the text you are typing automatically goes to the other conversation. It's easy to send it to the wrong person if you're not careful.

I think Gina would like to donate them all a one way ticket to Siberia.

I'd been wondering about that one. I thought it might have belonged to another thread.

If you had that flow all the time Marty you could set up a hydro system. A few years ago I saw a homebuilt one on youtube that a bloke had made from a Hitachi washing machine.

The Federal Labor party is asking for donations to help them fight One Nation: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-25/labor-asking-for-donations-to-help-fight-one-nation/106712618

It's the same size wheel as the An-225. They might want it back if they're going to fix the 225.

This post has nothing to do with helmets, but it involves part of my Antonov collection so it's sort of related. Today I solved a mystery regarding this wheel I've had in one of my sheds for a few years now. Someone originally told me it was an An-22 nose wheel, but all the photographs I've looked at online didn't match. This afternoon I asked Google AI what size the An-22 nose wheel is and it gave a larger size (1450 x 580) than the wheel I have (1270 x 510). I then clicked on the reference Google AI used and it led me to a pdf with just about all the information anyone would want about aircraft tyres. It turns out it's an An-124 main gear wheel, so after all this time I've finally identified it for sure. It seems unusual that a main gear wheel on the An-124 would be smaller than a nose wheel from an An-22, but not when you consider the An-124 has ten main gear wheels each side. With the 510 width it will stand up on it's own without falling over. I've got a fair bit of An-12 gear and some An-2 stuff, so now I can add a bit of An-124 gear to the list. Here's the tyre pdf for anyone interested: https://www.jupitor.co.jp/pdf/michelin_aircraft.pdf It's one example where Google AI was more productive than the old non AI search engine. The standard search engine would most likely only find the tyre size if it was mentioned in a phrase or sentence, but AI was able to pinpoint the data in a data sheet.

ome, in those days I reckon they wouldn't have had to wait until late afternoon to come up with a story like that. One of my earliest memories of the RSL is going to a dawn service with my dad when I was about seven years old. They were as full as a Cribb Island bus by eight thirty in the morning, and playing up like second hand lawnmowers. I just sat there quite bemused by it all. I think a fair bit of rum was involved. They were singing and cooeeing and one digger was playing the drums using butter knives on those old tin chairs they used to have back in those days.

This might be a bit off topic for this thread but it does involve tiers of government, so I've put it here to save starting a thread for one post. I'm wondering whether the state government has been getting some feedback via their member's electorates regarding recent land valuations and their potential effect on council rates. About a month back I received my new valuation from the state government, an increase of $80,000 above the last valuation. At least it was better than the one before which led to a 30% increase in council rates. Yesterday I received what was titled a 'maintenance valuation' wiith the new valuation taking it back to what it was previously, eg: less the recent $80,000 increase. There was no explanation why they had changed the valuation and in thirty eight years of owning the property, it's the first time I've ever had a valuation decrease. I've also never heard of anyone else in the district ever getting a decrease. My best guess is the state government is very aware of the cost of living stress in the community, and taking into account recent voting intention shifts around the country, they are keen to maintain their vote base and stay in the job. Meanwhile, the local council has had councilors doing community meetings to inform the public that they're broke and have a one billion budget shortfall over ten years and will have to cut spending by 100 million per year for ten years. They're saying the shortfall is caused by the way administrations have handled depreciation over the years. What they are not mentioning is that they've been breaking their necks over the last few years to become another Gold Coast and have been overspending on projects that make the place look flash but have no real practical use. Rate revenue earns them 350 million per year of which 180 million goes to paying council staff. They have 1,800 employees; 800 get their hands dirty, 1,000 sit behind desks. It's likely we'll be getting rate rises so it's possible the state government has looked at the state of council finances and decided to wind back the valuations to avoid a double whammy on ratepayers. I wish the state government's local government department would put the cleaners through the local councils. They've given them too much autonomy in this state over the years and they're out of control. What's happened is that winding back valuations has blown council's excuse for a rate increase. They will have to increase rates considering they're broke, so that's probably the purpose of fessing up to the financial situation at public meetings, as they will have to hit us with a considerable rate increase without a corresponding valuation increase to blame it on as they normally do. The rates are calculated on the property valuation but the council has the discretion to alter the cents in the dollar rate if they choose to.

Then there's Mario in The Wog Boy - "They say I know f*ck nothing. But I know f*ck all!"

Government ownership of assets is not the sole love of Laborites. Plenty of conservative voters bemoan the loss of public assets. But I see your point that some Labourites wouldn't be happy with a Labor government selling it.

ok, I googled whether the sale of the last 50% was legislated and it was legislated in 1995 under the Commonwealth Bank Sale Act. Short answer, it was already legally locked in before Howard took over in March 1996.. Blaming Howard for it is a bit of a stretch don't you think. If Howard wanted to save it, it would have been near impossible to draft legislation, pass it through parliament and enact it all in twelve short weeks.

Nev can you provide some links that clarify whether Howard took that decision on his own bat or whether it was already locked in by Keating. Reason I ask is that most references I can find say that the sale occurred shortly after Keating's defeat (about 3 months after) when Howard was in office but is attributed to Keating. Labor had planned and set up the sale of the third tranche and it would have sold if Keating had won the 1996 election. Here's a question: was the sale of the third tranche already legislated when Howard took office. It's a bit hard to find accurate information on it.

I grew up on a wheat farm but certainly wouldn't like to be doing it these days. Dryland cropping was always a gamble with nature, but a lot more so these days with high input costs. A mate of mine recently sold his farm and retired to town. It was only a small place, 700 acres of cultivation, and he would plant the whole place to barley if he got a favourable season, and no summer crop at all. He was more of an opportunity farmer. Both he and his wife worked off farm and they would plant the whole block out if they got the rain, or if not, just rely on their off farm job income. Sometimes they would go two or three years without a crop in dry times. Back when we were kids, that block supported a family of four kids but you'd need two or three times that acerage to do it now. Most farms in that district have all been amalgamated into bigger holdings now. They were all just separate soldier settler blocks when I was there.

There's always necessary exceptions to that. Gun laws is just one of them. There's plenty of others.

There are a few examples of the unfairness of retrospectivity in leglislation. The various state's cultural heritage acts are an example. People in one state were immediately criminalised for something that's legal in other states due to introduced leglislation being retrospective.

One of the Beetoota Advocate's satirical headlines, referring to grandfathering of leglislation: ' Labor To Finally Even The Playing Field For Younger Australians By Stopping Future Generations From Using The Tax Loopholes That Boomers Will Be Allowed To Keep Using'.

Just to clarify the above post, I'm not suggesting the Government has suddenly dreamed up these changes as a knee jerk reaction to current polling. I'm sure they would have long been there on the backburner as alternative policy, well before the election. Like a wish list to try to introduce when the time was right. But I doubt they went into last year's election denying they would introduce these changes, while knowing all along they were going to.

That's always possible, but I really doubt they went to the election intending to deceive voters. Stemming the exit of a lot of their younger voters has more to do with the broken word. For Labor, going back on their word is probably seen as the least damaging option compared to losing a lot of Gen X and younger voters. Their polling is sending them a message that it's not only the coalition that stands to lose by the surge in support for One Nation. The intergenerational inequity they are talking about constantly these days existed before the last federal election when they ruled out the changes they are now introducing. At that election One Nation polled about 6% and a lot has changed since then with almost one in four voters expressing support in polls. Among males in their thirties, that number rises to one in three. That's a lot for Labor to digest and the political expediency of stemming the flow outweighs the damage caused by breaking their word in their way of thinking. They're smart enough to know they can't stay in power without the vote of aspirational young people, and the budget is a big gamble that they're hoping won't backfire on them. Time will tell on that one.

Not my saying, just quoting one.