In an epic Friday, the beefy boofhead and Linda sort things out, our Henry tries to regain his form, and Killer is on hand as a bonus ...

Of late the pond has been approaching Fridays with trepidation. 

Not for the latest word on the madness of King Donald, and talk of his plunging the dollar with his plan to turn the Federal Reserve full mad MAGA, nor for the latest instalment on Robert Kennedy, whether monstering vaccines or admitting no fluoride in water will mean more cavities.

Nor the turn to full fascism, celebrated in the Los Angeles Times' story 'Who are these people?' Masked immigration agents challenge local police, sow fear in L.A.

Increasingly aggressive immigration raids carried out by masked federal agents, sometimes using unmarked vehicles, are creating problems for local law enforcement agencies.
Police have little or no insight into where the federal enforcement actions are taking place but often have to deal with the aftermath, including protests and questions from residents about what exactly happened. In some cases, local cops have been mistaken for federal agents, eroding years of work to have immigrant communities trust the police.
In Bell, chaos erupted when masked men arrived at a car wash and began detaining its workers, sparking a confrontation with residents and immigration rights advocates before they were forced to hastily drive over curbs and street islands to escape.
In Pasadena last week, a man stepped out of his unmarked vehicle at an intersection, unholstered his pistol and aimed it at a group of pedestrians before returning to his car, turning on its red and blue emergency lights and speeding off. Video of the incident went viral.
That incident left the police chief of Pasadena resigned to figure out whether it was a crime or part of a federal raid.
"There's no way for us to verify," Police Chief Gene Harris said.
The department reviewed surveillance footage and other video and saw the credentials on the man's uniform, according to the chief.
"We were able to determine that to the best of our estimation he was an ICE agent. ... We will not look into it any deeper than that," he said.

And so on and on, but that's in another country and besides the pre-fascist wench is long dead.

Nor is there any softening of the worry by the celebrations of Jeff's wedding, as by Emma Brockes in the Graudian ... which led in to this amiable sidetrack on the house style for womyn, featuring the quarry puppy killer...

 ...If there is a Maga look for women it is the one exemplified not only by Sánchez but by Kristi Noem, the head of Homeland Security mockingly nicknamed ICE Barbie for her combination of pageant-style looks and heavy-handed immigration policing, and by Melania Trump, whose eyes are creeping slowly but inexorably up the sides of her temples in what is informally known as “Mar-a-Lago” face.
What’s odd about this style isn’t that it’s augmented, but that it’s an aesthetic which seems deliberately to draw attention to its own artificiality in a way that, in other contexts, might be referred to as “bad work”. People with money can make poor choices about cosmetic surgery too, of course, but the uniformity of this particular look – so heavy on the filler, silicone and Botox as to make its wearers seem not younger, but weirder, and in a state of constant discomfort – suggests something closer to design. If you were the type of person to make liberal references to The Handmaid’s Tale, you might even speculate that this aesthetic has been tailored by the world’s richest men to symbolise just how completely – almost derisively – they can control the bodies of the women around them.

Brockes went to focus on the wedding, while the pond returned to its Friday fear.

The real fear is worrying whether our Henry will be on hand and on song. 

Will there be a sufficient number of historical (or even historic) references, enough to satiate the most discerning reader? Will there be enough to cloak the humbug in a form of pious and learned respectability? 

Of late the old dullard has been off form, so each week the pond is full of saucy doubts and fears.

The pond anxiously skipped past the news ...

The pond hesitated briefly over one story ...

LIVE MIDDLE EAST
‘Iran sites destroyed, obliterated’ Hegseth comes out fighting
The US Defence Secretary insists Iran’s nuclear program was ‘decimated’ by US air strikes last week while the Ayatollah makes his first appearance in a week.
By Lydia Lynch and Agencies.

Decimated? Oh the pond supposes that the old meaning of selecting by lot and killing every tenth man is now long gone, and only our Henry would stand firm against modern deployments of the word.

And then be still, beating heart over on the extreme far right, there was our Henry, top of the reptile digital world ma... and he was sounding right feisty, like a good old Zionist ...

What a relief, and that meant the pond could take in a few entrées before the main course, a couple of rapscallions and time wasters before turning to the main treat. (Yes, stray American readers, no need to fuck with the French language the way Fox's champers Pete did with English)

First up was a tasty dish of the beefy boofhead. 

Usually the pond doesn't worry about politicians trying to pander to News Corp, but the pond will always make an exception for the windmill-hating man from down Goulburn way ...

The pond knew that the beefy boofhead, pure Angus, wouldn't allow for this sort of nonsense, featured elsewhere in the lizard Oz ...

DEFENCE SHOWDOWN
Albanese, other world leaders ‘understood’ why Trump ditched G7 meetings: White House
Anthony Albanese and other world leaders ‘understood’ why they were snubbed by Donald Trump at last week’s G7 meeting, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says.
Bu Lydia Lynch, Ben Packham and Matthew Cranston

Come on beefy boofhead, show the craven mob how to stand up to big daddy ...

The header: If we help ourselves, US defence support will follow, In Washington, the mood is changing. Allies will need to stand on their own two feet.
The caption, showing the miscreants downcast as the beefy boofhead was about to give them a lesson. (How the reptiles love this snap): Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong hold a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman
The mystical advice the pond only puts in to provide the full reptile experience: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Come on beefy boofhead, show us how to fold in just a four minute read ...

Across the globe, the strategic environment is deteriorating. Conflict in the Middle East continues and has escalated with direct US involvement, Russia grinds forward in a brutal war of attrition in Ukraine, and in our own region, the Chinese Communist Party continues its sweeping military build-up and coercive pressure on its neighbours.
These are not disconnected events. They are symptoms of a more dangerous era where authoritarian regimes are increasingly willing to test the resolve of open societies and the strength of alliances.
One of the lessons from recent months is clear: the United States helps those who help themselves. After Israel struck Iranian-backed targets, the US followed with its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. It was a co-ordinated demonstration of consequence, only delivered due to demonstrable capability from a close ally.
It’s crucial we support Israel and the US in their actions and disappointing the government took so long to do so. But the US response must shape how Australia thinks about our own alliance.
The US has underwritten our security for more than 70 years but in today’s world, the alliance must evolve from a legacy we inherit to a responsibility we carry.

So we must still get involved in every foreign adventure, with this mob as our fearless leaders? US President Donald Trump during a news conference with Pete Hegseth, US secretary of defense, left, and Marco Rubio, US secretary of state on the second day of the 2025 NATO Summit.

Pass the pond the smelling salts and carry on ... because surely the war with China by Xmas is at hand ...

The Chinese Communist Party has rapidly expanded its military presence, increasing its naval fleet, missile forces and cyber capabilities. It has not renounced the use of force in the Taiwan Strait and is using its growing military strength to reinforce grey-zone pressure to undermine regional sovereignty. In response, the US has shifted toward a doctrine of denial: making any attempt at coercion or conflict too costly to succeed and preventing it outright if necessary.
Australia must be part of that collective deterrence. That means making it clear we would stand with the US in the event of a Taiwan contingency, not with rhetoric but with serious capability and commitment that means any use of force is destined to fail.
Some call that escalation, but the truth is, it is the only path to peace. Deterrence through denial requires capability to prevent an attack, yet Australia is falling behind. Our navy is shrinking in the face of regional expansion, we produce no guided weapons, recruitment is collapsing and projects face constant delays or reviews.
With this objective, a defence budget of 2 per cent of GDP is not credible. We need a clear, costed pathway to 3 per cent of GDP. But spending more alone is not enough. Every dollar must be spent better so we can maximise capability and readiness.

The reptiles interrupted the beefy boofhead ... by deciding to feature the boofhead starring on Faux Noise down under, Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor advocates for Australia to increase its defence spending amid a pledge from most member nations of NATO to lift their spending to five per cent of GDP. “I think it is really important, I think it is positive, I think we do need to see countries around the world upping their defence spend,” Mr Taylor told Sky News Australia. “Authoritarian regimes are flexing their muscles, we’re seeing it, of course, we’ve seen it with Iran, we’ve seen it with Russia, and we are seeing it in the Indo-Pacific as well. “We do need to see democratic countries from the West making sure they are spending what is necessary to make sure we can defend ourselves in these uncertain times.”

Why was the pond reminded of Faux Noise?

Carry on regardless ...

The promise of AUKUS is real but it’s at risk. The US submarine-industrial base is overstretched and delivery will require Australian support. We must co-invest in US shipyard expansion and rapidly scale our own capacity, which means finalising the AUKUS training pipeline, building sovereign maintenance yards and preparing for domestic nuclear regulation.
This requires making decisions. It’s been almost three years since both sides of politics agreed Australia would need an east coast base to support AUKUS submarines and yet the Albanese Labor government still hasn’t chosen a location. This is not what urgency looks like. But this isn’t just about submarines. It’s about whether we can deliver for the alliance when it matters most.
Some say pursuing sovereignty means going it alone, but the truth is, sovereignty is what earns alliance support. In Washington, the mood is changing. The strategic environment dictates a reality: allies will need to stand on their own two feet.
If Australia faces attacks on our critical infrastructure and supply chains, we cannot be entirely reliant on others to respond rapidly and with force. The opportunity is there for Australia to expand on our US alliance, not just asking the US to defend us, but to be an anchor of stability in the region. But that opportunity must be backed by substance.
It also needs to be backed by relationships. It is absolutely essential that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with President Donald Trump to map the path forward.
The AUKUS review may or may not be a pivotal milestone in the relationship and the alliance, but the evolving posture of the US means direct engagement and advocacy for the alliance is now more important than ever.

AUKUS was a dud and is a dud and will continue to be a dud, but the reptiles delivered what every pollie craves. A snap of themselves, just to remind the hive mind of who they are ...Angus Taylor

The reptiles made the snap much bigger, but the pond was anxious to get on to the main course ...

Given reports President Trump is seeking meetings with Indo-Pacific Four nations at NATO, Anthony Albanese should be seizing every opportunity. The fact it’s been almost seven months since the President officially took office and our Prime Minister is yet to secure a face-to-face meeting raises serious concerns about the state of the relationship.
Recently I joined the crew of the USS America as it sailed through Sydney Heads and berthed at Garden Island, on its way to joint exercises with the Australian Defence Force. At 45,000 tonnes, with amphibious forces, fixed-wing aircraft and several thousand personnel aboard. USS America is not just a symbol of US strength, it is a reminder of what serious preparedness looks like. That level of capability doesn’t happen overnight. It takes investment, foresight and political will. Australia must now find that same will before it’s too late.
The world is shifting and the era of post-Cold War stability is ending. The question is whether Australia will rise to the moment or hope that others will carry the weight.
Angus Taylor is shadow minister for defence.

Dear sweet long absent lord, put it another way, standing by to participate in whatever new folly might be devised. But if it's a choice between Chinese cooking and American junk food ...

Okay, with that level of insight, we can go on being completely, comprehensively phukt, but it left the pond in a quandary. 

Is it okay to let the Lib mens blather on without there being a matching woman? Shouldn't there be equal time, just like there's equal representation in the party?

Sheesh, the pond simply had to pay attention to Linda ... doing her best to fix what ails them ...

On the surface, it looked like the reptiles were offering Linda the full deal, top notch reptile treatment.

There was the header, apocalyptic in tone: Liberal Party must embrace past values to move forward, The chances of the Liberal Party marking a 90th anniversary are slim if party ­divisions do not embrace the ­gender values the party was founded on.
There was a caption for the snap of the new fearless leader, made strong by the power of "s": Opposition Leader Sussan Ley. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
There was the arcane advice: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

But there was a problem, and the pond couldn't help but note the imbalance. 

The beefy boofmhead had been given plenty of enlivening snaps, but the reptiles had contained Linda to just one, right at the beginning.

Talk about putting down the female voice, but do go on ...

The once great Liberal Party continues to be electorally smashed.
Australian voters have been repeatedly telling the party that it is rapidly becoming electorally irrelevant – a message the party remains stubbornly resistant to hear and refuses to act upon.
In Sussan Ley, the Liberal Party has its second feminist leader, 80 years after its first. It is not a moment too soon. The survival of this once great political party is again on the line. However, the challenges this time are greater than ever before.
The hard truth that many Liberal Party members are reluctant to accept is that no matter how large or successful it may have been, the future of any political party is never guaranteed.
Like all organisations, political parties must constantly review and reform to remain internally strong, true to core values, and relevant to voters – something the Liberal Party has failed to achieve for some years.
Ley is a leader for modern Australia, but we don’t yet have a party that reflects modern Australia. No matter how strong she is, vision, leadership and sustained genuine teamwork by all ­elements of the party will be required.
The party’s reform starting point must be where Australians are now. Clearly where Australians are now is a willingness to elect, and then re-elect, women in record numbers. The Labor Party, the Greens and the teals understand this. Of the 33 seats lost by the Liberal Party in the past two federal elections, two-thirds were won by women. Women not only win seats from the Liberal Party, they hold them. This is the new normal.
Gender equality was one of the founding principles of our party. I hope the recently announced election review is the first step in gender reform that started, then stalled, over 80 years ago. At its inception, the Liberal Party was the political party the majority of Australian women voted for. It was the party for women’s rights and enfranchisement. Almost unimaginable today.
Sir Robert Menzies was an early feminist and male champion of change.
He, in partnership with the party’s co-founder, Dame Elizabeth Couchman, passionately believed in equal rights for women in all aspect of life, including in politics. Equally, they also believed in a conservative approach to family and social ­cohesion.
Sir Robert demonstrated through his actions and electoral successes that both these liberal and conservative values can coexist and be electorally successful with both men and women.
As Sir Robert observed in his 1943 “Women for Canberra” speech, “For, like most electors I am not half so interested in the sex or social position or worldly wealth of my representatives and rulers as I am in the quality of their minds, the soundness of their characters, the humanity of their experience, the sanity of their policy, and the strength of their wills.”

That's where the visual rubber didn't hit the road. Is it possible to imagine a male treatise extolling the virtues of Sir Ming the Merciless in the lizard Oz, without an accompanying snap of the man? 

The reptiles always feature a snap of this bold, brave feminist, the man who paved the way for the likes of Germaine.

And yet nada, nihil, nothing ...

Linda had done her very best to worship at the feet of the patriarchy, and where did it get her?

Whereas there'd been a snap of the beefy boofhead himself, proud, jaw jutting, handwaving, apparently there was no space in the full to overflowing intertubes for a snap of Linda, despite her craven appeal to Ming and a desire to renew the party by returning it to 1950s thinking.

Poor disadvantaged Linda struggled on as best she could ...

The party’s women’s problem is not misogyny. It has a very long and proud history of political firsts for Australian women. If it was misogynistic, I would have left decades ago. Liberal women are far from the #crumbmaidens the Left on social media insultingly portray.
We are a highly diverse group of driven and successful women who neither identify with socialist policies nor the Left’s language of gendered victimhood.
The party’s real women’s problem, however, is two-fold. The first is that the party’s share of female voters has been steadily declining from more than 50 per cent before 2001 to around 25 per cent today. The mathematical ­reality is that it cannot win elections with this share of female voters. Understanding female voters today will help the party develop policies relevant to modern Australian women – and men, a process Ley has already initiated.
The second real and perhaps most challenging women’s problem is the low percentage of Liberal women elected to Australian parliaments, which for decades has bounced between 15 and 30 per cent. This is a much harder problem for all centre-right parties to address.
Liberal Party members must find a way to rapidly move beyond the pathological aversion to even discussing gender imbalance, never mind addressing it.
This aversion lies in the inherently socialist concept of quotas, which while sitting comfortably within the socialist concept of equality of outcomes, ideologically is an anathema to the centre-right concept of equality of opportunity.
Consequently, when the word quota is uttered, Liberal gender debate is shuttered with “but she has to be preselected on merit, not as a quota”. I dislike the word merit used in this context, not because I disagree with the concept but because the Liberal Party does not have clear, transparent merit-based criteria and it is only ever used in relation to selecting women.
For me, the way forward starts with identifying what merit-based selection means today. It is a deceptively simple but powerful proposition – to preselect the most meritorious Liberal candidate seat by seat, election by election. In the modern Australia we live in, increasingly, merit looks like a capable local woman.
Last year, the Liberal Party ­celebrated its 80th anniversary. The chances of us marking a 90th anniversary are slim if party ­divisions do not embrace the ­gender values the party was founded on. The numbers do not lie. Quotas in some form must be considered and adopted if we are to be realise genuine gender ­reform before it is too late.
Linda Reynolds is an outgoing Liberal senator and former frontbencher

Well done Linda, well played, there's a goodly chance your wise words will soon see the party leave the 1950s for the 1960s. 

Here, have an infallible Pope as your reward. It's no snap of Ming, but it'll have to do...

And so at last to the main course, with the pond at fever pitch, the hot temperature a full Melbourne winter day of 11 degrees, with Our Henry beginning by handing out marks, in his much valued role as headmaster ...

Our Henry would show the bromancer a thing or two about defence, beginning with the header, Bang for the buck? Israel A+, Australia C-, Dollar for dollar Israel’s defence capability puts us to shame.

It's true that we don't have any nukes, and the pond looked forward to our Henry urge we abandon all those wretched treaties, and develop a covert program to nuke the country. Just like Israel ...

The reptiles didn't help by refusing to identify the magnificent plane in the snap, with a caption full of meaningless blather: Defence expenditure is an issue. The fundamental question, however, is whether the government genuinely understands the need to bolster the bulwarks that keep Australia safe. Picture: NewsWire Handout via ADF

There was also the standard injunction: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Then we were there, and it was on, and the pond anxiously scoured Our Henry for germane classical references:

Over the period from 2020 to 2023, Australia’s total defence expenditure exceeded Israel’s by more than $50bn, which, even in this day and age, is real money. Yet no one seriously believes the Australian Defence Force could have achieved a fraction of what Israel has achieved since war broke out on October 7, 2023.
Many factors are at work. But a difference in mindset is surely among them. Our government seems to think peace is the natural condition of mankind, and that “restraint” and “de-escalation” are sufficient to secure it. It therefore downplays existential threats and treats defence spending as a regrettable cost of doing business, whose efficacy is a second order concern.
Israelis too hanker for peace, every bit as much as we do. But confronted with adversaries intent on their destruction, they know national survival hinges on credible deterrence – which requires the demonstrated capability to strike hard and fast.

As an aside, that's surely true, because they hanker for a piece of the West Bank, and more of a piece of Jerusalem and the whole of a piece of Gaza, destined to become the new Riviera once the ethnic cleansing is complete.

Apologies for the interruption.

And they also know that had they heeded the incessant calls for restraint, ceasefires and de-escalation, Hamas would still have undisputed control of Gaza, Hezbollah would still run Lebanon, Syria would still be ruled by a murderous tyrant and Iran would still be poised to unleash a formidable array of offensive military capabilities.

And Israel might nuke the lot of them, but the reptiles paused for a dose of good old Shoe, in an AV distraction, Strategic Analysis Australia Director Michael Shoebridge says China is a “growing military and security challenge” in the Asia Pacific Region amid NATO countries’ pledge to boost their defence spending amid Russian aggression. “How great to have a general, a retired general, be able to speak so candidly and honestly about issues we don’t hear a peep out of … from our senior serving military people or the ministers in charge of defence,” Mr Shoebridge told Sky News host Steve Price. “China is an aggressive, growing military and security challenge in our region, and unlike the Europeans, NATO has 32 members facing Russia. “Our collective effort doesn’t look impressive compared to what we’ve just seen in Europe.”

Then came something of a billy goat butt, and the judges had to be called in to consider whether a reference to the Treaty of Hudaibiyya qualified as a proper classical flourish ...

To say that is not to claim that Israel has definitively vanquished its enemies. Although dramatically weakened, Hamas and Hezbollah remain viable entities and the Iranian theocracy’s grip on power appears undiminished.
As for the latest ceasefire, Iran and its proxies have repeatedly proved they adhere to the principle the Prophet Mohammed established when he approved the Treaty of Hudaibiyya: that the sole legitimate purpose of a truce (“hudna”) with the infidels is so as to rearm and fight again.
To make things worse, the ceasefire lacks any enforcement mechanism, above and beyond Donald Trump’s exhortations, which are unlikely to frighten the mullahs. A regime that sends over 20,000 children, armed only with the promise of paradise, to a certain death as human minesweepers – as Iran’s theocracy did in its war with Iraq – will scarcely be cowed by words alone.
As a result, Israel will have little choice but to assure compliance by retaliating forcefully against violations, as it has had to do with Hezbollah. And should it turn out that Iran’s nuclear capacity has not been eradicated, it may well need to resume the conflict.

Yes, and there's also that little job of finishing the ethnic cleansing and turning Gaza into the new Riviera, and then came a double bunger snap, joined by text.. The government simply cannot bring itself to see any merit in Benjamin Netanyahu... just as it struggles to say anything favourable about Donald Trump.

The judges again had to consider whether a simple-minded joke about Pax Romana qualified as a legitimate classical reference, or was simply monumentally stupid ...

To declare a “Pax Trumpiana” would therefore be premature. But it would be equally wrong to understate the gains Israel has already secured.
It is a rough, but statistically verifiable, rule of thumb that even states that have only lost a third of their war-waging capabilities take a decade to fully recover – and it seems likely the damage to Iran and its proxies exceeds that threshold. When the war began, their military facilities, including thousands of heavily armed missiles, posed an immediate threat; now the missiles and launch pads are largely smouldering piles of rubble, as are at least two of Iran’s three major nuclear facilities.
One might hope our government would acknowledge that achievement, whose benefits extend far beyond the Middle East. But unlike Germany’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who praised Israel for doing the West’s “dirty work”, there is not a single instance in which it has.
That may be because it simply cannot bring itself to see any merit in Benjamin Netanyahu, just as it struggles to say anything favourable about Donald Trump.
It is, however, a mark of intellectual maturity to recognise that the good work of the world is not always done by those who are good; and that all too often, those who come cloaked in the mantle of goodness are dangerous bumblers, as the presidency of Barack Obama so conclusively showed. It was not because of his tender soul that Hamlet helped Denmark achieve a better form of government; it was because he had the good fortune of having the ferociously aggressive and ambitious Fortinbras as his neighbour.
But what is involved here is not merely giving credit where credit is due. By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s achievements, the government is closing its eyes to the war’s lesson: that the world is an extremely dangerous place, in which aggression by totalitarian regimes needs to be met not with an open hand but by a mailed fist. And in denying that fact, it doesn’t just mislead itself: it misleads Australians about the realities we have to confront.

The pond was starting to feel concerned. Was this another dud week for the master? It didn't help that the reptiles trotted out another European in search of his daddy, German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz praised Israel for doing the West’s “dirty work”. Picture: Getty Images

Then came a glimmer of hope ... a measure of Hobbes to enhance the full Zionist cant ...

As Hobbes, with his brutal realism, put it, despite the “uselesse cant” (a word derived from the French for the whining of beggars) about “Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice”, there are circumstances in which only the “calamity of a warre” – “the greatest evil that can happen in this life” – can “instruct” states intent on “Molesting other Nations” about the value of peace.
That is not to counsel recklessness or glorify military adventures. On the contrary, like Thucydides, of whom he was one of the first and best translators, Hobbes reserved the greatest praise for those who combine the capacity for bold action with the “mindful prudence” that carefully identifies and manages risks.
The Israel Defence Force has repeatedly displayed that virtue – described by Thucydides as the “measured daring” that keeps “hubris in check and defeatism at bay” – in its audacious attack on Iran, and it may have to call on it again. If the job has to be finished, it is surely best to strike soon, while Iran’s air defences remain in tatters.
It is no doubt true that Trump wants the ceasefire to endure; but for all of his outbursts, both he and JD Vance have said that it is precisely Israel’s willingness to shoulder the burden of conflict and, where necessary, take the initiative, that makes it an ideal ally – as compared to the free riders who have been infantilised by their long-term dependence on the American security blanket.

Thucydides?! At last, our Henry had returned to form.

But would it last, would he go on with the job, or would he perform like an Australian batting line up?

The reptiles  didn't help by interrupting with another dose of good old Shoe ...Strategic Analysis Australia Director Michael Shoebridge says Australia cannot afford its military beyond “a few weeks” if defence spending is only boosted to 2.33 per cent by 2033, calling for an aggressive uptick in military expenditure. “Anyone that has a calculator and that knows anything about our defence force knows that the 2 per cent we’re spending right now on defence … we cannot afford the defence force that we are buying,” Mr Shoebridge told Sky News host Steve Price. “A small conventional force that can’t last beyond a few weeks with the supplies it has. “We have champagne taste with cordial income.”

Why is the pond always reminded of good old Shoe in Wag the Dog at these moments?

Sad to say, in the pond's opinion, our Henry failed the test. 

A couple of references amid the triumphalism and the rampant Zionism simply wasn't good enough, and quoting champers Pete and Richard Nixon approvingly suggested the pompous old pontificator had reached an even lower than usual bottom ...

Sheltered from the responsibility of paying for their own defence, those free riders (or better, cheap riders) have been content to pursue the good life while demanding, as Pete Hegseth aptly commented, that the US bear greater costs and risks to protect their security than they are willing to bear for themselves.
Americans have chaffed at that since the 1960s, when Richard Nixon, who considered the Europeans “damn poor partners”, declared “our position, in a nutshell is this: it is essential for the Europeans to improve their capabilities”. The difference now is that Trump will not allow the situation to continue. With America caught between a fiscal crisis and staggering demands on its capabilities, his successors won’t either, regardless of their partisan affiliation.
We cannot escape that change’s consequences. Yes, defence expenditure is an issue. The fundamental question, however, is whether the government genuinely understands the need to bolster the bulwarks that keep Australia safe. Until it does, the billions we spend on defence will be mere dross. They may fool us. They can’t, and won’t, fool anyone else.

Uh huh ...we must nuke the country so we can achieve peace through war and obtain our Nobel prize:

Or you could bomb Cambodia. That's always a good way ...

And so to a special bonus, because the pond, in a day of musts, must also allow time for Killer of the IPA ...

The header: There’s no moral high ground in state censorship, Australia is on track to end up with a censorship industrial complex, developed via ostensibly democratic means, that looks similar to those imposed by the dictatorships we’re told to loath.
The caption: Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant addresses the National Press Club. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
The never ending command: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Killer was in his usual state of outrage:

Did you know “staring or leering” can be a criminal offence in Victoria? So is “shouting insults” and “unwanted sexualised comments”. Courtesy of Victorian taxpayers, Melbourne tram passengers are reminded daily that they live in a state where the right to free speech, let alone free eye movement, has become a relic of a bygone era.
“Experience it or witness it? Report it to police. Text STOP IT to 0499 455 455,” reads a prominent government advertisement aimed at aggrieved parties, or even annoyed bystanders, keen to waste police resources and potentially ruin someone’s life for the hell of it.
The idea that sensible people apparently could think these laws are reasonable or enforceable, rather than a legal crutch to arbitrarily persecute politically disfavoured groups over frivolous nonsense, is a depressing sign of our times.
It is borne of an insidious totalitarian mindset that seeks to control thought and action whatever the cost. Perhaps these advertisements were a special shock to me, having returned recently from the US, where even in lefty California they would be unthinkable. For all its faults California has the strongest constitutional free speech protections of any US state.

Immediately the reptiles piled on by sending in the dog botherer to do a bit of dog bothering, Sky News host Chris Kenny says eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is on a “power trip” with her push to include YouTube in the government’s social media ban. The eSafety Commissioner has sought to dictate policy to the government, pushing to reverse YouTube’s exemption from the government's social media ban for under 16s. “This YouTube step just highlights all the grey areas that we are worried about here,” Mr Kenny said.

To be fair to the reptiles, the pond is also deeply irritated by what is being proposed, but from the viewpoint of privacy.

The notion that everyone should be forced to hand over their details to a mob like YouTube to prove that they're adults is a step too far ...

There is however, a solution, and a relatively cheap one at that.

Get yourself a VPN, with the added advantage that you can indulge in piracy and make use of geolimited offerings.

That noted, don't expect the reptiles to provide practical advice about subverting the government's attempts to legislate conformity. 

Just expect the usual ranting and stamping of feet, and talk of boiling frogs ...

Australia appears to be caught in a boiling frog situation, where legislators are continually chipping away at whatever is left of free speech until it’s too late. A sudden burst of anti-Semitism in NSW and Victoria last year prompted a wholesale reduction in the rights of Australians, likely never to be unwound, at the state and federal level with almost no public debate.
The once admirable push to remove section 18c of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it illegal to “offend or humiliate”, has disintegrated. Victoria’s legislative updates, passed in April, were unsurprisingly the worst, crippling speech rights for seven million Australians overnight.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-Vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2025 makes it illegal to “severely ridicule” any politically favoured group based on “race, religion, disability, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation”. There’s no need for any intent to upset, truth is no defence, and individuals can even claim harm vicariously via what’s called “personal association”.
An extraordinary array of behaviours could now be illegal: stand-up comedy, publication of data on crime or educational achievement by ethnicity, quotation of Bible passages or criticism of our out-of-control immigration intake. Amid a shocking surge in crime in Melbourne prosecutors should have better things to do. I promise to text “STOP IT” if I do see any suspicious leering on the morning commute.
The best that can be said of these news laws and their drafters is they mean well, but they are unlikely to be wielded in good faith. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” is likely to be the guiding principle to laws that essentially criminalise the ordinary messy business of life.
Perhaps out of extreme embarrassment for misjudging everything during the pandemic, the federal bureaucracy is also increasingly obsessed with censorship too.

Oh FFS, not the pandemic again. 

Why is Killer such a one note scribbler? On the upside there was no talk of masks, though the pond has taken to wearing them on the trams, such is the way that Covid is again doing the rounds in the deep south, as the reptiles interrupted with a snap that mentioned the chief villainess ... eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant demanded social media platforms take down videos of the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Sydney last year

The pond isn't full Killer libertarian, and suspects the government might yet again be persuaded to fold as they appreciate what a shit storm they'll be creating, roughly equivalent to Texans being deprived of Pornhub ...

There's no doubt that there's lots of material that minors shouldn't be able to access on the full to overflowing intertubes, and thank the long absent lord that the lizard Oz has a paywall so that exposure to the reptiles is limited to those who can pay for the dubious pleasure ... and if the government does pursue its folly, think about a VPN ...

In a speech at the National Press Club this week, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant was demanding the government try to prevent children 16 and under looking at YouTube – in effect curbing parents’ rights to determine what’s best for their children. Again, curbing the amount of trash kids watch might appear laudable but it’s also unworkable and buttering up voters for further, more intrusive rounds of censorship.
The slippery slope isn’t a logical fallacy here: Inman Grant has already demanded social media platforms take down videos she didn’t like for whatever reason, most bizarrely the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Sydney last year, when far more gruesome content is readily available.
Last year she demanded X remove a post by Melbourne woman Celine Baumgarten, who had questioned publicly whether a “Queer Club” was appropriate at a primary school.

At this point the reptiles introduced another argument for limiting children's access, by featuring unlovely Rita, onetime meter maid ... Sky News host Rita Panahi discusses the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant's attempt to ban YouTube for children. “A survey by the eSafety Commissioner earlier this year found YouTube was the most used platform by ten to 15-year-olds,” Ms Panahi said. “She is arguing in her speech … around seven in ten kids report being exposed to harmful online content.”

Then it was on to the final Killer rant ...

My biggest fear of what the Albanese government might do is to revive the so-called Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, which it withdrew from parliament last year. The idea that bureaucrats can arbitrate truth is ludicrous. The bill would unleash a federal censorship apparatus that would make Beijing proud, in effect stopping ordinary Australians from disagreeing with established political and scientific conventional wisdom.
Only mainstream media outlets would be exempt – perhaps a sneaky ruse by the government to gain support for this bill in an age where social media can help ordinary citizens see through government propaganda.
Were the law in place during the pandemic, the dissenters who were ultimately proved right, who hastened the end of destructive mandates, would have been muzzled. Going forward, governments wouldn’t be able to resist stifling criticism of increasingly ridiculous climate change or immigration policies.
We’re creating a society where politicians in parliament and the mainstream media have far more free speech rights than the ordinary citizen. In Britain, police are making 30 arrests a day for “offensive” online messages, according to a recent report in The Times of London. Expect similar wastes of policing resources here too once the new raft of laws and potential laws ramps up.
Amid calls to increase defence spending massively, presumably to defend “our values” from those dastardly totalitarian regimes, it’s worth asking what “our values” are exactly; they appear to have shifted significantly in recent decades.

Say what? Why does Killer need to ask about values? 

Surely it's the right to rampant Zionism in the Australian Daily Zionist News, and the right to indulge in a sacking of an ABC casual announcer for daring to mention mass starvation is a war crime ...

Never mind, time to wrap it up ...

Indeed, Australia is on track to end up with a censorship industrial complex, developed via ostensibly democratic means, that looks depressingly similar to those imposed by the dictatorship we are told to loath. I’m no expert in Chinese law but I doubt wolf whistles have been criminalised as they have been in Melbourne.
If we want to keep the moral high ground we must tell our politicians to STOP IT, not each other.
Adam Creighton is chief economist at the Institute of Public Affairs.

The pond has to admit the reptiles move around, with his day providing excellent examples.

There's the IPA's chief economist scribbling about a "censorship industrial complex" and wondering about massive defence spending, while our Henry, allegedly an economist, rabbits on about the urgent need for a massive increase in defence spending.

Children need to be sheltered from all this kerfuffle ... you there, how did you get in here, go to your room.

Perhaps big daddy will help, with a stern spanking or at least a fawning bunch of children anxious to appease him. Take it away immortal Rowe ...