old man emu

It is interesting that the result of the elections in the ACT last weekend resulted in the return of Labor for an unprecedented further term that, if completed would have them continually hold government for about 28 years. Considering the the ACT is not what would call a working class place, one has to wonder what those pro-Labor results imply about the feelings of the people towards the parties associated with the rich and powerful.

I see no lack of allegiance if politicians promote the independence of Australia from the current monarchical system of government we have now. Australia is one of only a few former components of the British Empire that remains under the monarchy. India, South Africa and many former colonies in Africa and Asia have been granted independence from the rule of the monarch. It is quite within the power of the monarch to grant that independence. One would think that in the current economic circumstances, ditching those countries still tied to the Crown might be an idea. The biggest problem that I see for Australia in becoming independent of the monarchy is the method by which a Head of State is created, and the powers granted to that position. History has given us very many examples of poor selection methods. The prime one at the moment is that employed in the USA. Look at France. The prime minister is the holder of the second-highest office in France, after the president of France. The president, who appoints but cannot dismiss the prime minister, can request resignation. The president is the person who receives more than 50% of the votes cast by the people. One idea proposed for Australia was that the Head of State was elected by the members of both houses of parliament. Both those methods lay themselves open to political influence. Who gets nominated to contest the election? Would political groups willingly put forward candidates who are clearly apolitical? For all the claimed faults of our current system, at least the Head of State is apolitical. The only time that situation has not existed is when John Kerr acted to dismiss the Whitlam government. Even then, although having been informed of what was going on, the Queen did not intervene. And at least with an hereditary monarchy, we know that the successors are well educated in the application of the powers and duties of the monarchy.

Odd thread to come in on. Surveillance will be continuous.

I have no objection to anyone entering Parliament and once there to "work within the system" to achieve what the electorate has indicated its support for. Most often an Independent has to put in a lot of effort to gain success. I don't know much about Senator Thorpe, but nomadpete indicates that she has been working hard on those matters. Good on her. However, my reason for saying that, as a result of her "You are not my King" comment, she has declares that she no longer wishes to show allegiance to the King according to the oath/affirmation of service she made when being admitted as a member of the Senate. That allegiance is the very core of the role of a Senator. The King exercises power over his Australian subjects based on the advice of parliament operating in both Houses. We know that the King's use of that power is very laissez faire. Advice come to him and his response is "Ok. Do it." He can because his parliament has sworn that it will give good advice, that is how it shows allegiance. If Thorpe denies that Charles is the King of Australia, how can her advice be trusted?

I know that this will only last a couple of weeks, and I can always pull the bed covers over my head to muffle the sound. I don't want to chase them away. There are more crows about the place which can take over the territory. I would not have been upset if it was a family of Magpies since I love their melodious song. For some reason, I haven't been able to convince the pair which lives close by to relocate their headquarters into the trees close to the hovel.

As far as I am concerned, her comments had nothing to do with influencing the actions of the Government. At no time did she direct any words towards the Australian Government. Her words were directed at King Charles and were a rejection of him as the King of Australia. She redacted her oath of allegiance to the King (which she is entitled to do), but having done so, also redacted her allegiance to the parliamentary system by which our society operates. What she said was tantamount to delivering a notice to quit the parliament. I think Parliament should accept her notice to quit and cautin her not to let the front door hit her on the arse as she leaves.

This is the only Black Russian one should consume:

I'm about ready to get involved in a murder of crows. For some reason a pair of parent crows have decided that the area close to my place is a great place to teach their chicks how to hunt for food on the ground. While I consider that decision is an honour for me, what I don't appreciate is that lessons start shortly after sunrise, which is currently around 6:00 am, and I have no need to be awake before 7:00 am. The chicks are still at the stage of calling out to their parents to be fed. I can't get that last bit of sleep due to their crow version of a child's "Mum. Mum. Mum." cries.

Parliamentarians make this oath or affirmation: "I,....., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law." Thorpe's cry, "You are not my king", is a rejection of her allegiance to the King of Australia. Should she be removed from Parliament due to her stated lack of allegiance?

You've got to deal with a lot of pricks before you can see the results of just one prick.

Is "travelator" the new word for "hitch hiker"?

Now we have two octogenarians. Happy birthday, Pete!

You wouldn't expect him to use the ladder. There's no one there to hold it steady.

An interesting version of a Welcome to Country.

You're just jealous that you can't count to twelve on the fingers of two hands.

I suppose if a City demanded payment up front before allowing the conduct of a rally, Trump would scream denial of the Right to freedom of speech and blame the other mob.

We have been given a multitude of examples in YouTube videos of how ignorant Americans are of anything outside their own local area. Talking to them about anything in foreign countries, or anything about US foreign policy is a waste of breath, they simply would not understand. I bet that the recent elections in several European countries where there was a swing to the Right didn't even get a mention in the news at the State or County level in the USA. I find that the form of Christianity in the USA is almost anti-Christian. If the central tenet of Christian practice is to love one's neighbour, then the refusal of the US population to embrace social welfare standards that apply in the rest of the First World, especially health care or wages that can provide adequate financial support, is actively ignored. It's probably because the culture of the USA has only one goal - that accumulation of wealth and from that accumulation, power.

But a pain in the arse for honest people.

How does that work if you don't know exactly how much you have to put in to fill up? Do you estimate how many litres you want, do a quick calculation of the cost of that amount and pay that much? What if you have overestimated how much you need. Do you go back in for a refund? And what if you underestimate?

Those funny sayings are changed regularly, so the letters are removeable. These signs are popular on YouTube, and over teh weekeknd I noticed a few in Canberra. (And they weren't political party signs for their elections alst weekend)

That's a job for "OME's DIY Liquid Rust Remover"

An engine will "breathe" with changes in air pressure brought about both by the movement of weather systems and the heating of air from cool in the morning through wam at midday to cool in the evening. This introduces moisture to the cylinder with the adverse effects that moisture causes over time. If you have a single cylinder engine, then pulling it onto the compression stroke will close both valves and prevent the that daily movement of air. However, you can't use the same technique for a multi-cylinder engine because there will always be cylinders with one valve open. Putting a plug in the exhaust pipe might reduce the daily air movement a little, but unless you can plug both the intake and exhaust manifolds, you are going to get that air movement. The best you can do is remove the spark plugs and squirt some oil into each pot and put the spark plugs back. I wonder if there is enough oily residue left in teh cylinders of diesel engines to protect them.

And here we must sympathise with Frederic, the apprenticed pirate of Penzance who was unfortunately born on 29th February and who was apprenticed until his 21st birthday, which he will not reach until he is in his eighties.

May I refer you to the post located six above this one?

There's no accusation. The hoodie, flanno and mullet bring in the conviction.