Ah yes, nature’s ghillie suit.

Next they’re going to tell us that a bird sharpening its beak every thousand years wouldn’t wear out a mountain made of diamond.

It really depends on the kid and the complexity of the message. Young kids are still learning the intricacies of the language and building a vocabulary. Not talking down to them helps build those skills up. But at the end of the day, if the message is not getting across, it’s the fault of the communicator.

Plus it’s an annoying flex to say “see how amazing my kid is? It’s all because of me!” Some kids just pick up language easier, some kids sleep all the way through the night earlier, some kids toilet train easier, etc. Usually it’s better for parents to quietly take the little victory rather than treat it as a reflection of their amazing parenting skills.

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.