It's free for the weekend, so the pond abandoned "Ned", and saved only the Polonial prattle and the swishing Switzer for history ...

 

Sure, the reptiles have made this weekend digitally free, as a way of trying to snare a few Poohs in their honeypot.

But what happens when the honeypot snaps closed?

What happens when someone wants to know what Polonius was prattling about this day?

Did he revile the ABC yet again?

Or did he take a truly pathetic wander down memory lane?

Why, to answer those questions, punters will have to turn back time, to find a way, as they sing along with Cher, and rifle through the pond to discover some ancient, once thought lost, Polonial trifle...

Speaking of truly pathetic wanderings down memory lane ...

Just when it might be thought that Australia had reached peak Howard, I noticed a new book in my local bookshop on Tuesday. Titled Where It All Went Wrong: The Case Against John Howard (Scribner), it’s written by former Guardian Australia journalist Amy Remeikis, now chief political analyst at the leftist Australia Institute.
It speaks volumes for the left’s obsession with Australia’s second longest serving prime minister (after Robert Menzies) that Remeikis would see fit to put together what is essentially an anti-Howard rant.
The author declares that her subject is a man of “arrested development” who presided over a government replete with “moral deficit”. She concludes that Howard is “irrelevant to our future”.
Why be obsessed with someone who is (allegedly) irrelevant?

The pond did attempt to retain something of the flavour of the original, and the new layout that the lizards of Oz are experimenting with ...

It's about all that's novel in this tired outing ...

Remeikis attempts to diminish Howard’s success, writing: “The myth that Howard was popular and unchallenged during his 11 years as prime minister is largely aimed at keeping his legacy intact. The truth is that Howard only just flopped over the line in 1999 (sic) and lost the popular vote for the two elections after but won government.”

To help keep the myth alive, the reptiles showed the lying rodent in his most potent, most winning moment, Mr Howard with wife Janette hands over The Lodge to incoming PM Kevin Rudd and wife Therese Rein in 2007. Picture: Ray Strange

Undeterred by that moment, Polonius ploughed on ...

This is wrong. Sure, the Coalition won 49 per cent of the popular vote in 1998. But the Coalition took a proposed new tax to the election and won. Few incumbent governments have done this. The Coalition did win the popular vote in 2001 (51 per cent) and 2004 (52.7 per cent). This was close to the popular vote the Coalition won in 1996 (53.6 per cent).
The publisher’s fact-checkers should have done better; the Remeikis error is not of the typographical kind. Rather, it’s an attempt to put down Howard and the government he led that consisted of much talent.
Without question, Howard is one of Australia’s most successful leaders with respect to policy and politics. There are some who believed he should have handed over to Peter Costello in 2006 when he had been in office for a decade. After all, Costello had been a first-rate treasurer, so much so that the Coalition left Australia in late 2007 with no net debt.
Howard’s interviews with Uhlmann and Kelly indicate he thinks he made the right decision to stay on. Costello told Uhlmann that Howard had been a successful leader but being successful meant knowing “when to go” and “when to stay”. However, Costello acknowledged that he did not believe the Coalition would have won the subsequent election if he had taken over. He was of the view that the Coalition had failed to renew and defeat was likely.
The focus on the Howard government overlooks Howard’s time in opposition and when Malcolm Fraser appointed him as treasurer in 1977. Howard says the Fraser government’s first two terms were successful but it faltered in its final term. As I document in my book Malcolm Fraser: A Personal Reflection (Connor Court, 2025), in his 2006 Boyer Lectures former Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane credited Howard with changing the tender system for the sale of Treasury bonds in 1979 and 1982. Macfarlane regarded this as an economic reform second only to the float of the Australian dollar in 1983 by the Hawke government.

Could it be ancient history without Polonius inserting himself into the narrative? Could you please wake up and read on?

I worked for Howard between 1984 and 1986, initially when he was deputy leader and shadow treasurer and from September 1985 as leader. In both roles he attempted to work towards reforming Australia’s highly centralised industrial relations system. This was achieved initially by Keating’s Labor government. But Howard led the policy debate in the face of opposition from Hawke.

The reptiles' new layout struck again ...

The pond was distraught. No ABC, and only a routine bashing of a one time Graudian layabout ...

At the Sky News documentary premiere last Monday, Howard told the audience the most important time political leaders can spend is with their parliamentary colleagues. This was practised by Howard before he became leader the second time in 1995 and during his prime ministership. It was not so evident in the 1980s.
In this sense, Howard probably benefited from not defeating Hawke in the 1987 election. He came back a successful leader – so much so that sections of the left want to rant against him almost two decades after he left the Lodge.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.

Even worse, at time of writing, the flaccid Polonial scribble had only attracted a few comments ... suggesting even the hive mind was wearied by this boring reversion to ancient history ...

Have a break, have a 'toon ...

Ah, echoes of Bernie ...

At this point, the pond must confess a certain slackness, a certain fatigue, definitely a refined sense of tedium and ennui set in... 

After all, if correspondents wanted to attempt a "Ned" Everest climb, they could do it for free. 

Should the pond attempt to save this shouting at clouds "Ned" for later contemplation?

Nah, all the pond needed to do was provide a teaser trailer ...

No need to save that one for history, it'll be digital fish and chips soon enough in the endless reptile obsession with the RC, but to be fair, the hive mind showed an astonishing desire to crow about their ability to climb the "Ned" Everest...

The pond won't be attempting to repeat that plunge into the hive mind anytime soon ...

Better to celebrate the endless ability to forget:

You can never spend enough of seafood ...

US military spent $9 million on crab legs and lobster in the months before Iran war: report

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also authorized the $100,000 purchase of a Steinway & Sons grand piano for the Air Force chief of staff’s home, according to a watchdog report

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon apparently isn’t feeling the same affordability struggles as many average Americans, as he approved spending more than $93 billion in September, including on luxury food items and iPads.

A new analysis published by government watchdog Open the Books found that in September — the end of the 2025 fiscal year — Hegseth reportedly burned through cash, including spending $9 million on crab and lobster dinners.

According to Military.com, an increase in military officials eating pricey meals has traditionally been viewed as a sign that something may be brewing — such as President Donald Trump’s war in Iran — though it appears Hegseth has been dining well at the Pentagon since at least last spring.

The spending review found that in the month of September alone, the Defense Department spent $6.9 million in total on lobster tail and $2 million on Alaskan king crab, according to the government watchdog. In 2025, the department also spent more than $7.4 million on lobster tail across the months of March, May, June and October.

The decadent seafood wasn't the only expensive sustenance purchased at the Pentagon. Hegseth also spent approximately $15.1 million on ribeye steak in September, $124,000 for new ice cream machines, and $139,224 on doughnut orders.

Due to the way federal funding works, there is pressure on department heads to end their fiscal years without a surplus of funds. If they do, it raises questions in Congress as to whether or not the agency or department needs a reduction in its annual budget.

That said, some of the purchases are lavish. In September, Hegseth spent nearly $100,000 on a Steinway & Sons grand piano to outfit the home of the Air Force chief of staff. He also spent $5.3 million on Apple devices, including brand-new iPads, according to the report.

They say an army marches on its stomach, though whether Fredrich II or Napoleon or Thomas Carylye said it is a matter for quote freaks ...

Whatever, Rex Huppke took a view:

82 million can't afford health care, but Hegseth gets lobster | Opinion

The U.S. Department of Defense spent $93 billion last September as the fiscal year closed. One week of Trump's Iran war cost taxpayers $11.3 billion. And we're just getting started.)

In keeping with that spirit, the pond decided on the swishing Switzer - still on his endless rehabilitation tour - for its bonus after-dinner mint ...

That sighting of the asbestos lady almost sent the pond into a kind of toxic shock.

But who had devised that amazing collage? 

The pond scoured the caption for a big reveal:

A woman sits on rubble across from a residential building damaged last Monday during the US-Israeli air campaign in Tehran, Iran. Australia's stance on the regime has seen a marked change from then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's visit to Tehran  in 2015, right, to today. Foreign Minister Penny Wong, left, reflected the general consensus of hostilty to Iran this week. Pictures: AFP/Supplied/News Corp

Say what, no human hand credited for the collage?

Damn you AI, is Frank Ling safe? Will he be able to linger longer in the Oz graphics department?

Has Larry got out the drill and demanded to know if it's safe?

Is reptile copy safe? 

Did AI help the swishing Switzer compile his tedious tale?

And what a strange way to spend even a nanosecond of the weekend:

In Canberra today, hostility towards Iran is almost taken for granted. Foreign Minister Penny Wong reflected that consensus recently when she declared: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been a destabilising force through its ballistic missile program, its support for armed proxies and its brutal repression at home.”
In April 2015, Bishop travelled to Tehran to forge closer diplomatic ties with the once-isolated regime. In the first visit by an Australian foreign minister to Iran in 12 years, she met president Hassan Rouhani, wearing a headscarf in deference to Islamic traditions.
Part of the purpose was practical: to encourage Tehran to accept the return of asylum-seekers who had been refused refugee status in Australia. But there was a broader objective as well. Canberra hoped engagement with Iran might facilitate intelligence co-operation in the fight against Islamic State.
At the time, Iranian-backed Shia militias were playing a central role in the ground war against the Sunni jihadists wreaking havoc across Iraq and Syria. Bishop said: “We have a common interest in defeating Daesh” (the Arabic acronym for Islamic State).
Iranian forces were training and equipping Shia militia groups heavily involved in the fighting against Islamic State, including in the battle to recapture the Iraqi city of Tikrit, where they received air support from the US. At the same time, about 200 Australian special forces troops were training Iraqi units preparing for the campaign to retake Mosul and other cities from the jihadists.

Yet little more than a decade ago, one of her predecessors, Julie Bishop, was exploring closer co-operation with that same regime.

The reptiles decided to double down on the asbestos lady ... Then-Foreign Affairs minister Julie Bishop meets with the Islamic Republic of Iran Foreign Affairs minister Dr Mohammad Javad Zarif at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran Iran in April, 2015. Picture: Andrew Meares

The pond supposes that brooding about the past prevents any need to brood about the present ...

The swishing Switzer continued with his ancient history lesson:

Bishop also backed the emerging nuclear agreement between Iran, the US and other major powers – a framework intended to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. A few months later Bishop went further still, arguing Iran should be included in strategic discussions between the US and its allies about how to defeat Islamic State. Since Tehran and its allies were doing much of the ground fighting, she suggested, Western powers might need to put aside longstanding hostility and allow Iran a role in shaping the campaign.
Yet this pragmatic alignment sat uneasily with Iran’s record. The Islamic Republic had long been regarded in the West as a radical and deeply anti-Western regime – one earlier branded part of the “axis of evil” by George W. Bush.

The reptiles tripled down on the asbestos lady ... Ms Bishop having a photo with Australian Fatima Boussi while visiting the Tajrish Bazaar in North Tehran in Iran in 2015. Picture: Supplied

So the pond saw no reason not to double down on the 'toons ...

Such an elegant, sensitive, deeply caring man.

The swishing Swizter seemed to be building up to the need for a good bermbing ...

Its hostile rhetoric against Israel had alarmed Western governments for decades. In 2015 an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander reportedly described the goal of “erasing Israel” as “non-negotiable”. Iran also remained on the US State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, a designation it had held since 1984. It maintained close ties with the Assad regime in Syria and worked closely with militant organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In Yemen it backed Houthi rebels who had seized the capital, Sanaa.
Resisting the rise of Islamic State
Yet Iran was also the region’s most powerful Shia state and a central force resisting the rise of Islamic State. Bishop described Islamic State as “the most significant global threat at present”. However uncomfortable it seemed, Iran was playing a pivotal role in mobilising Shia militias and supporting Iraqi government forces battling Islamic State. Iranian commanders were even reported to have indirect contact with US military officials assisting the Iraqi army.
The taproot of the brutal sectarian conflict spreading across Iraq and Syria lay in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. For generations, Sunni Arabs had exercised a disproportionate share of power and resources while brutally suppressing the Shia. By toppling a Sunni regime in Baghdad, the US-led coalition upended that sectar­ian imbalance. In effect, a dictatorship that had contained sectarian rivalry was suddenly replaced by a fragile political order in which those rivalries burst violently into the open.
The consequences were profound. Democracy in post-Saddam Iraq meant the Shia majority became the new political winners, while the Sunni minority emerged as the new losers. The former increasingly looked to their Shia brethren in Tehran for support; the latter gravitated towards a Sunni insurgency that eventually fragmented into a host of jihadist movements, including Islamic State. It was against this background that many policymakers a decade ago concluded that defeating Islamic State justified a limited and pragmatic alignment between Iran and Western powers. The episode was a reminder that policymakers rarely escape the difficult trade-offs and unpleasant compromises that international relations demand. Global problems cannot be solved in a world neatly divided between good guys and bad guys.
Iran – the implacable foe of Sunni jihadists (except Hamas) and the long-time rival of Washington’s Gulf partners – has hardly emerged as the stable strategic ally some once imagined. Yet it is also true Iran and its Shia militias played a significant role in helping the US and its partners, including Australia, roll back the territorial strongholds of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Oh surely they're even better than that ...

And with that the swishing Switzer tailed away into a mental void of his own making...

Such uneasy alignments are hardly new in international politics. When explaining his wartime alliance with Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill famously remarked that if Adolf Hitler invaded hell he would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.
In the mid-2010s, a similar logic applied in the struggle against Islamic State. Western governments concluded that Iranian-backed forces were indispensable in the fight against the jihadists.
That uneasy reality is worth remembering. The contrast between today’s hawkish rhetoric and the diplomatic outreach of a decade ago is not hypocrisy; it is a reminder of how fluid alliances can be in a region defined by overlapping rivalries and shifting threats. In the Middle East – perhaps more than anywhere else – today’s adversary can sometimes become tomorrow’s reluctant partner.

The pond supposes it shows, in the end, the same moral consistency as can be found in the swishing Switzer himself ... a potent mix of humbug and hypocrisy, and the need to forget about his search for fluid alliances.

There was, of course, the chance for a little promotion ...

Tom Switzer is presenter of Switzerland, a podcast on politics, modern history and international relations.

Sad to say, at time of writing, the swishing Switzer had scored just three comments.

The pond could have waited to collect more, but felt a strange relief, as if somehow the pond had managed to stop itself hitting head with hammer...

And anyway, for the wrap-up, some might prefer the infallible Pope's take on current proceedings...

And with that done, the pond decided to provide yet more proof that it can also arrange AV distractions ...

Inevitably, the man who knows how his photograph should be taken - he always looks better in a far right profile snap - featured ...

Take it away Mr Marks ...