You may not have noticed...

...but we have a woman PM. Interesting. But frankly, it doesn't interest me a whole lot. Namely, the way Gillard became PM. I never liked Rudd, but from the ALP's perspective, he was a savior. John Howard was seeming indestructible. He took on the ALP right in the 98 and 01 election against Beazley, and when Labor put on a comparative lefty, Latham, Howard didn't just win-he even took the holy grail of mandates, control of the Senate. The concept of Rudd becoming PM in the next few years would be as ludicrous as saying that Obama would be the next President back in 04. However, with some luck, Rudd pulled it off and put Labor back in power after 11 years in the wilderness.

However, all it took was a few bad opinion polls to turn the factional bosses against their savior, ditching him with an obvious lack of loyalty and replacing him with a fresh face. I understand Julia really didn't have a choice; it was going to happen anyway. My problem isn't with her; it's with the ALP culture of winning the next election at all costs. I doubt Labor would be terribly troubled by the concept of Abbott winning. He would be unlikely to last more than a term, and would probably scare so many centrist voters, it would be the 13 year golden age of Hawke/Keating all over again. It's clear the ALP doesn't mind the far-right too much; the right faction, after all, was willing to preference fundie Steve Fielding over what should be Labor's coalition friends, the Greens.

All in all, it's the ALP culture that I dislike the most. The Liberal Party may be comprised of the big business/industry's bitches and lunatic theocrats, but it's clear there's more flexibility toeing the party line and voting with your conscience. There's a good reason why the LPA factions get more news coverage than the ALP factions; LPA factions are allowed to freely express their thoughts. As we've seen with Garrett, there is no such freedom within Labor. It's toe the party line all the way.

I was quite pessimistic about the amount of 'change' a supposed member of the ALP's left faction would bring about as well. Gillard had continued Howard's policies of a two-tiered education system, wherein the children of the wealthy received a better education than the children of the poor. This pessimism was vindicated today, when Gillard confirmed that she would continue the ludicrous and discriminatory policies of preventing gays from marrying.

Once again, the Greens have proven to be the only party progressives should vote for.

Steve Fielding's descent into madness

I think the stress of the upcoming federal election has finally broken Mr. 1.9%'s tenuous grip on reality. Faced with the undeniable facts that he will be booted out of an electorate he never deserved in the first place, Steve has been driven, as the Joker would say, stark slavering mad. That's the only reason I can come up with for his increasingly erratic press releases and speeches.

Firstly, his attack on the Greens' drug policies:

Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding says the Greens are up to their old tricks with their plan to stick heroin injecting rooms on street corners across the country.

Senator Fielding’s comments come after it was revealed that the Greens will continue their soft stance on drugs ahead of this year federal election.

“As a community we should be getting tougher on drugs not softer,” Senator Fielding said.

Because the war on drugs has worked out so well for the US and Mexico. But here's the gold:

Senator Fielding said the policy of introducing heroin injecting rooms would only support the supply of illegal drugs and line the pockets of dealers. “Melbourne has already had one drug war too many, just imagine the increase in demand for these illegal narcotics if the Greens were able to get their way,” Senator Fielding said.

To quote Robot Chicken: Seriously dude, what the fuck. The whole point of decriminalisation is to negate a drug war and take the criminal element out of drug use, the freakin' opposite of what Steve claims will happen. Steve isn't just for supporting a failed drug policy, he simply doesn't have a clue of the issues he's talking about. Which, frankly, is unsurprising as Sarah Palin being a clueless liar (maybe they should bunk together sometime).

And having finished that sideshow, it's on to the main attraction:

Parental leave open to abortion rorts: Fielding

Only a true fundie could link a parental scheme to the dreaded surgical procedure. Long rant cut short, the Fluke is adamant that if the Bill is passed, welfare queens all over Australia will be getting pregnant just so that they can have an abortion at 20 weeks and collect the parental payment. Even Andrew 'Wormtongue' Bolt is saying "Dude...that's just low."

Steve has also written an opinion piece for the Punch. The entire piece reads like grade 6 material. Scattered with childish phrases like "mums who slog their guts out all day", the writing doesn't even achieve basic logical sense (even Piers 'Scattergun' Akerman can convey his messages). The notion is that the Bill will treat prisoners better than stay-at-home parents, which is bizarre as the point of the Bill is to treat them equally. The Fluke writes that these parents "don't receive a dime", a problem which the Bill Steve is lambasting is designed to rectify. Like I said, no logical sense.

Finally, to add insult to desperation, he writes " even prisoners and prostitutes are valued more highly than stay-at-home parents" which ignores the truly horrifying thought that sex workers may be entirely normal people with children themselves.

After this election, the Senate just won't be the same.

Kevin Rudd: stuck between a rock and a hard place

Life isn't all to good for Kevin at the moment. Trying to implement his RSPT is proving more difficult than imagined, as the mining industry and its bitch, the Liberal Party, are doing their best as Rudd destroying the 'golden goose.' I can't imagine for the life of me why so many people are opposing the tax. I can understand why the mining magnates are furious, as they will probably be able to buy one less luxury yacht because of it. But asides from them, everybody stands to gain from the tax. However, smears are notoriously effective, and Rudd stands to lose several seats in WA because of the intense opposition there. Whether this will be enough to give us an Abbot Administration (**shudder**) is to be seen.

However, running parallel to this is a growing narrative about Rudd. He had been elected on a plank of action on climate change, and his collapse on the issue and deferment of it to 2013 has pushed many Kevin07ists to the Greens, which can now legitimately claim to be the only party that's willing to take action. This policy backflip-after Rudd had called it "the greatest moral challenge of our time"-created the appearance of a weak leader. A guy who wanted to make change, but was too spineless to push for it. If Rudd were to collapse on the RSPT, the narrative would be complete, and he would become almost as untrustworthy as Howard.

If Rudd were to junk the tax, the only possible way he could salvage his reputation would be to immediately claim to plan on implementing a new carbon tax in 2011, and state his to negotiate with the Greens on this issue. Doing so might reestablish his green cred, and signal a push to a more progressive Australia, which would reduce the primary Green vote. Unfortunately, Rudd is a firm right-winger, and the idea of negotiating with the Greens to him probably sounds worse than negotiating with Abbott (there's a reason why Labor dedicates so much time to hating them). Thus, Rudd is stuck: continue with his RSPT to the (very) bitter end, or dump it to push for the green vote. Neither is attractive.

Lindsey Tanner throws a hissy fit because our political system isn't locked between two major parties like in the US

Resident ALP whiner Tanner doesn't like the Greens. Last election, he ran a few Fieldingesque home movies attacking the Greens and this election, apparently stripped of his video playthings, has been forced to go for a more low-budget response: the opinion page.

Green voters typically either have or are getting a tertiary education. Support is concentrated among tertiary disciplines focused on more than making money. Their viewpoint is increasingly at odds with that of Labor voters who aren't tertiary educated. On issues like asylum seekers, forests and civil liberties, differences can be stark. The Greens seek to exploit them.

No, the Greens aren't 'exploiting' any factions. We're just representing environmentalism and human rights. By adopting Howard's policies, the ALP has abandoned its left faction. That more lefties and not just environmentalists are supporting the Greens is your doing, not ours.

Whatever Labor does, it is never good enough for the Greens. Even when we're repealing WorkChoices, apologising to indigenous Australians, or tackling climate change, they attack Labor for their own cynical purposes. If the Greens had voted with Labor, the Senate would have passed the climate change legislation.

No, that wouldn't have happened at all. You're conveniently forgetting Steve "Thank for the ALP Right is so cynical in its preferences" Fielding. The guy who your party got elected in 2004, and has adopted the Abbott policy of flat out denialism. Even if the Greens had supported your total sellout of a policy, which had been so watered down by working with Turnbull it was in every way worse than useless, the bill would've never gotten past Fielding. That you couldn't pass it is your doing, not ours.

We now have no legislation at all. The Greens' political posturing took precedence over action. Their policy would have no chance of passing the Senate, even if Labor supported it.

Of course not. We don't yet have the balance of power. This election will (hopefully) change that. And stop with this 'obstructionist' meme you're running. The Greens didn't support it because the bill would've locked in failure. Australia would have unable to reduce its emissions by any more than a pitiful amount. The Greens were right in opposing it, and were supported by the overwhelming majority of greens.

The Greens are not some benign group loosely allied with Labor. They're not a middle-ground party. They're not idealistic activists changing the world. They're just another political party, no less cynical or manipulative than the others.

No, we are less manipulative and cynical. That's seen every election. The ALP routinely lies about, and demonises the Greens in the constant hope that throwing every smear it has will keep its dwindling progressive supporters on board. The Greens advocate three simple things: public services, civil rights and liberties, and protecting the environment. Those three objectives are far less extreme than you'd like to think.

It might seem like a good idea to support those who yell the loudest, but it's unlikely to produce good outcomes. Labor is the only worthwhile option for achieving progressive change through parliamentary politics. It might be a bit piecemeal and gradual, but it beats the hell out of doing nothing.

No, the ALP doesn't represent "progressive change." It abandoned progressive values when it sought to out-Howard Howard. The ALP support the internet filter, the draconian anti-terror laws, an inhumane refugee policy, tax cuts over public services, the forestry industry over forests, keeping gays from expressing their love, and I would imagine a whole host of other anti-progressive policies. Because Labor is a 'big tent' party, as a progressive voter I have no idea if you will represent my left-libertarian views in parliament (actually, I do have an idea. It's a big fat 'no, you'll keep treating me as a chump while remaining a fundamentally rightwing party'). But when I vote for the Greens, I actually know what I'm voting for. I know that they will represent my views in parliament (not precisely, of course, but they're by far the closest to my beliefs).

If you're so afraid of the Greens taking your precious votes because people are beginning to realise that the Greens actually represent the mainstream left, then you can start by actively trying to represent the mainstream left yourself. You could start by lobbying the ALP to legalise same-sex marriage. Then, you could adopt Latham's Tasmanian forestry policies and support treated pine plantations rather than logging and wood-chipping native forests.

Above all else, if you want lefties to keep voting for you, than you have to actually represent them in parliament. Instead, you've just taken the easy route-pushing further to the right, whilst assuming lefties are too brain dead to recognise just how Liberal you've become. But this isn't America. Australia actually has a proper, representative democracy where minority views can be expressed. I know just how much you hate that.

The Liberal Party and the political wilderness

I can't say I don't enjoy watching the Liberal party tear itself apart these days. The moderates-Turnbull, Hockey, Robb-desperately trying to keep the party together, whilst Mad Monks, Mavericks and Crazy Uncles are doing their best to keep the Coalition as unelectable as possible is better than most paid entertainment.

The one thing possibly better than this is the quiet knowledge is that this is the result of the Australian Reagan, John 'the Rodent' Howard. His desperate refusal to hand the reigns to Costello and his push to the far-right (economically speaking) with WorkChoices doomed the Liberal Party to defeat. His refusal to sort out the factional war between the small-l Liberals (such as the green Turnbull and humanitarian Georgio) and the hard-right Liberals (Abbott, Tuckey, all of the Nationals) meant that these factions would inevitably turn on each other in defeat, and will doom the party to many years in Opposition. That the Liberals' lord and saviour could become their Reaper is a truly scrumptious thought.

As far as I can tell, there are two predominant factors that led to that fateful defeat now two years ago; Australia's political apathy being broken by climate change and WorkChoices, and Labor's leader. Kim Beazley was to Labor as Brendon Nelson was to the Liberals; would make a solid frontbencher with a sizable portfolio, but fundamentally unelectable as leader. This helped Labor lose the 1998 and 2001 elections. Later, Labor went in the opposite direction with Latham, which scared the electorate so much Howard was handed the balance of power.

Australia apathy enabled Howard to survive despite the corruption that his government enabled; children overboard, Iraq, the dogged refusal to accept responsibility and the his indifference towards Indigenous Australians to name a few. In his last term, however, a 'perfect storm' began to build. WorkChoices wasn't selling; it was turning many voters off. Then, the issue of climate change finally hit with bushfires and the ongoing drought. All of a sudden, voters were shaken from their sleep and didn't like the government they saw; screwing over the workers and the environment to please big business and big coal. 'Good economic management' wasn't worth this.
Finally, Labor put forward Rudd, an electable, pleasant-looking leader, who rivalled Howard in political smarts; differing from the Liberals in climate, industrial relation and Indigenous policies, and the same everywhere else, thus maximising ALP chances. Labor was now electable. Howard tried to remake himself as more of a lefty by making 'aspirational' carbon-reducing goals and placing Indigenous Australians in the preamble of the constitution, but it (thankfully) wasn't enough. The only slim chance Howard had was to resign and allow the slighty-less-unlikeable Costello to run, but the Rodent enjoyed the power too much to give it up. After all, what if Costello was able to win? Howard would become the coward to jumped ship when it all became too difficult, with Costello becoming the new Reagan. And that simply wouldn't do. Instead, Howard took the party to the inevitable defeat. Quickly after, most of the brain-Howard, Costello, Downer-jumped the sinking ship

So now, the Liberals are in disarray, pulled at the seams by the warring factions. The only way for the party to pull itself together is (ironically) to tear off the rotten limbs-splitting from the Nationals, and purging the party itself of the hard-right. They'd be more at home in the DLP or One Nation anyway. The moderates, however, are unable and unwilling to do so. The Tuckeys and (Bronwyn) Bishops are called 'Howardites' for a clear reason; mindless loyalty to the dear leader. Turnbull, as much as he may want to modernise the party, knows that doing so would be seen as a betrayal of Howard's principles. This would reduce the party's support from the right, which is unfathomable, as Labor has already reduced Liberal (and next year, is set to take more) from the centre.

Hopefully, the Liberals' reformation won't happen for a long time. Labor, in Rudd's me-tooing push, now occupies most of the Liberal party's positions (tax cuts and marriage, anyone?) and is establishing itself, if anything, as the mainstream conservative party. With the Liberal party floundering, the Greens have a chance to fill left-wing party vacuum. Here's hoping they take it.

Super fun happy lucky Higgins by-election candidate summery!

Yesterday, most of the Higgins candidates meet with a few community members, who answered various questions regarding climate change. Party-wise, there was the Sex Party, the Greens and One Nation, whilst several Independents spiced up the evening with their zaniness. Disappointingly, Kelly ‘Runner-up in the Bronwyn Bishop lookalike contest’ O’Dwyer, John ‘familyfamilyfamily’ Mulholland of the DLP and Isaac ‘fight tha power!’ Roberts of the Liberal Democrats weren’t there. In hindsight, that's probably a good thing, as Kelly and a certain anarchist Independent would've probably killed each other.

Fiona Patten, Australian Sex Party:
Excellent. Presented herself extremely well, stating that she was no expert and relied on the climatologists to tell her what was going on. Was very friendly and approachable (I even got to talk to her! **squeals like a six year old**). 9/10.

David Collyer, Australian Democrats:
Fine representative for the Dems. During one of his speeches, made a statement along the lines of “If the scientists are wrong, then we’ve merely pushed for green living earlier than we would have. If the scientists are right, then we only have on chance at this” which was brilliant. Only problem was that he quite often referred to Democrats’ green successes in the past (such as on the Franklin River), which came across as mildly wanky. 8/10.

Steve Raskovy, One Nation:
It took a while to get over the thought of a Hungarian refugee standing for One Nation, but he did a decent job on climate issues. Only problem was that he took a while to actually answer questions, which grew rather annoying. Delivered one of my favourite quotes for the night-“Water is the blood of the earth.” 7/10.

Joseph Toscano, Independent
Anarchist and self-proclaimed “radical”, was popular in his often snarky attitude (such as referring to Steve Murphy, a climate change sceptic as a “flat-earther”). Gave some excellent remarks, such as, regarding the coal industry’s free carbon credits, “People are compensated for doing the right thing. Coal companies are the only thing in the world which are compensated for doing the wrong thing!” Humourously, got on extremely well with ideologically-opposed One Nation's Steve. 8.5/10.

Steve Murphy, Independent:
To give Steve credit, he came to a climate change forum knowing that he would be extremely unpopular (if not lynched). Understandably, he was usually on the defence, but did a reasonable job at defending his policies, despite the constant jeering he suffered. 7.5/10.

Clive Hamilton, Australian Greens:
Ironically, out of all the candidates, I remember Clive's performance the least. However, I can’t remember anything terrible he said, and he cleared up the Holocaust comments from an article in Crikey, which I feel was important (given that the comments, wrongly interpreted, did sound very extreme). 8.2/10.

Peter Brohier, Independent:
There’s no way this guy isn’t a cover for the CEC. 2/10.

And that's a wrap. Chances are, I'll be voting 1. Greens, 2. Democrats, 3. Sex Party, 4. Joseph, 5. Liberal Dems, 6. Peter, 7. Liberals, 8. DLP, 9. One Nation and 10. Steve.

Mr. 1.9%: the Senate's village idiot.

Steve Fielding doesn't like Greens. I have an impressive collection of articles in which Mr. Morality launches childish attack after childish attack, each of which is unsatirable* in its petty partisanship and amateurism. The Bongmeister, however, has come to the conclusion that these past works are too subtle for his Christian base. Thus, Stevie has dropped all flimsy pretenses of professionalism and gone for the lowest, crudest and downright laughable smear he can imagine:

GREENS’ PLAN ECONOMICALLY LAUGHABLE, FOOLISH AND LUDICROUS

Says the fellow who's sole economic policy consists of cutting the petrol tax. I know Steve lives in the 14th Century, but that's no excuse for not using the caps lock hey.

The Greens would rather send Australia back to the Stone Age than use common sense in negotiating on an Emissions Trading Scheme, Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding said today.

“I don’t know what planet the Greens are on, but by the look of their ‘Safe Climate Bill’ they look like they're lost in space,” Senator Fielding said.

I don't know what Steve was gunning for with those space puns-it's not like NASA is involved. Anyway, the rest of the piece is utterly juvenile-calling Bob and co. "hippies" and sloppy accusations of hypocrisy-by using planes, no less. I don't know how Greens Senators are supposed to travel in a less gas-emitting way, given that planes are a form of public transport. I presume Fielding also think Bob is a hypocrite because he emits carbon emissions by breathing.

But seriously, I can't understand what Steve expect to gain from schlock like this. Anyone even considering voting Green is sufficiently left-wing as to dismiss Fundies First as a group of fringe nutters, and vice-versa for FF voters. If anything, Steve is alienating what incomprehensibly tiny support base he has by acting like like such a jerk. Compare this release to what freshman/woman Senators Ludlam and Hanson-Young have produced. These political youngens have only been in Parliament since July 2008, yet they have displayed a political professionalism that completely outstripes Steve (and most major party backbenchers as well, to be honest). The Fluke is a child in a grownups' world: he stumbled into the Senate through luck and Labor's cynicism, was irrelevent from 04 to 07, and, now having been thrust into the balance-of-power limelight, has demonstrated that he hasn't a clue in parliamentary processes. Steve knows that he has barely a hope of re-election on primary votes-barely being the operative word-and has resorted to stunt after stunt in the vain hopes that he will increase the visability of his party enough to scrap in a re-election.

I, like all groupthing lefties, simply cannot wait for the 2010 election. Asides from an anti-Greens propaganda overdrive from all parties (which will be a joy to read, I can assure you all), Rudd has shown that he is a skilled and shrewd politician. The likelihood of Labor preferencing the Fundies in 2010 is infinitesimal, especially how much Steve has pissed Kevin off (Medicare levies, alcopops taxes and luxary car taxes, anybody?). Labor is a right-wing government, but Rudd knows that the Greens are a better deal than Steve, and that's where Labor's 2010 preferences will be heading. To humbly quote Field Marshall Editor: Steve: you and your Pentecostal mates are headed for the political dustbin of history and no stunt on Earth is going to save you. Perhaps when you fail to get re-elected in a couple of years you could work for Today Tonight.

Cross-posted at Officer Cadet Orville Strayan.

Various article goodies found here, here and here.

*That's a word, OK?

Election of Rudd officially worth it: part 2.

(yes, I know I'm in a rut of commenting late on issues. This time, I have an excuse; I was briefly posted to an outpost at Lorne)

Earlier this year, I commented that despite his constant me-twoisms during the 07 election, the Rudd Government was officially better than the Howard Government, as Rudd changed our foreign aid laws, allowing funds to go organisations which either terminated pregnancies or referred women to organisations that did.

Recently, Rudd has further improved Australia's human rights record by a) ending mandatory detention to the majority of refugees; only those who pose a threat to their community will remain in detention, and b) abolishing fees to refugees, which forced them to pay for their imprisonment.

(Most of) The Liberal Party, as always, has opposed the moves, stating that soften border protection cause an influx of refugees.

Petro Georgiou, the only Liberal with a functioning conscience, has written an opinion piece in the Age, showing how ludicrous the fee laws were:

The most obvious reason for repealing it is that it has totally failed to achieve its objective. Since the policy was initiated, only 4 per cent of the costs have been recovered. In the past four years, $139 million, or 81 per cent, of charges have been waived or written off, mainly by the coalition government, because it was impractical or uneconomical to recover the charges. This year it is estimated that it will cost $709,000 to collect $573,000. There is simply no rational basis to continue the charges. What these charges do achieve is making those subject to them more anxious and their lives more difficult. There is another fundamental reason for ending the detention charges — imposing these charges is part of the process of dehumanising people seeking refuge, part of the way they have been presented as being worse than the worst criminals. Do we charge drug dealers, serial pedophiles, sadistic murderers and multiple rapists the costs of their detention?

[my emphasis]

The government forced refugees to pay for their imprisonment dates back to 1992-in the 15+ years since, no legislation has ever been passed that forced criminals to pay for their detention. For over fifteen years, Australia treated the most vulnerable people on the earth more harshly than some of the most violent people on the earth. This, more than anything else, shows how corrosive fear is on a multi-nation's morality. Our fears of being swamped by Vietnamese Asians in general Africans led us to support truly amoral measures to deter refugees for our own security-yet these refugees still came regardless. It is amazing how powerful fear is in destroying one's morals.

But even if those harsher anti-refugee laws did work, we should still oppose them because of their inhumanity. They further wreck havoc with people whose lives have so nearly been destroyed by dictatorships, civil war or both. Refugees have a fundamental right to find a better place to live, and if that's Australia, then so be it. These laws reduced our human rights records to that of dictatorships. The mere fact that it took this long to be changes it utterly shameful.

That being said, it's good Australia is seeing the light.

Also see here, here, here and here.

Election of Rudd now officially worth it

From the Age:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has set the Christian lobby, a key Labor powerbroker and a crucial balance-of-power Senator against him over Australia's move to scrap a 13-year-old ban on foreign aid being used to fund safer abortions for women in poor nations.

But the historic shift was lauded by a wide array of aid agencies, women's groups, family planning experts and many cross-party federal politicians, who said it would save the lives of thousands of women who would otherwise die in botched backyard operations.

All of a sudden, I'm almost liking Kevin.

The Prime Minister was targeted by his Christian base after revealing that he backed but did not personally support the decision by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith to axe the ban - two months after US President Barack Obama overturned a similar ban in his country.

Mr Rudd told a meeting of Labor MPs he had "long-standing conservative views" on the issue, but said a clear majority of Labor MPs backed a change.

The Australian Christian Lobby, which gave him a platform to reach 100,000 Christians by TV before the last election, threatened to campaign against him at the next election.

...

And Family First senator Steve Fielding, whose vote is crucial for Labor on key parts of its agenda, lashed out personally at Mr Rudd for being "rolled" by his party. "When it comes to the crunch on values issues, the Prime Minister wimps out," he said.

It seems to me that preventing women from dying from backward abortions isn't so much a 'values' issues then it is a 'compassion and humanity' value.

The ban was imposed by the former Howard Government in 1996 to appease former Tasmanian independent senator Brian Harradine, who held a pivotal Senate vote.

Mr Smith said the focus of Australia's foreign aid would remain on avoiding abortions by providing better family planning education, as he pledged to boost funds for preventing maternal deaths by $15 million over four years. He said it was a tragedy that an estimated 68,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions - leaving 220,000 children without mothers.

A wide coalition of groups has been campaigning for years for the ban to be lifted, led by cross-party politicians including Liberal MPs Sharman Stone and Mal Washer, former Democrats leader Lyn Allison and Labor Senator Claire Moore.

...

But prominent anti-abortion senators, including National Ron Boswell, Liberal Guy Barnett and Labor's Mark Bishop, were outraged.

Australian Reproductive Health Alliance chief Jane Singleton said the "humane and enlightened" change would save thousands of women's lives.

But Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace said Christian voters had been betrayed - and pledged to campaign on the issue.

The Catholic Church branded the move "a cause for great sadness" and "very bad news for women and unborn children in the developing world". It urged Mr Rudd to reverse the decision.

The Vatican and the ACL see women not dying from slashed uteri as "a cause for great sadness." Figures.

There is a level of political bravery from Rudd. No-one expected him to overturn the ban (certainly not me). Indeed, it would have been much easier to simply do nothing and keep the die hard sexist fundie conservative Christian lobby/bloc on his side.

I won't be voting Labor in 2010, but I would like to humbly thank Rudd for not being totally Howard-lite.

And on a final note (again): if God is anti-abortion, why do at least 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage-a natural abortion? Riddle me that, you misogynic turds with nothing better to be outraged about then improved reproductive rights.

If a transluscent sack of cells in the womb dies, Jesus will cry.

Dear God. It's bad enough that the banning of aid occurs in the US-but Australia too?

Seems so:

THE Labor chairwoman of a parliamentary group on population hopes the Government will act by the end of the year to lift its ban on foreign aid being used for abortion advice and services.

Senator Claire Moore said it was important this issue be clarified before an international conference on maternal and child welfare was held early next year. "This seems to be an appropriate pressure point on the Government," she said.

Senator Moore said only Australia and the United States banned aid being used in this way in countries where abortion was legal.

Liberal MP Mal Washer, former chairman of the committee, said he suspected the Government had gone cold on removing the ban because it feared offending Family First's Steve Fielding who, as a cross-bench senator, was crucial to the Government on many occasions.

...

Dr Washer said the Government's situation with Senator Fielding appeared "very similar to the Harradine problem we had". He urged the Government to have some "sensible discussion" with Senator Fielding. A spokeswoman for Senator Fielding said the senator supported the restriction, and had spoken to Mr Smith on the issue a few months ago.

and:

Kevin Rudd should overturn the policy championed by former senator Brian Harradine of not providing foreign aid for abortion advice.

BRIAN HARRADINE, former independent senator from Tasmania, was a thorn in Labor's side for decades. Gough Whitlam in the late 1960s actually put his leadership on the line, on Harradine's side, in a party dispute involving him. Several years later, Harradine was finally expelled from the ALP, only to win a Senate spot as an independent.

...

The Howard government, in recognition of how much it would need him, agreed to a ban on Australian aid funding advice on abortion.

Now, Harradine is retired from the Senate but this legacy is causing all sorts of trouble for the Rudd Government. There is strong pressure to scrap the ban, following a recommendation to that effect from a cross-party group last year. But there's also a big push back, especially from the Catholic right in the ALP, to stop any change.

...

"Unsafe abortion is responsible for 13per cent of all maternal deaths globally - many in our region. These restrictions deny women the same access to reproductive health choices, education and services we give ourselves, even in countries when it is legal to do so. Currently if a woman is dying or injured from accessing unsafe abortion only then can she be treated or given information ... this is cruel and illogical".

Of course, that's not how the Catholic-ultracons see it.

We need human sacrifices! Preferably from Africa!

And as for Fielding...

Putting Aryan Christian Families First!

Cross-posted at An Onymous Lefty.

Political buzzwords

Inspired here, I decided to google common buzz words and sound bites that appear in various Parties.

'Working families' appears in the ALP 884 times

'petrol' and appears in the LPA 297 times

'family' and 'families' appear in FF 500 and 275

'values' appears in the CDP only 176 times but 'homosexuality' appears 99 times

'sustainable' and 'climate change' appear in the Greens...4,330 and 8,210 times! And there I was, thinking that 'working families' couldn't be outdone.

UPDATE: I searched the above words for the other parties for the Greens. They appear (in original order): 296 times, 1,630 times, 1,970 and 2,100 times, and 1,390 and 57 times.

What is with divided conservatives? Is power more important then principle?

(As rhetorical as it sounds, that's an actual question I'm putting up there)

I've just checked out Oz's current political parties. What really interests me is the state of minor parties at the moment:

• Australian Greens: 20 [(Federal (5), NSW (4), Tasmania (4), Victoria (3), Western Australia (2), South Australia (1), ACT (1)]

• Family First Party: 4 [Federal (1), South Australia (2), Western Australia (1)]

• Christian Democratic Party : 2 [NSW (2)]

• Shooters Party: 2 [NSW (2)]

• Australian Democrats: 1 [South Australia (1)]

• One Nation Party: 1 [Queensland (1)]

• Democratic Labor Party: 1 [Victoria (1)]

Now that's interesting. We have 2 Left-libertarian parties, the Greens and Democrats. The Democrats certainly won't last long, so eventually we'll have just the Greens representing our bloc of the political spectrum. But look at how many conservative parties there are: the FF, the CDP, ONP and DLP. (And the Greens still have more seats then all of those parties combined)

So...why? Why are the conservatives so divided? The CDP and DLP share almost identical social policies, hating feminism and teh gays. The CDP has a clear populist focus on keeping the towlheads out of Australia, which has worked out for them nicely. This has aligned Nile and his posse with ONP and Pauline Hanson's party. The only party that could (at least publicly) reject all of this nationalist hate and remain a solo party is FF, and they could develop a loose alliance.

But even without FF, this leaves us with 3 parties with incredibly similar policies all squabbling over the same voting bloc. Are they more interested in power (ie votes and therefore money) then their principles? There have been death threats against Nile (no doubt stemming from his own religious bigotry), which, given that he has refused to stand down from, hints that he may genuinely be in it for the belief and not just the votes/cash. But that still doesn't explain why Fred just doesn't unite with the DLP and Hanson and just fight for conservative nationalism.

So (again) why do conservatives refuse to unite on such issues? We (left-libertarians) have united under the Greens, so why not the other side? Sure, there's a couple of socialist parties, but nobody (probably not even themselves) takes them seriously anymore. The most logical explanation is that the parties are simply in it for themselves (Pauline certainly seems to be) but that still just doesn't feel right.

So I'm opening this discussion to you fellow soldiers (hopefully I have at least a few by now). If any conservatives want to join, be my guest. You might (and hopefully will) provide a perfectly logical non just-in-it-for-the-votes explanation why conservatives just can't get along as one party.

And if nobody responds...I'll just email it to General Bron.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Don't'ja hate it when you think of a great comment for a blog post, but the post is almost a month old, so you look like a real knob if you put a comment up? Well, I hate it, anyway.
We all remember the Jeeves moment:

[The coalition] accused Kevin Rudd of employing a butler to shine his shoes and lay out his clothes when he is on the road.

But Mr Rudd’s office decried the “cheap political attack”, insisting the staffer was an executive assistant whose primary job was to manage paperwork and schedules.

Victorian Liberal senator Michael Ronaldson demanded of Special Minister of State John Faulkner: “How many working families have a butler?”

To which blogger and GrodsThinker Field Marshal Editor rightly replied:

The man is the Prime fucking Minister of the fucking country for fuck’s sake! If the head of this country’s government didn’t have staff to assist with work and home matters I’d be worried. If Kevin Rudd (or John Howard before him, for that matter) had time to do mail merges in the office or wash dishes at home I’d accuse him of not doing his job properly. Why must we smear as out of touch any person who is not a member of these mythical “working families”, doing it tough and battling to buy groceries?

Tonight as I was swimming, I spontaneously realised that if Rudd didn't have an assistant, we'd be hearing Brendoc's rendition of the Cate Blanchett test:

If Mr. Rudd has time to wash the dishes and walk the dog every night, then he should have time to tell pensioners, when he's forcing them to live on a pittance, why he's refusing to cut the petrol tax.

We know it's true. It's just a darn shame we can't check out the alternate universe where this happened.

UPDATE 6/08/08: From Captain "Hedgehog" Tobias, I've discovered a newspaper that is more right wing then the Herald Sun. I was shocked too.

This made the newspaper?!

From today’s Age:

RACIAL harassment of Africans increased following former immigration minister Kevin Andrews' claims they were engaged in crime and failing to integrate, according to a confidential Immigration Department report.

...

The Immigration Department maintained this was because of an improvement in some African countries and the need to help Iraqis displaced by war and Burmese refugees living in camps on the Thai-Burma border.

...Mr Andrews...claimed, after the fatal bashing of Sudanese refugee Liep Gony, that the refugee intake from places such as Sudan had been cut amid fears that "some groups don't seem to be settling and adjusting into the Australian life as quickly as we would hope".

The community update says African community leaders had reacted to the ministerial comments and public debate about the change of intake. "There was widespread unease that public comments encouraged racism."

...

Multicultural Affairs parliamentary secretary Laurie Ferguson said Mr Andrews had caused lasting damage.

"His comments were not only counterproductive in regards to stirring up racism and hostility. It is also now very hard to convince the African community the intake hasn't been reduced to zero," he said.

...

The chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, Sam Afra, said the documents obtained by The Age confirmed the group's worst fears. "Some might consider polarising society to be a clever political tactic in the lead-up to an election, but these alarming findings reveal such ploys do not come without a cost," Mr Afra said.

I can imagine the African-Australian community sighing one great collective “Duh!”

I wonder if the Age realises that the whole point of Andrews’ little stir was to redivide the community along ethnic lines again. Tampa was brilliant at that: “teh terr’izts ar cumin! in terh ebil botes! we muzt stops dem!’ (Ignoring the obvious fact that if anyone with a grudge against us were to come into Oz, coming by boat-generating massive media attention-would be the most unsubtle way of doing it) Tampa turned us against asylum seekers/refugees and won Howard the election. Sudagate (my God that was an awful pun) unsuccessfully tried to turn us against the Sudanese, and by extension the Australian black community, when Howard and co. realised that their only chance of winning wasn't just to tar and feather Labor but to find an easy scapegoat to blame for something.

So they waited for the opportunity to make such a statement-that ‘they' aren’t integrating into ‘our’ culture. Therefore, instead of examining the root causes as to why 'they' aren't integrating (such as lack of education or hostility and bigotry from other Australians), we must block the elusive ‘them’ from entering 'our' country. Of course, they waited and nothing happened. Hilali didn't say anything dramatic that could be blamed on Muslims, there was no Cronulla riots...it was almost mid-October, with a month and a half before the looming election, and there was still no 'other' for the Libs to divide the rednecks against. So, grasping at straws, Andrews used an example of a Sudanese being bashed to death by white racists to justify the Sudanese not 'integrating.'

I just love the fact that we didn’t fall for it this time...if still somewhat annoyed that something so blatantly obvious made the paper.