Thanks, I didn't catch the sarcasm, which was what had me confused.

A coerced oath isn't really an oath at all. But Thorpe wasn't coerced into becoming a senator. She wasn't forced to run for election. Once elected she wasn't forced to take an oath. She chose to do those things because she thought it would benefit what she's trying to achieve.

Now, I'm not pro monarchy, and I'm not against Thorpe advocating for aboriginal sovereignty. But saying "you are not my king" but also having sworn "faithful and true allegiance" to that king just doesn't sit well together for me.

Senators are required to make an Oath or Affirmation as follows:

OATH 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. SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION I,....., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law.

Source: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-oath-of-office-that-is-taken-by-new-senators-and-members-of-the-house-o-representatives-when-they-are-sworn-in

Regardless of what you think of the monarchy, and whether you think that oath is an outright stupid anachronism, it's still the oath she took. It comes across as plain poor conduct to act that way while acting in her capacity of Senator.

It's more expensive to become a republic at this point. Australia would need a referendum to change the Constitution. The last referendum attempt to become a republic was in 1999 and failed, but cost $66m.

The last referundum in Australia was last year and while the AEC has not fully costed it, I've seen one estimate of it costing $450m.

I agree with you there, and think your active wording is better.

What confuses me is that I don't see the conceptual jump from the Guardian using a passive voice which de-emphasises the Israeli government's responsibility in this, and rampant antisemitism. Particularly when you give examples of how this is a larger problem in media.

Unless I'm missing something here, is it not more likely to be just a questionable grammatical choice with no ill intent?

Are you suggesting the current military offensive is not in response to the attack in October last year?

It sounds like you are taking an unnecessarily narrow definition of "trigger," and painting that as some sort of bad faith "rampant antisemitism."

Wrong place to leave a habitat for bugs.

Fulifilling your dreams is all about the power of persistence folks! That, and having a friend willing to invest almost $70M in your dream.

But isn't chocolate toxic to cats? You win some, you lose some.

So the caption is really: "man convinces 5 clearly less enthusiastic friends to play board game."

There are men who report being disciplined or fired for so much as saying “I like that outfit.”

I work in this area, and in my experience, there is way more going on than just a compliment about an outfit whenever someone is getting disciplined. Employees who claim that usually have no ability to self-reflect about the extent or appropriateness of their behaviour.

It's more than just being about "stupid" people though. After all, who benefits from deliberately under-funding and attacking the integrity of educational institutions?

"Thank you, but we follow Martian facts here, we aren't interested in your Venusian ways."

I vote the 7 August should hereafter be declared "Succulent Chinese Meal Day" in tribute.

Gotta chase that sweet, sweet live service money though.

But earlier this month, he said he would move the company’s headquarters to Austin, citing a new Golden State law meant to protect LGBTQ+ children as the “final straw.”

Imagine being so full of hate for a highly vulnerable group of people that you base your business decisions around it.

It does seem like an oddly specific denial.

The bananas won't be fooled, because everyone knows that bananas are straight until they get picked and the banana bender puts the bend in them.

It's not really a debate about continuing to rely on fossil fuels. For context, in Australia the conservative coalition (for some reason) has an idealogical bee in its bonnet about investing more heavily in renewable energy sources, instead arguing that nuclear energy production is the way of the future.

I thought it must be too garbled for someone to have honestly thought it was a sensible message, but hadn't seen it before. Thanks for the extra context.