Breasts. Class. Public space. Language as a tool of repression

22 Jan

Discreet.  The word that has brought opprobrium down on the bald head of Channel 7 Sunrise host David Koch, after he used it to describe his preferred demeanour for women breast-feeding their babies in public spaces.

Koch, affectionately known as “Kochie,” was commenting on the decision of staff at the Bribie Island Aquatic Centre to request that a nursing mother remove herself from the public gaze, as she sat at the edge of the pool watching her two older children whilst feeding her baby. The comments can be seen here. Briefly, Koch agrees there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public as long as it is done “discreetly” and in a “classy” manner. Koch reiterated his views yesterday. He has another piece  today in The Punch in which he again confirms his views, titled “I’m not anti breast-feeding just pro politeness.”

He also tweeted: david koch ‏@kochie_online

But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect breast-feeding in public is done discreetly. I think that’s just a common courtesy to others

That most middle class admonition, to be discreet, means: having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech; prudent, especially capable of preserving prudent silence; unpretentious, modest, unobtrusive, and unnoticeable.

That most aspirational instruction, to be classy, means: having or showing class; elegant, stylish; having or reflecting high standards of personal behavior; admirably skilful and graceful.

Then there’s that other most middle class admonition: be polite

And that much-loved phrase: common courtesy

Dog whistling, the lot of it, with less than zero relevance to breast-feeding in public.

Women should, according to Koch, acquire all these characteristics prior to feeding their infants in a public place. As he feels the need to incessantly repeat himself on this over a period now of some three days, he obviously considers that many women are seriously lacking in these highly valued middle class virtues, and in their ignorance, are offending and distressing the sensibilities of the bourgeoisie, who everyone knows are absolutely entitled to live in a world where nobody does anything that might offend them. Their world, their rules?

Neither Koch nor anybody else who has endorsed his views has explained exactly what it is about women feeding babies that is indiscreet, lacking in class, impolite, or offensive to another’s sensibilities. Neither have they explained how it is “discourteous” of a woman to expose the amount of breast needed to feed a child. This is not actually a great deal. An everyday lingerie advertisement will reveal far more.

Then there is the article at The Punch by Anthony Sharwood, who offers this:

But I can tell you from experience that there are some women who breastfeed anywhere they can as a sort of public exhibition of motherhood

So much of parenthood these days has become an act of display, from superprams as sophisticated as F1 cars to those who go down the overtly organic, super-healthy track.

Public breastfeeding has become, for some Mums, the last frontier of showy parenthood. What started as a private, intimate thing has become its exact opposite. I breastfeed therefore I am liberated. Yeah righto, we get it.

I take it that Mr Sharwood also would prefer us to be prudently silent, unpretentious, modest, unobtrusive, and unnoticeable. He also objects to breasts flopping all over his dinner table because feeding breasts are not sexy.

The reason why Koch’s observations matter is explained in an excellent piece in The Conversation:

Embarrassment and concerns about breastfeeding in public are primary reasons women stop breastfeeding early. And comments like Kochie’s that endorse restricting a breastfeeding woman’s access to certain areas of public space further remove breastfeeding from public display. This increases breastfeeding mothers’ social discomfort and makes it difficult for them to do what we otherwise expect them to.

 

The article also explains why denying women the right to breast feed in public is illegal, no matter what the manner in which they choose to do it.

An excellent piece on the human rights aspect of the action taken by the Bribie Island Aquatic Centre & Koch’s subsequent endorsement was posted by Kate Galloway here

There’s been something of a furore about the issue on Twitter. On my feed there have been objections to the concerns women have expressed about Koch and the Aquatic Centre. These have come overwhelmingly from men. Rather than analyse the mindset that would relegate women and babies to the toilets to feed, instead women’s anger about the situation has been targeted for discussion. Our anger has been described by some men as “rage,” “outrage,” “fighting,” and “faux rage,” and we’ve been described as “angry feminists.” We’ve been told to “get upset about something really important.” Someone tweeted that he was “exhausted” by our “outrage,” another that we were “ranting.” All pejorative descriptions of female anger because women don’t get angry like men, do we? We get out of control.

Some men need to learn that expressing emotion, even anger, does not equate to losing control.

Are you getting a feeling for the repressive use of language in this discussion? And don’t for a moment imagine Koch’s language is any less pejorative and repressive than that of the Twitter blokes.

Male tweeps have advised us that we’re not going about this in the right way, that our protest strategy will fail, that we have not thought through the two “nurse-ins” that were organized outside Channel 7 and Bribie Aquatic Centre.

Of all the belittling, scornful, repressive and dismissive comments tweeted on my feed to me and to other women today, only one I have seen has come from another woman.

I’m astonished that there are still men who think it their business to tell women what we ought to get upset about, and how we ought to express our concerns.

I’m astonished that there are still men who believe in an ideal of womanhood that requires us to refrain from expressing emotion in what they consider an unseemly fashion.

David Koch thinks we should be discreet, that is, and I will type this out again, so important do I consider it, we should have or show discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech; be prudent, especially capable of preserving prudent silence; be unpretentious, modest, unobtrusive, and unnoticeable. He also thinks we should have or show class; be elegant, stylish; have or reflect high standards of personal behavior; be admirably skilful and graceful. What would Jane Austen, that most acute chronicler of manners, have to say?

Jane Austen quote

If this brouhaha has brought anything into stark relief, it is that the patriarchy is alive and well, and still dedicated to moulding women to its requirements. This is done not with force in this instance, but with language. It is done with efforts to control and shame us, expressed in language that is prescriptive, proscriptive, and judgmental. The tweeps, Koch and Sharwood share the same goal: to regulate female behaviour in public spaces using language that conveys disapproval and contempt, and is designed to shame.

If we must be discreet and courteous about breast-feeding, that implies there is something inherently offensive about it. As nobody has yet been able to articulate exactly what this offence is,  I can only conclude it is an emotional, irrational squeamishness that is triggered in some people when they see a baby at the breast.


Opponents of this most natural function will have to come up with a much better explanation than personal squeamishness if they are to have a leg to stand on in this matter. While many have defended Koch’s right to hold an opinion on this, I doubt his position can be described as an “opinion.” It is informed by nothing. It is an uncomfortable feeling he has. It is an emotional reaction. That is not opinion.

We are all responsible for our emotional reactions, we cannot demand that others protect us from them by ceasing to act in ways that provoke discomfort in us. In other words, if Koch or anyone else doesn’t like to witness a mother feeding her baby, perhaps they might like to put a blanket over their heads until she’s done. Or go sit in the toilets.

While many of the male tweeps involved thought Koch’s position was an idiocy, they failed to grasp that their reaction to our anger comes from the same place as that idiocy. Indeed, Koch’s idiocy was entirely lost in their emotional reactions to our anger, which became the focus for them.

Is all this an example of misogyny? I’m inclined to think not. It is the product of a misogynist patriarchy, so entrenched in some males they can’t even see what they’re doing, and get scared and angry when anyone calls them on it. I think it’s ignorance, rather than malice. I think it’s irrational fear.

Whatever it is, it most certainly isn’t opinion, which requires a good deal more than emotion. Koch’s unexamined emotions, and those of the male tweeps, shouldn’t be dignified with the title “opinion”, and they most certainly should not be respected as such.

About these ads

385 Responses to “Breasts. Class. Public space. Language as a tool of repression”

  1. Colin Mackay January 22, 2013 at 8:21 am #

    Interesting in light of the wording of the draft anti discrimination legislation 19(2)(b) ‘conduct that offends, insults’..:
    Division 2—Meaning of discrimination
    2 19 When a person discriminates against another person, and related
    3 concepts
    4 Discrimination by unfavourable treatment
    5 (1) A person (the first person) discriminates against another person if
    6 the first person treats, or proposes to treat, the other person
    7 unfavourably because the other person has a particular protected
    8 attribute, or a particular combination of 2 or more protected
    9 attributes.
    10 Note: This subsection has effect subject to section 21.
    11 (2) To avoid doubt, unfavourable treatment of the other person
    12 includes (but is not limited to) the following:
    13 (a) harassing the other person;
    14 (b) other conduct that offends, insults or intimidates the other
    15 person.

    Like

  2. jgirl10 January 22, 2013 at 9:10 am #

    Perhaps women should wear this while breast feeding in public…

    Like

  3. helvityni January 22, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    What are those special rooms called where mums in shopping malls can feed and change their babies; are they rest rooms or breast rooms ? Maybe Kochie can start erecting them in every street corner, maybe start with breast tents…
    Lock them up , hide them away, we don’t want to excite old Kochie too much….

    Like

    • conor January 26, 2013 at 9:06 am #

      I think they should make public popup breastfeeding tents and call them “Kochies”.

      Like

  4. gerard oosterman January 22, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    We are English you know! And that sums up the attitude of Koch. Well, not English but Anglo. Privacy is enormously important in a culture derived from drawbridges and moats. We live in a set of townhouse and… wait for it… do not have curtains. This seems to be baffling to some. When are you going to hang curtains, we are asked? Too Euro-centric.

    I always find it interesting to view and see how others live and have a pet hatred of fences, especially those dreadful colourbond. House are blindfolded and never a sign of life, sometimes a glimmer through the top of the venetians. Barbecues are in the back yard, hardly ever at the front. ‘What will the neighbours think etc.’

    Privacy till our graves.

    So, female toilets were called ‘powder rooms, ladies reserves, rest rooms, baby change rooms etc. It is no wonder some find public breastfeeding too revolutionary and upsetting. Change takes place very slowly, especially for the Koches of this world. We are English!

    Like

  5. hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 9:35 am #

    Apparently its perfectly lawful to breastfeed so this Koch bloke who seems to me to be a bit of a wet blanket at the best of time kind of does us a service in a roundabout kind of way….As a kind of cautionary tale.

    I don’t know that if some dill like Koch isn’t willing to dip his toe into dangerous waters that we ever get to test the temperature of them. And I suppose that we need to from time to time if only to remind ourselves that we have, or probably should have moved on from where we were at last time it was publicly raised, the social barometer got read, and we all settled on what we took to be the more or less accepted position. But in so saying I’m not sure that I like what we do with those ideas when we process them along those lines because it is still all about setting up social mores, which hoping as I do that they might progress one way or the other nevertheless cement people’s entitlement to pass judgement about the actions of others that I really don’t think they’re entitled to make.

    Now of course there are patriarchal attitudes and they’re balanced to some extent by matriarchal ones when women jump on a protest bandwagon that I kind of get shows pluck and great freedom of expression, but might have done as well to simply ignore the comments for the irrelevance they probably should be in terms of how they as individuals make their own choices. They are to a woman sheep who need the security of the herd to reinforce their right to public behaviours I don’t think they’re quite as free to carry out as they ought to be.

    That lack of freedom if only from the restrictions within their own mentality from taboos and hang ups they’ve been given to feel constrained by needs to be kicked off. But I do at the same time wonder who they’re fighting and what they think victory feels like.

    If we’re even able to consider why female breasts are not just chosen to be covered but deemed necessary to hide while male ones are not, then maybe we’ll do something truly revolutionary and stop banning them, attack the supposed offence of nudity, and make it a matter of individual discretion once and for all.

    Otherwise the law already says you can breastfeed and frankly I’m a bit confused as to why people are meant to even avert their gaze from the event. You may not want to be ogled but meet my eyes and exchange a smile. I approve of what you’re doing and just want to say it’s okay not to be embarrassed about it as one individual to another. I wish only to put you at your ease because I know people have different degrees of willingness to share a glimpse of something our society has woven some privacy taboos around. We’ll just work it out one on one by exchanging whatever little kindness is appropriate to put one another at our ease, because I think a lot of women who actually do breastfeed in public are going to say that what really matters to them isn’t what the breakfast TV presenter says, but the countless little disapproving exchanges that question their feminine worth on a day to day basis.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 23, 2013 at 6:29 am #

      Your last para says it all. A friendly acknowledgment like the kind I always give breast feeding mothers when I see them, just as you describe. It’s almost always appreciated. Anyways, breast feeding is just lovely IMO. I loved doing it, and I love to watch my daughters in law feeding our scamps.

      Like

  6. Sam Jandwich January 22, 2013 at 9:47 am #

    Yes I think you’re quite right here Jennifer. It carries the assumption that it is perfectly normal to be rendered squeamish at the sight of this… “public breastfeeding”!!

    Doesn’t it? or perhaps by “discreet” and “classy” he means women shouldn’t breastfeed whilst perched on the drivers’ seat of their black Ford Focus ST at the Macca’s carpark, blasting Nicky Minaj, fake-tanned legs emerging from a pink miniskirt and planted carelessly on the bitumen next to the cigarette butts, an Indian Myna and a dubious-looking puddle, gum-chewing motions causing her ponytail to pulsate like a sea cucumber as it wiggles through the orifice to the rear of her baseball cap, as she replenishes herself with a little lamb, fries and a Coke™, ……

    But then, isn’t it Kochie’s duty to provide more suitable feeding booths in public places? Perhaps he’s really just admonishing himself for allowing his women-folk to sink to such depths……. Poolside, I ask you??

    Meanwhile, the sensible people of the world have to resort to psychotherapy just to be able to tolerate living on the same planet……

    Sorry, my birthday yesterday. In a bit of a pensive mood……..

    Like

    • helvityni January 22, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

      Happy Birthday for yesterday , Sam; isn’t it nice that we still have birthdays…. :)

      Like

      • Sam Jandwich January 22, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

        Dank u Helvi! Yes it was also nice that my workmates didn’t let me get away with getting older. They got me a cheesecake, bless them!

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 23, 2013 at 6:26 am #

      That’s quite a picture you’ve painted there Sam. I can’t say I’ve ever witnessed a breast feeding scene that came anywhere close to that!

      Happy birthday BTW. You didnt tell us how old you are :-)

      Like

      • Sam Jandwich January 23, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

        Meh, once you’re over 30 it really doesn’t matter anymore I reckon:-)

        Like

        • Poirot January 23, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

          My birthday next week…am toodling in the early fifties (and it was less than a decade ago that I was breastfeeding!) Have to say that although I’m getting older, that I feel the best I ever have… a few more creaks perhaps, but generally okay.

          Happy Birthday, Sam :)

          Like

          • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:16 am #

            I so agree with that, getting older hasn’t bothered me in the least, so much insecurity cast off & I don’t give a toss about wrinkles. I started Feldenkries classes which are wonderful for creaks.

            Like

  7. zerograv1 January 22, 2013 at 10:06 am #

    I dont support Koch’s view – as far as Im concerned breastfeeding is a natural part of motherhood and its no-one elses business. Certainly an infant cannot be coached on being classy and discreet so its just a stupid rambling from a quite stupid man but thats morning television for you. One point in your post did interest me though – attacks on the patriachy belie the fact that we all have fathers love them or loathe them and no they arent ever going to go away. (Its also a very tired argument supported only by labelism – eg you can put positive or negative spin on any word if you are successful at highjacking the commentariat – an example is “manipulation” – a word most consider negative – however consider : its a negative when referring to the behaviour of drug addicts, a positive when used in the context of medical massage) As far being told how to behave and feel I think matriachal women are far worse offenders than men who tend to not care too much, You arent going to see mother in law syndrome from a white gloved male checking your benches for dust on a visit now are you? The other more sickening version is being ordered to “be positive” and make light of your problems despite the fact that you are dealing with tragedies or ill health – a fabulous prescription of neglect and avoidance that inevitably ends in tears. Entrenched hospital matriachal nurses Unfortunately I’ll have to stick to this viewpoint much as I’d love it if everyone just got out of everyone elses faces with preaching about how we should all be living, there will always be PITA’s around, patriachy and matriachy, you have to have parents to get born dont you? And yep they make rules and have viewpoints – deal with it! The only alternative lives in science fiction – although even Douglas Adams had a place for vogons and other insensitive thoughtless creatures.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 23, 2013 at 6:24 am #

      Yes, we do all have fathers. If I was writing more about patriarchy I’d point out that there are many kinds of masculinity, and the one that dominates patriarchy is as destructive to some men as it is to some women. I guess people assume patriarchy to mean men, but to me, it means that particular type of masculinity of which Koch is in many ways a good example

      Like

  8. Darrell January 22, 2013 at 10:34 am #

    Thanks Jennifer.. I love that Jane Austin quote.. It’s a classic….

    While I also ask *the Sabian Oracle what the Universe would like to say to us all then about all this.. with the answer taken from the book ‘An Astrological Mandala: The Cycle of Transformation & Its 360 Symbolic Phases’ by Dane Rudhyar.. I got *4degLeo..

    A FORMALLY DRESSED ELDERLY MAN STANDS NEAR TROPHIES HE BROUGHT BACK FROM A HUNTING EXPEDITION.. The masculine will to conquer ones animal nature & to impress ones peers with ones skill in performing the ancient traditional power rituals..

    This may be interpreted at the strictly Social level – the hunters trophies, the pride in showing them to members of ones high class club etc. But if one refers to the higher Spiritual-mental implications of the sign of Leo, one can see in this picture a reference to man’s capacity to overcome the animalistic tendencies of ones biopsychic nature according to certain traditional procedures. The implication of being “Formally Dressed” is that an important, if not the most important, goal the individual had in developing this capacity has been to “prove oneself” – to others, as well as perhaps to oneself..

    This is the fourth stage of the twenty-sixth five-fold sequence. The symbol can be referred to the eagerness to show oneself to the best of ones advantage, characteristic of the Leo temperament: TO DRAMATISE ONE’S ACHIEVEMENTS…

    Like

    • zerograv1 January 22, 2013 at 11:06 am #

      Or just open a facebook account

      Like

      • Darrell January 25, 2013 at 11:09 am #

        Yes.. And, of course, it all about how well you use anthing.. And, as one of my favourite astrologers likes to say.. “Get what you want, it will teach you something”… How, else do we really deeply learn anything in this life.. ie. through the emotional body & the heart of course.. not the head.. And. of course there is a “reason” for all things under the Sun.. It’s not all either “good” or “bad”….ie. This is Natural Law.. It all just is!!!!!! Says Hades or Pluto, the Lord of the Underworld…. No its not about destroying ones Ego of course.. We need something called confidence to attempt to do anything in this world…

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 23, 2013 at 6:21 am #

      Hi Darrell, good to hear from you again. I always enjoy your cosmic perspective on earthly squabbles. There has long been a school of feminist thought around the notion of the masculine needing to tame the female, a need that springs from envy and fear of her body and her power to reproduce and feed. And male horror at being at the mercy of women for so much of early life. It’s interesting stuff.

      Like

      • Darrell January 25, 2013 at 10:57 am #

        Yes,I do make the odd appearance from time to time.. And yes, once we dip our feet into the waters of depth psychology… It’s is like Alice going down the rabbit hole indeed.. And, what’s that song ‘White Rabbit’ by Jefferson Airplane all about, etc et al.. And, speaking of mother’s milk, Societally, & from our liternal mothers.. It all depends on the Consciousness of our mother & the belief systems we swallowed when we grew up.. Yes, but there are those that were just born to “rock the craddle” of so called normal Society.. I guess that’s why we all love your writing so much..

        Like

      • Poirot January 25, 2013 at 11:18 am #

        Jennifer,

        On the power of women, Camille Paglia wrote in “Sexual Personae”:

        “…Women have no problem to solve by sex. Physically and psychologically, they are serenely self-contained. They may choose to achieve, but they do not need it. They are not thrust into the beyond by their own fractious bodies. But men are out of balance. They must quest, pursue, court or seize…”

        and:

        “…The pregnant woman is daemonically, devilishly complete. As an ontological entity, she needs nothing and no-one…..Male bonding and patriarchy were the recourse to which man was forced by his terrible sense of women’s power, her imperviousness, her archetypal confederacy with chthonian nature. Woman’s body is a labrynth in which man is lost. It is a walled garden….Woman is the primeval fabricator, the real First Mover. She turns a gob of refuse into a spreading web of sentient being, floating on the snaky umbilical cord by which she leashes every man.”

        Quite intimidating, no doubt :)

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 11:40 am #

          All hail the emu and seahorse, for breaking the mould.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 11:42 am #

            ‘attempting? to break it’

            Like

  9. Darrell January 22, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    And, just to reinforce what the Sabian Oracle had to say about all this, here is my also using the same Sabian symbols to show me what this all means, where I noted the symbol for the Ascendant degree at my location, at the exact moment I finished reading this blog on all this.. ie. Looking into the Occult or hidden meaning behind what is arising at any one significant moment in time.. ie. Astrology.. And, so turning to the symbol for the Ascendant at the moment I read this blog, the Ascendant was moving between 12 & 13 degrees of Pisces.. beginning at *12degPis..

    IN THE SANCTUARY OF AN OCCULT BROTHERHOOD, NEWLY INITIATED MEMBERS ARE BEING EXAMINED & THEIR CHARACTERS TESTED.. The ever present challenge presented to the individual by the group in which he or she has claimed acceptance – to challenge to prove him or herself & ones ability to assume responsibility effectively..

    At any level of activity, sooner or later life itself demands of the individual that he or she stand up clearly & unequivocally to the ideal he or she has declared publicly ones own. At the occult level the testing seems to be controlled & irrevocable. The “initiate” has become a constituent part of an integrated field of mental-Spiritual activity. He or she is therefore controlled by the structural order of the group. One is no longer seeking having found his or her place, he or she must prove themselves able to fulfill the function associated with it. He or she is no longer “free” as an individual, for one has become a part of an integral Whole operating under structural principles of immense antiquity.

    This second symbolic stage of unfoldment stands in contrast to the first in that the individual is now bound by Collective laws & traditions. At a mundane political or business level he or she is the junior executive incorporated in a hierarchical institution. He or she has at all times to prove ones worth. QUALIFICATION is an apt keyword…

    While also moving towards the next degree.. at *13degPis..

    AN ANCIENT SWORD, USED IN MANY BATTLES, IS DISPLAYED IN A MUSEUM.. Through the effectual use of ones will a consecrated individual can become a symbol of courage for all those who follow in their footsteps..

    Will power is the ultimate Spiritual weapon, & its undeviating use is the certification of individual worth. Wherever found, this symbol emphasises the imperative need to make use of the will in meeting the challenges of the inner life as well as outer adversaries.

    With this third symbol of the sixty-ninth sequence we see singled out & strongly emphasised the one power which is an assurance of victory in the contests generated by Social, or occult processes in which he or she has become an active part. The individual must use that WILL POWER, yet it is not really ones own once he or she operates at a Spiritual level. It is God’s will, or the Divine, operating through the mind which focuses its thrusts. It is, occultly speaking, the power of the Brotherhood or Sisterhood – the energy of the Whole operating through the one-pointed individual who has made this Whole aware of the need for its use in a particular situation…

    Like

  10. Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 11:19 am #

    First we need a law to lock up people who actually take life-changing action based on what the likes of Koch say.
    It will be interesting if the BACWA’s, who launch their narrow minded campaigns and petitions on Today, show some consistency here, and attack and or abandon the show..

    Like

    • helvityni January 22, 2013 at 11:34 am #

      …oh, what you miss when you do not venture to commercial stations…Kochie !

      Like

  11. Paul Skinner January 22, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    Why would a stiff and starchy pompous money addicts advisor and opinion writer consider himself being any more than a President of a very ordinary football club let alone commenting on social issues.

    Like

  12. Lucille January 22, 2013 at 1:40 pm #

    Is kochie being discreet about his name? It is actually pronounced ‘cock’.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 23, 2013 at 6:16 am #

      LOL

      Like

    • AnnODyne January 23, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

      Jennifer’s post said “affectionately known as Kochie” – not any more. Kocky it is.
      I am thinking of Mrs Kocky and the kockettes – was there traditional feeding while he perved at Slebrity magazine pictures of entertainers with their breasts squished out by Wonderbras almost under frocks slashed to the navel. I don’t watch any day TV and hardly any evening TV. Oh they’re just wrecking the joint with breasts.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

        Dance Kocky, dance Kocky, dance Kocky, dance Kocky,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

        Like

      • Poirot January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

        Just wondering which gender had the greatest hand (pun intended) in developing those corsets, and bras in general…and remember Georgian fashions (I think it was that era)? – when the women wore long dresses, but had low cut bodices from which their breasts overflowed…they were pushed up and out of their costume, which apparently was just the thing. I’ll bet they would have blanched had their ankles been exposed.

        Strange old world.

        Like

  13. Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

    Foe every David Koch there are hundreds of thousand of gullible gimps who swallow his every word.
    And when Koch disappears another clone will pop up.
    In reality all the the protests will likely do is empower him (post any apology he gives or ‘counselling’ he receives).Outrage by comment is one part of the game,outrage by protest is another.
    It’s publicity.Ratings,earnings.

    Like

  14. doug quixote January 22, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    Fine by me : if women need to breastfeed, they can and should do it wherever it is convenient for them.

    That Koch is an intelligent idiot is no surprise to me; they seem to abound in the media. A person I otherwise respected once told me “Koch is well worth watching” and I think I upset him somewhat by saying I’d rather pull out my fingerrnails. C’est la vie.

    Breastfeeding? Just do it.

    Like

    • zerograv1 January 22, 2013 at 11:10 pm #

      DQ Koch borrows a lot of his sage advice from other sources, he’s the kid of guy that would recommend Telstra shares – safe, mainstream and not optimal financial advice but it will do for the masses that slavishly adore Sunrise…I don’t see him as particularly intelligent though, hes a kind of “family guy” bufoon figure for the girls on that show to rib….kind of a friendly old dad punching bag….not a position I would put an intelligent person in, but then a lot of people equate high incomes with intelligence….but it aint necessarily so as George Bush Junior so aptly demonstrated to the world.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

        pretty accurate,zero.
        …and as I have been saying,he craves oxygen, as does his Network.
        He may feign contrition, but……

        Anywho, I guess if people ‘seriously’ think he’s steering our ship, any ship, we are f*cked.Big time.

        His financial advice is black and gold, at best.

        Like

      • doug quixote January 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

        OK, I’ll willingly withdraw the word “intelligent”. :)

        Like

  15. Ray (novelactivist) January 22, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

    Things have been turned 180. The only function of the breast is to feed children. It has no other function. Seriously, none. Any secondary function as a sexual object is cultural and entirely learned.

    The breast only came to be considered obscene after the Reformation and the rise of Puritanism. Prior to that it was quite common for Mary to be depicted breast feeding Jesus.

    But now the secondary and arbitrary function of the breast as a sexual object has become the primary function, and the primary function a bizarre and vulgar secondary function.

    Like

    • Sam Jandwich January 22, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

      I find it exceedingly difficult to relate to the ideas contained herein. Ray. Breasts are hot! And I refuse to accept that my thinking so is a result of enculturation. If it were the case that we developed an attraction to the matter that surrounds us then I’d have a ravenous desire for sheep by now. And what’s more I’ve heard many women utter statements to the effect that their breasts are erogenous to the touch.

      I would have thought it’s more a case of sexuality becoming obscene, and Kochie getting a bit jealous!

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

        I think you are giving Koch credit where it aint due.

        He makes money from saying stuff.

        Like

      • Ray (novelactivist) January 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

        Same,

        There are plenty of tribal societies in which the breast is not sexualised – and it is one of many erogenous zones – like the male nipple

        Like

        • samjandwich January 22, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

          Sorry, but http://static-profiles.met-art.com/gallery/61211643679B960B01970056C3447037.jpg

          Like

          • Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2013 at 8:33 am #

            Sorry?? Sure, she has beautiful breasts. She’s young. She also has a beautiful face, eyes, lips. It all adds up. Actually the lips are highly erotic and they are intentionally sexualised through lipstick. No one gets upset watching people use their lips to eat! No need to cover lips – except in fundamentalist Islamic societies.

            Whatever your personal preferences are, they are your personal preferences.

            Like

      • Poirot January 22, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

        I’d just like to say…..once when my daughter was nine weeks old, I found myself at the supermarket, and she was cutting up big time. I was a young mum and it was the first time I’d had to feed her outside home.

        Soooo, being a little unsure of myself and the issue of feeding in public, I found the only recourse was to make my way to a cramped toilet block and feed her there. It struck me at the time that it was ridiculous that I felt I had to scuttle away – least of all to a toilet – to nourish my infant….and I never let myself feel that way again.

        My son who is now 11 was born 19 years later and obviously I was more worldly by that age – so I fed him whenever I needed to.

        Jennifer is right that comments like Kochies sneak into general conversation – sort of an insidious underhand attack on something that shouldn’t even be blinked at.

        From a mother who has nursed two babies, the sexual connotations are all those of the wowsers – when bub is hungry or fractious, you feed him/her.

        The other thing is, where are these women who wave around there breasts before feeding baby? – I’ve never seen a breastfeeding mum be anything but discreet. One would have to go right out of one’s way to make a spectacle of oneself when breastfeeding.

        Like

        • zerograv1 January 22, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

          Thank you for this comment, it sums up the reality nicely

          Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 6:14 pm #

      Isn’t there an evolutionary argument to say that we’re attracted to breasts as a sexual signal. In the same way that birds developed plumage to attract a mate as a sign of their hyper fitness to breed enabling them to devote considerable resources to an otherwise useless or even counter productive display. Thus broad hips, large buttocks and healthy breasts in the female of the human species correlate with reproductive capacity and therefore have become subconsciously imprinted as attractiveness.

      Otherwise….

      As a normal bloke who likes boobs I’d have to say the notion that what we blokes really want to do is breast feed doesn’t really come up!

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

        OM?
        Stop having natural urges.
        God said so!

        LOL.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

          OM??

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

            HG

            OM?
            I my atheist way of saying OMG.
            (It could also represent the agnostics,I guess)
            It just means ‘place whatever entity-or not- where the “?” ‘ is.

            If that’s what you wanted to know.

            I guess ‘ OM0 ‘ woks just as well!

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

              Ha! I’ve seen a few people go with OMD, Oh my Dawkins, but that ain’t me either….

              Like

              • Gruffbutt January 22, 2013 at 11:01 pm #

                You could go with a futuristic South park ep and ‘Oh My Science’.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 11:16 pm #

                  Of course Science isn’t God because there’s evidence….but yeah I get it :)

                  Like

            • Anonymous January 22, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

              Also OMDog!

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

                God knows as your Dog knows.

                Sabbath Bloody Sabbath

                Like

      • Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2013 at 8:37 am #

        No, that theory is crap. There are plenty of ethnic groups in which the women have small breasts. If there was an evolutionary component only women with large breasts would breed and then pass on that gene.

        The size of the breast has no function and is caused by the amount of fat tissue – an incidental thing.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 9:55 am #

          I’ve heard those explanations before, and maybe they reflect more mature, healthy, attitudes to human anatomy, but I think we know that we don’t all always process it quite that way. While we’re wrong to associate the mere accumulation of fat cells with fecundity, even if the nursing breast is usually larger, I think we still have to provide some explanation for the fascination with the prepossessing seductiveness of the mammary gland.

          So while I think some of it is a social construct I’m not sure that whole deal with bird behaviour and plumage isn’t also responding to a kind of social meme within the context of bird evolution. Which is just to say that “if it ain’t nature it has to be nurture” assumes a distinction between the two that we might be wrong to make depending on how ingrained the obsession with twined orbs of flesh is in our psyches.

          The kinds of questions I think it is useful to ask are things like, if you move to a society where women are all permanently topless do men look women in the eyes more? That would at least respond to the question of whether breasts *can only have one function. And at the same time may help us to find ways to normalise breast feeding among those of us in our own society who regard it as exposing an embarrassingly personal body part.

          But I said “*can only have one function” as opposed to two, because I still think that for whatever reason men will always be physically attracted to women whether they’re focussed quite so much with their mammaries or not. Its just that in this society, and indeed many others, breasts function as a sexual totem whether we like it or not.

          Like

          • Poirot January 23, 2013 at 10:13 am #

            It’s a good question.

            Yes breasts are a sexual totem…that shouldn’t preclude a mature response in accepting that breastfeeding is something that should be included in the throng of life.

            Our great great grandmothers would have shied from baring an ankle – our grandmothers would have thought twice about exposing their knees or leaving the house without a hat. They would have felt as if they were exposed and may have been viewed as acting somewhat shamelessly.

            It all boils down to “social acceptance”. What is acceptable and what is not as far as public display is concerned. We’re all part of our society’s social narrative, and we act accordingly. In an age where just about anything is acceptable in the way of public attire. A partially exposed breast hardly raises an eyebrow at the beach….why are women still being instructed to scuttle off to feed their infants?

            I see it as an immature and grossly Puritan mindset that is still bubbling away under the surface of modern Western sensibilities…and if women fail to make a “big deal” of it every time MSM attempts to gloss over it with a patronising and covert direction for mums to restrict their natural nurturing inclinations by being “discreet”, then they’ll forever find themselves having to psychologically excuse what should be a natural and acceptable action.

            Like

            • Poirot January 23, 2013 at 10:23 am #

              Just occurred to me that anyone commenting on breastfeeding while encouraging women to be “discreet” is really sending out the signal that society is willing to “tolerate” breastfeeding in public, however it is not necessarily openly accepting of the practice.

              Like

            • helvityni January 23, 2013 at 10:31 am #

              Sweet little baby drinking from mums clean breast on a park bench or on a seat a seat in a coffee lounge paints a pretty picture, something very beautiful and natural…

              A obese woman walking on the street stuffing herself with oily chips, frequently stopping to drink from a TWO litre Coke bottle should be seen as a health hazard and instantly removed from any public area…

              The first examle offends Kochie, the second one offends me.

              Like

              • helvityni January 23, 2013 at 12:37 pm #

                edit: an obese woman, also there’s one seat too many..

                Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

              My point here and elsewhere entirely but what I also did want to dig for is whether social mores matter more than the little things we can do with a supportive smile to treat one another well as individuals.

              Or at least if one changes the other then the latter (individual acts) change the former, social behaviours. Perhaps they’ll do it by putting to shame those whose prudishness is an embarrassment to themselves. Either way it’s probably only really an argument between people who might think of breakfast TV presenters as opinion makers.

              Like

          • Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2013 at 11:22 am #

            Hudson,

            As I said above there are many tribal cultures in which the breast is not sexualised, in which the women go topless. This doesn’t mean those cultures don’t admire a pretty girl with pretty breasts – or pretty eyes, bum, legs, complexion, hair, etc.

            The idea that the breast, and female nipple in particular, should be covered because it is obscene is a by product of the sexualisation of the breast. It might arouse, so cover it.

            The hypocrisy here is that other parts of the body act as a sexual totem and we openly display those – lips, eyes…

            I would have thought that moral conservatives would oppose the sexualisation of the breast – and being family oriented, focus on breast is best for the child. Yet they contribute to the sexualisation of the breast by accepting that it is obscene and should be kept covered.

            Cultural attitudes can change and they started to change in the 70’s and reach the zenith in the mid 80’s – lot’s of women going topless at the beach. But for some reason Gen X and Gen Y started to cover up again – to re-sexualise the breast. The boomer feminists thought freeing the breast was a political statement, that they should be able to go topless wherever men were allowed to go topless. This wasn’t theoretical, they took action by doing it, by defying the stares and comments.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 11:37 am #

              Why has no-one pointed out the obvious?
              It’s a storm in a D Cup.

              Is there not a case here whereby, even if a man were to admire the beautiful synergy of a woman breast feeding, a look ‘too long’ draws with it a risk of ‘he’s perving’?
              Our mash up of conventions is coming home to roost.
              I guess that’s why the BACWAs take the easy way out and consider ‘all men’ dirty old men until proven otherwise.
              Here we are in our contemporary world, arguing about freedom of speech, when we get headaches trying to avert our gaze at the floor, while trying to avoid bumping into things. Surely there are other freedoms at stake in all of this.I guess that’s why some people turn to looking at all sorts of images online.They have been driven there by the morality police, who are all too ready to smash a brick filled handbag over their heads if they dare smile at a passing female, or glance at a risqué billboard.

              Like

              • zerograv1 January 23, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

                The moral police have a treatable illness, discomfort with sexuality being a clinging to past that died with Queen Victoria – yet it persists because of the hangups people and women in particular get media fed about their bodies. The NT has the other extreme with strip clubs, topless waiters and waitresses, hookers and deviants ball night, a very active gay nightclub etc etc – it all gets a bit much but definately cannot be described as inhibited.

                Like

            • Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2013 at 11:52 am #

              I should also mention that the fetishization of the breast varies amongst ‘western’ countries with the Anglophone countries (especially the US) being the worst. The French puzzle at the English obsession. In Europe topless bathing is common place and breast feeding accepted. But even in Europe Gen X and Y are covering up again.

              This really is culturally specific and culture can change.

              Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

              Yes I agree with all that but I wanted to draw out the idea that this sexualisation either was occurring as a kind of nurture based thing, or being fair to both sides of any argument give the nature side a run up the pole to see if anyone saluted it.

              Frankly I agree that we seem to have gone backwards. But I’d add that in freeing the breasts in the 70’s apart from a few radical femists of their day, I don’t think society told men they were to stop enjoying the sight of them. I think there’s a fairly joyless view of sexuality in general as something we either repress or we don’t within rather confined boundaries that aren’t allowed to shift even when the focus of what may or may not be deemed risqué does. I’m afraid its that old notion of purity that lies behind it feeding irrational fears of what might occur if sexual politics broke down altogether and we just enjoyed SHOCK HORROR life as equals….

              Like

              • Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

                It wasn’t confined to radical feminists. During the 80’s I hung out with actors and aspiring models in Sydney. A good friend of mine never wore a bikini top to any beach. And I recall waving a hello to an aspiring actress I knew walking topless along the beach at Bondi with her beau (yes, she waved back). At that time just about every beach in Sydney had topless sunbathing and Tamaramara was predominantly so.

                These women traded on their looks and didn’t mind men seeing their tits. And that’s the point. They didn’t mind and neither did anyone else.

                As far as I’m concerned this sexualisation thing is a vicious circle. We hide breasts because we have sexualised them and the act of hiding sexualises them further.

                We even sexualise the chests of young girls who don’t have breasts – because one day they will. Train them early!

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

                  Yes I think you’re right about all of the above, but where does that get us? Just nurture?

                  Maybe I’d like it to be true, but I’m not convinced.

                  Perhaps we also have to get to the point where ordinary women of all ages are comfortable with toplessness rather than just youthful models who are apt to be accused of making an unwelcome value statement about beauty rather than a genuinely liberated one about femininity.

                  And Yes! I find toddler bras annoying too. I think a lot of people do.

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

                    Women(even the loud mouthed BACWA ones perve too).
                    Although the latter would never,ever admit it – or where their fantasies boundaries lay.

                    (The scary thing is God knows what they’re thinking!! Ooo mar)

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

                      I’m not sure that “perve” has the best connotations when it comes to admiring one another, but I take the point that breasts may not be the only sexual totem on the pole. And now that you mention it the pole….

                      Not the point. Just asking the nature/nurture question with a view to a possible way out of our apparent discomfiture around the natural feeding of infants?

                      Like

                    • Ray (novelactivist) January 23, 2013 at 4:45 pm #

                      Hudson,

                      I really think this is up to women. They have to decide not to hide the breast just as Boomer women did.

                      What I was trying to say is that the way to end the taboo is by ignoring the taboo.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

                      I agree Ray, it would be a mistake to overlook either ignoring the taboo too end it or to pressure anyone into stepping outside what they’re personally comfortable with.

                      Like

  16. Aranza January 22, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    Breast feeding is not offensive however sexism and discrimination is! Koshie’s comments were sexist to the core – “cover up the baby when it eats” however its ok for grown up men to eat in public. How many times have you seen grown up adults eating as they walk in the streets but no body says anything to them. In today’s world, Koshie’s comments were far from elegant and it is he who has lack the class!

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

      Yes I agree.Adults eating in public is a crime against humanity.

      Like

  17. goodrumo January 22, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.

    Like

  18. Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    A search of Collective Shout and MTR seems neither body is too phased with their “Today friend” Mr David Koch.
    (I admit it was a short search which involved, NAME + breast feeding, and nothing recent popped up)
    Should we assume they agree with Koch, or that they totally disapprove of public breast feeding entirely?
    It seems they might be giving the issue the same FA treatment Catholic sex abuse gets from them.
    Maybe it should be filed under “Hands that Feed” ?

    Still, there’s plenty of outrage about fictional names for alcoholic drinks.I wonder if any of the girls has ever has a cock sucking cowboy? Orgasm?

    Like

  19. Beverley Walker January 23, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    Beverley Walker shared Occupy Breastfeeding’s photo.
    The best of nature’s nurture. I was shocked at the vitriol in comments page on the Sun Artcile and Facebook yesterday. Where is this hatred coming from – rude crude and unattractive – and so anti women – mysogyny at its worst. The insults hurled by men and women writers at the protestors was sickening – this kind or person was obviously never breastfed. When tribal people wanted warriors they took the male babies off the mother and fed it animal milk.Q.E.D.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:18 am #

      It’s a bit of a shock to see how many people hate something as innocuous as a woman feeding a child. How estranged we are from ourselves.

      Like

      • AnnODyne January 31, 2013 at 9:16 am #

        The post topic has been totally hijacked into political commentary so my effort to bring it full circle is to remind you all that Parliament Standing Orders about ‘strangers’ in the House, were applied in March 2003 to eject Olympic medallist and MP Kirstie Marshall’s 11-day-old child when she tried to feed it as the bell rang for her first Question Time she did not want to miss.

        http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/12/1047431086236.html

        Like

        • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) January 31, 2013 at 9:50 am #

          Right on! +1

          Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 9:59 am #

          +1 too.

          It makes you wonder whether in the current federal parliament this might also be tried given that the numbers are so tight. I say give the kid a vote it would probably behave more maturely than many of our elected representatives do much of the time, rabble that they are!

          Like

  20. lmrh5 January 23, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    Reblogged this on lmrh5.

    Like

  21. Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

    Reply to HG
    hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

    I was using the term ‘perve’ because all uninvited glances from men towards women, appear to fall into the ‘pervert/mental undressing/inappropriate thought’ category in the morally superior club.
    Somehow they possess the skill to read minds, and yet we cannot ask what goes on in theirs, which makes them so cock-sure they have it right.
    Cock-sure being the exact term required.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

      Okay so why has the reply mechanism deserted us?

      Is that cocksure thing a payback for my totem pole innuendo?

      As for uninvited glances beauty may be only skin deep but attitude is optional… If the glance is welcome. The thing is that all we can do is behave in a way that we hope might be welcome.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

        HG,
        No cocksure was aimed at the BACWA community.

        When they take a view/position, facts/reality/evidence is lucky to make the back seat,let alone steer the debate.

        And yes casting glance(even if it’s a leer/perve or total admiration -which we would all aspire to- are still ALL legal AFAIK.)
        This goes to the reasons we need the religious free kick removed from the discrimination laws is the same reason the sleazy deals with the ACL need to end.
        Wowsers forcing their narrow,stuck up,bigoted,repressive, carnal infatuation views on the entire population.I swear they must read more porn pro rata than the people they criticise.And still not too much voluminous outrage, about breast feeding or paedophilia, last time I looked.

        There must be some sort of Wordpus setting for maximum replies,because this is nowhere near the first time a thread has ran out of reply buttons.Something JW may need to suss out.

        Like

        • doug quixote January 23, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

          To Hypo and HG : I think we are all a little sensitive to each other’s posts. HG thought Hypo was making a payback, and all too often we seem to be apologising to each other and clarifying that our general posts do not have specific barbs. If I have a barb in mind, you’ll know about it! :)

          Perhaps we all need to take Jennifer as our model : it seems to me that she is remarkably benign and supportive in her comments to each of us, above and beyond the call of duty.

          Praise her with great praise.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

            JW, you rock!

            Now don’t let that go to your head.
            Yes, wires do get crossed DQ.
            Even if HG tried to rub someone the wrong way, his posts are so conclusive,cerebral and all encompassing( NOT obese!!) that even if that were his intention, by the time we get to the end of his post we have all calmed down(usually).And most counter comments reflect the ‘calm’.
            So there you have it.
            Proof.
            It’s not how big it is,it’s how you use it.

            Like

            • Poirot January 23, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

              It’s more like an intelligent version of The Three Stooges (hope none of you take that the wrong way)…you’re all good fellas and you’re devoted to Sheep, but you tend to do a lot of bopping and sconing of each other as you make your way through the threads :)

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 7:58 pm #

                Sorry Poirot is this the full half hour argument or just five minutes ;)

                Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 23, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

                Nyuck,nyuck,nyuck!
                Why I oughta!

                Like

              • doug quixote January 23, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

                I suspect it is our vicious male egos and dreaded testosterone, Poirot. :)

                Like

              • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:09 am #

                Bopping & sconing….well put, I like that. I like to think of it as cheerful rudeness as well. Sometimes they unnerve me.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 11:35 am #

                  It’s cheerful rudeness. When I get actually peeved I’ll let you know ;)

                  Like

          • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:11 am #

            Aaaaw. Taa. xxx

            Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

          Yes I knew who cocksure was aimed at… I guess I’ll just have to plead innuendo overload….

          As Ray drew to the conclusion I guess I’d been working back around to all along, I think this is about individuals’ preferences and where breastfeeding is concerned women’s choices in particular.

          So I don’t know about your sentiments in their entirety, there seems like there may be just a tad too much ideology involved as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps its just a matter of my thinking that whenever I say somebody else is completely wrong about something, as I agree the religious right are, then I want to avoid sounding as bad as them by starting to think I’m completely right about it.

          You are all individuals, think for yourselves….
          (Life of Brian)

          Just on the replies thing: If you’re logged in through WordPress then you’ll get a toolbar across the top of most blogs you comment at. So when you guys reply I spot it more quickly and there’s a reply to that which keeps ticking over even after the maximum indentation level is exceeded in the main page.

          Like

          • doug quixote January 23, 2013 at 9:11 pm #

            I don’t get such a toolbar. If some of you think I am ignoring you, it isn’t necessarily so – the people who pay me expect me to do work! A nasty four letter word . . .

            Like

            • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 10:56 am #

              Yes I dont get a tool bar either, is it browser specific? Do you log in via Word press or go straight to the url of the blog? I’d like to use this but cannot see it anywhere

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 11:32 am #

                It’s the wordpress login what does it.

                Works in Firefox, IE and Chrome, I haven’t checked Safari yet.

                Like

          • Julia. January 24, 2013 at 12:05 am #

            In the cited case of the mother at the aquatic centre I don’t think she had a choice of where to brestfeed. She had a hungry baby in arms plus two children in the pool. If she’d left the two children unsupervised & something had gone wrong she would have faced derision & opprobrium from far & wide. (parents, not lifeguards. are responsible for children’s well-being…a condition of entry enshrine in most public pool rules)
            So she should have made the children stop having fun, spent long minutes persuading them to leave the water to drag them & screaming baby off to the toilet/change rooms/hidey hole where they would fidget & grumble & squabble on wet cement/tiles all the while resenting their newest sibling, who by then is likely too upset to settle quickly into feeding, and Mum frazzled by this logistical nightmare.
            Where’s the discretion & class in this?
            And all four people suffer for what?

            Some drongo’s sensibilities?

            I hope the mother sues the Aquatic Centre big time for discrimination that most certainly was aimed at embarrassing/oppressing her.
            .

            Like

            • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:04 am #

              All of what Julia said. Yes.

              Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 11:26 am #

              Okay I agree, we are indeed in celebrated agreement :)

              Since this clearly argues that the mother as an individual, being stuck between a rock and a hard place has done precisely the best thing that she could have, the individuals that I’d be questioning are Koch et al. People who instead of offering the woman a nod of support, or especially from another woman an offer of help, regress to socially enforced decorum that doesn’t seem to come from anywhere good to me.

              Perhaps the bigger picture is one of personal spaces and social boundaries, the feeling that whenever humans live in closer proximity to one another than interpersonal exchanges somehow need to be confined. The very idea that you might speak much less introduce yourself to your next door neighbour much less a fellow train passenger becomes increasingly remote. A thing to be treated with suspicion no less…. And if that’s the environment where having to accommodate a breast feeding mother is considered an imposition then being individually engaged is better I suspect than feeling collectively entitled to treat the woman as an inconvenience.

              So when I say this is a matter for individuals I don’t just mean the mother. I also question both the idea of breakfast TV as a valid forum for value judgements, and the supposed incapacity of the other pool users to put a breastfeeding mother at her ease. Damn it! Given the chance I’d like to make her the centre of attention and celebrate her very life affirming presence in the world to the max, but perhaps more realistically an ordinary act carried out millions of times all around the world at any given hour deserves an ordinarily courteous response.

              Nice trucks by the way…. yours?

              Like

  22. MsPraxis January 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

    See? This is why you’re such a widely read and respected blogger Jennifer. You’ve said everything I wanted to say in just the way I’d love to say it, instead of the Year 8 style post I made on my little blog. Dare I say it, you’ve got class lady ;)

    Well done.

    Like

    • jo wiseman January 23, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

      Good article Jennifer.
      I can’t feel outrage over this. I am so completely incapable of beginning to be able to understand why anyone would have a problem with breastfeeding that I’m just dumbfounded. Perhaps outrage will kick in later, but I remember Mel and Kochie with kindness from a hospital spell when their cheerful morning chatter helped dispel the strain of the previous night and distract me from the situation. I can’t dislike the bloke for how he feels about this but I support the criticism of his comments and the feed-ins and whatever else goes to preventing his attitude from pressuring feeding mothers.

      Like

      • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:07 am #

        Thanks Jo. I don’t have any feelings of like/dislike for Koch, just strong exasperation with the views he expressed. Hopefully, the disapproval directed his way so publicly might prompt some people to think about the pressures on nursing mothers.

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 7:12 am #

      Why, thank you ma’am. I try to stay classy! :-)

      Like

  23. Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

    QLD
    Racist one day,bigoted the next.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/katter-urged-to-dump-candidate-over-gay-comments/4482150

    Like

    • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

      Gillard is a racist as well, the recent appointment of Nova Peris because Gillard wanted “an aboriginal candidate” over the far more experienced Trish Crossin for the NT Senate is an example of race based decision making. it seems Nova’s only qualification was her skin colour…

      Like

      • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

        What a racist comment; her only qualification is her skin colour. and you know this, how. On top of that Gillard is racist because she would like an Aborginal Senate candidate…WOW.

        Like

        • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:01 pm #

          Get your facts straight before commenting Helvi, I know both candidates, I didnt say anything against Nova, shes a great role model, Gillard is a racist, if you cant see that get your eyes checked….the support for Crossin over this is overwhelming and that includes the largely ALP indigenous block who see Nova as “not one of their own” since she’s lived in Canberra the last 15 years. This was a politburo decision dictated from on high, overriding branch members wishes and the word on the street is that NT labor are going to refuse to hand out how to vote cards for Nova. There is also a srong push for Crossin to fight the decsion as No 2 candidate…By the way, what do you base your comment on other than using an ignorant application of the label racist. No argument presented from you yet, can you back it up? Thought not

          Like

          • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

            Read Gillards statement supporting her decision, its there for all to see

            Like

            • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

              One other thing, Nova’s own fan base is encouraging her to say thanks but no thanks – they dont want her reputation sullied and see this as a token black appointment – and thats coming from her own people! Its driven y the local ALP taking the normally indigenous vote for granted but this is precisely where they lost the last local election – so its a marketing gimmick, tokenry and overrides the true intention (If Gillard really insisted on a colour based selection as she stated why not Scrygmour or Warren Mundine – both indigenous, politically experienced and respected ) or if she wated another woman in the senate – umm what sex is Crossin? Its an amazingly stupid and someone arrogant decsion by Gillard to dictate who the candidate must be – and shes taking local voters for fools and dont they know it and hate it

              Like

            • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

              Shame on you, zero.

              Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 3:18 pm #

              Some may see the decision as racist.Personally I see it as another low act.There are so many reasons why people like Nova Peris SHOULD get involved in politics, but even more reasons which show how low Gillard will go.All this decision has done is taint NP and divide an already fractured NT indigenous community.She has lost so much respect which she will never ever regain.
              You cannot foist a leader on indigenous people.It will fail, and it is an insult to First Australians.Gillards intervention continues the racist policies Howard started.
              NP has been used and sadly she will be spat out the other end.
              I cannot wait for Gillard to face the people so they can show their true feelings.
              She cannot blame the MSM for decisions she has made.
              Everyone knows this decision is base political opportunism and is tokenism at it’s lowest ebb.Almost a year to the day since Gillards office used vile tactics and aboriginal Australians to further her agenda.
              The Gillard fans are totally blind and can/will not entertain any analysis of her or her silent invisible backers.

              http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-outlines-adviser-tony-hodges-role-in-tent-embassy-riot/story-fn59niix-1226256426164

              one very shaky green bottle hanging on the wall………………..

              Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

              Link to things if you want people to read ‘em. I’ve seen video of the announcement that seemed to be pretty straightforward to me. Style over substance maybe? But if I’d a small gold coin for every time I’d heard the system was unfair for not giving people of diversity a voice….

              Either way I’m not buying your back peddling so easily. I do hear the points you’re trying to make, but you should have come out in support of Crossin in the first place on her own merits, which may for all I know be considerable. As it was you hacked off a too cheap shot at Peris’ race that I took as unnecessary.

              I’m sorry if the inference I made offended you, but I hope you’ll be encouraged to be a bit more thoughtful as to how your meanings are received.

              Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

        Yes I’m with Helvi here Zero…

        You might get away with saying that Nova seems to have few qualities that recommend her for the job apart from a public profile as a sports-person of some note. But to say that her popularity resides in her colour is in my view both false and misleading.

        It may even speak to an ill-concealed disdain for indigenous Australians on your part. Something about which I very much hope I’m wrong, the alternative among friends being quite unthinkable…

        Like

        • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

          Red my later post, theres a lot more to this than you might realise.

          Like

          • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

            Shame on you, zero.

            Like

          • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

            I encorage you to read the 3 articles and especially the comments on the ntnews before expressing your opinion further, you need more information before expressing or condeming http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/

            Like

            • Ray (novelactivist) January 24, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

              And what has this to do withy breasts?

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

                I’ll take a flying leap at that Ray.

                All the key players have them, most have used them for feeding, and or have fed through them.
                Gillard of course being the exception.
                It’s a pity the sh*t stirrers who Gillard really obeys are likely to all be men.

                On the topic,
                I feel, however, that Gillard amply fills the menu of this blog by way of;
                “Language as a tool of repression”, and “class” (more accurately the total lack of any).
                Totally applicable.

                Like

            • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

              Her ONLY qualification is her skin colour, says zero.

              Julia’s reason might be political, not racist. Zero is coming out with true colours finally.I felt sick reading your posts on Ranini article.

              Like

              • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

                Actually Im quoting Alison Anderson – just a heads up who or what is Raminina article please?

                Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

            So I see. I may be getting ahead of the ball, but I think I dealt fairly and evenly with the issue after reading the post I take it you may be referring to already.

            Like

        • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

          Nova is a good soul, I have worked side by side with people from all backgrounds for years outback and I tend to see there good intent and purpose first. One of her best friends Jo introduced us and we had a hello and a few drinks. (Jo is a total sweetheart by the way)….Im not going to bother to provide my credentials on this. My history and friendship mix speaks for itself….Trish is hard working, community focussed and it is believed shes is being shafted because she supported Rudd – so its nasty political stuff, I fear Nova might not know what she’s getting into and Im serious when I say she’s being advised by a lot of people close to her to not accept the appointment, its a dangerous place out there

          Like

          • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

            How embarrassing; Nova is a good soul…WOW

            Like

            • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

              Are you saying shes not then? I know which statement I’d rather stand by

              Like

              • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

                A predictable reply from you, always nasty, zero, that’s why I always recognise you under the umpteenth pseudo.

                Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

            For Nova’s sake I hope you’re wrong, and though not from Darwin myself I’ve family ties up there and have been back and forth. What I know from locals I’ve spent time with is that the internal politics of the indigenous community are as unsurprisingly mercenary as any other, and expectations no less unrealistic. It wouldn’t be wrong in that sense to say that she might be biting off more than she could handle, but everyone in a Senate seat has to handle the job somehow. The notion that of the two women neither of whom I do know the one who stood up to the pressure of international sporting competition in two sports at the very highest level can’t find resources within herself to endure a certain amount of adversity strikes me as underrating her.

            Like

            • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

              Possibly your right, If Nova does succeed despite the possible local ALP push to Vote No 2 on the ticket, she has a quality of toughness and competitivness that she will certainly need, but politically shes a bit of a beginner and I still feel shes vunerable. Normally local labor political folk can rely on the local branches watching their candidates back but Nova hasnt got that and isnt really percieved to be a locally voted candidate so its going to be a more difficult time for her to get elected than would normally be the case. And if she wins? Well electorally shes favoured by Senate candidates only needing a 33.4% quota, the trouble is it might be hard for her to get branch support going forward both during the campiagn and afterwards, there is a strong possibility other independant labor choices will run against her, possibly split the vote, and it will come down to Federal Labor v Local Labor choices, and e still dot know if First Nations are going to run – one thing is true though – they are VERY parochial up here which is why this has caused such a ruckus. Territory women tend to be made of tough stuff but all candidates can make a claim to that quality.

              Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

              The thing is it is not about ‘two’ women, and never should have been.
              Gillard bypassed any form of consultation in the same way as she politically fellated the uptight male patriarchy of the ACL.
              The pattern is so obvious.

              There are many more indigenous men and women already busting their arses in NT politics,worthy of a gig.This is nothing but USING A HIGH PROFILE BLACK WOMAN to get Gillard more votes.
              It may not be racist,but whatever it is, is a cosy cousin of ‘scum like behaviour’.

              Like

              • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

                Political, all politicians do that, but not racist, I don’t think Julia or Tony are racists, I know Zero is, too much eveidence.

                Like

                • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

                  Then you dont know what your talking about, by the way the challenge to name all these supposed psuedos stands, you havent done that yet or are all your posts just based on false allegations? Evidence please!

                  Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

                Maybe those others you mentioned didn’t accept offers made to them? Maybe they should’ve put their hands up?

                Maybe this is about form over function because what the process wouldn’t deliver that is now in play is an opportunity flowing from Gillard’s populist move for someone of difference that might not have been there otherwise.

                Maybe you’re writing Nova off too readily and I’m not entirely comfortable with why it is that people seem to think she’s such a dumb non-blonde.

                Like

                • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

                  Shes not dumb, anything but – but not schooled in politics – niave is a better choice, all the others HAVE put there hands up but as the ntnews video showed Julia overrulled it including the local branches and sinply stated “I have made my decision” like some kind of Alice in Wonderland Queen. Regardin Racism – Julia made this “appointment” on the advice of a backroomer who siply pointed out that the ALP couldnt count on the usually safe indigenous vote following the last local election and needed to appoint a black women ….if thats not racism, what is ? Nuff said….we now return you to our usual programming regarding Koch’s comments….so remind me Helvi am I Ren or Stimpy in our next round of verbal sparring LOL

                  Like

                  • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 4:45 pm #

                    Throw as much fluff as you like, you are the racist here.

                    Like

                    • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

                      Also there is nothing LOL about your post, never been and never will.

                      Like

                    • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

                      Hahhahaha, yeah yeah tell the world, I dont think anoyne believes you though, especially if you knew me and my actual living situation better than you claim to

                      Like

                    • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

                      zero, you have been bad mouthing Dr Wilson on Bob Ellis blog, you are here because you were banned from there….

                      Like

                    • Jennifer Wilson January 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

                      Ooh, really? I’m bad mouthed at Ellis’s blog. Better go have a look
                      I can’t find it. Tell me where to look.

                      Like

                    • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

                      I’m sorry, but i don’t keep track of dates or story titles, it was earlier on and i actually brought it up here, you might check my posts here, or if you have stamina to read all earlier posts on Ellis.

                      I don’t find that kind of behaviour very honorable.

                      Like

                    • zerograv1 January 24, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

                      @Hlelvi and Jennifer -Helvi (in particular) again you have your wires crossed, you continue to misrepresent me, – I get that you dont like me – fine I can deal with that – but if Im banned from Ellis blog, how can I even possily be bad mouthing Jennifer there since I wouldnt be able to post would I? You have me confused with someone else – and besides I dont have any need to bad mouth Jennifer, why would I? I have no issue with her. Anway got to go, thanks for the discussion people, sorry to sidetrack the breast feeding thread but your contributions were of value so again thanks – ironically Im now off to practice for a detention centre gig and the call of the band takes precedence for now sorry

                      Like

                    • helvityni January 24, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

                      Of course it was before you were banned, as i told Jennifer, it was early on Bob’s blog, Of course you were writing under one of your other pseudos.

                      I’m sick of your antics and leave you to battle on in your usual fashion.

                      Like

                  • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

                    “Julia made this “appointment” on the advice of a backroomer who siply pointed out that the ALP couldnt count on the usually safe indigenous vote following the last local election and needed to appoint a black women ….if thats not racism, what is ?”

                    What backroomer? Do have evidence of this or are you surmising?

                    And why is it racist. It sounds like what you’re accusing Gillard of is something like affirmative action functioning as reverse racism. Which I don’t accept is a sound argument.

                    And on the Alice in Wonderland score well maybe you’re right but only minutes ago in political time we were accusing Gillard of being beholden to factions and the party machine men, whereas here it might be surmised she’s take a step to subvert their influence.

                    And the problem is that once you start surmising and allow that to become the order of the day, then you’re open to believing whatever you choose to.

                    I for example feel that a lot of the criticism around the Nova Peris issue stems from assumptions we’re neither entitled nor qualified to make, and I suspect that many of them are rather unhelpful especially those which see her primarily as a black woman rather than an accomplished one.

                    Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

                  “Maybe those others you mentioned didn’t accept offers made to them?”
                  LOL. If offers were made we’d know by now.She (Gillard) had no intention of asking and now she is covered in effluent.

                  “Maybe they should’ve put their hands up?” Why? Gillard does what she wants.She would have ignored any erect arms.Don’t kid yourself to believe anything else HG.

                  “Maybe this is about form over function because what the process wouldn’t deliver that is now in play is an opportunity flowing from Gillard’s populist move for someone of difference that might not have been there otherwise.”
                  That is irrelevant.The outrage goes to the process entirely.Indigenous people are all to often dealt a bias process to start with, and this decision circumvented due process,democratic principles and any and all discussions with stakeholders.It is an insult to conclude without discussion that Peris is more worthy than others.There is an image factor here which smells very,finishing school.Do you have a cold HG?

                  “Maybe you’re writing Nova off too readily and I’m not entirely comfortable with why it is that people seem to think she’s such a dumb non-blonde.”
                  I dispute that I have ever written Peris off.I dispute that I DON’T consider her articulate,intelligent and passionate about her peoples plight.
                  I dispute the installation process and for indigenous people I hope it fails.It deserves to. I do not hope Peris fails.How can you honestly expect indigenous communities to value democracy or trust the majority non-indigenous government, when sh*t like this happens?
                  No one individual (colour / race included) can change the caucus position, based on their sexualty or race.Do you seriously think Peris will overturn a societal norm?A constitutional convention? Conventional main stream values?Any faster than other candidates scratched without due process?
                  And what of the sitting member.A Rudd supporter.There’s that rat smell again.

                  Peris is NOT the issue here.
                  This is preferential tokenism based on how they (Gillard’s mob) want their ‘black lady’ to look,behave and vote, all in order to benefit one single desperate individual.Gillard.How the majority of First Australians fare in all this is pure Media hype.Still, no-one has mentioned boats for a while, so Julia must be chuffed.

                  Like

                  • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm #

                    Not that I wouldn’t ideally prefer a person who’d sought and won candidacy on her own merits, but you’ve ducked the issues I raised with assumptions of your own then followed it up by arguing ideology over substance. That seldom works for me.

                    The due process of the Labor party sadly is not held in the same esteem as due process of the law or even the parliament. I suggest that if factional battles and sticking to a moribund process are getting in the road of taking the opportunity to attract winning talent then maybe a little proactive executive interference isn’t the worst thing that could happen.

                    So before the above statement gets taken out of all context let me just say that if you can effectively and with good reason argue that another person exists who is of better all round credentials to take this Senate seat, then by all means knock yourself out. What I did take issue with was that the reason given seemed to be because of racism, and to me that either insists that the other side loses the debate automatically, or it makes a big claim that needs (what Rudd would call), commensurately substantial evidence!

                    Nobody kicked up that much of a fuss when Bob Carr was parachuted in?

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

                      I won’t be knocking myself out hunting down the obvious.If you cannot see why the fuss compared to Carr, HG,then you’re not trying.
                      I agree that there will be some who see this decision as racism or reverse racism.I am not arguing that.There will even those who hide behind confected outrage to push the racist argument.Not me.
                      I ‘d rather challenge you or Gillard to show me how all the other aspirants are unworthy, and maybe avail us to a small list detailing the approaches Gillard made to lower profile indigenous women,especially.Show us the talent search.

                      What you are emphatically missing is the importance of the existence of a selection process (any) versus a straight out opportunistic ‘bead and blanket’ trading exercise.
                      Gillard has now set in train a situation in the territory, where once again indigenous communities will be divided by a white government decision forcing them to choose in an unwanted situation not of their own making.
                      (Is that racism?)
                      It will surely feed the racism furnace outside, as indigenous peoples are forced to choose sides in someone else’s deliberately and divisively constructed opportunistic contest. And if it gets ugly watch the racists come out of the woodwork.

                      There were many good ways to get NP into Labor, or parliament.

                      Gillards method combined with her baggage will forever follow (haunt) NP.
                      As will any division the process has unearthed, among her people.And it will probably keep rippling long after Gillard rides of into the sunset,which for a lot of us could not come soon enough.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 5:52 pm #

                      Gee! You’re making it seem increasingly like you’re really not even prepared to give Nova Peris a chance. Everything you say may be true, and I suppose Murphy’s Law of Cynicism even says that it shall probably come to pass in due course! But does the question, what if it works, ever cross your mind?

                      I think you’ve written off Gillard long ago and may well be writing off Nova because she chooses to stand with Labor. And I don’t know that interpretation is entirely fair and reasonable. In all likelihood should Gillard loose the election then Nova Peris may find herself serving in a Senate that presides over an opposition house of reps. Either way I hope she’ll do well if she wins the seat, because I see few enough reasons why she wouldn’t.

                      Like

  24. Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 5:09 pm #

    Oh, and it also looks like Nova Peris may have been ticked off by Julia’s latest BFs, which aids Gillard enormously as she sells the idea.

    “A Nova Peris Girls Academy has been set up within the St John’s Catholic College in Darwin, aiming to “change the lives of young girls by helping them follow their dreams through the opportunities that education can provide”.

    Like

  25. Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

    REPLY @hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    You can believe I have written NP off,but that would be disingenuous,which is unlike you.Re-read my words properly please.
    And as an aside I feel that by NP choosing to accept this opportunity without canvassing and communicating with sitting/active NT members, and by defining herself as an emphatic ‘supporter of Gillard’, ever so respectful and humbled etc, that brings with it the obvious Gillard political baggage.It now becomes her shared history.
    So on that score I’d say that is one very big point showing that NP lacks judgement.
    I am supportive of NP getting into Parliament by fair and due process and with her obvious merit.This is not the way.
    I am getting any clearer yet?

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

      Hypo,

      What I wrote was, “….you’ve written off Gillard long ago and may well be writing off Nova….”

      So if you now want to characterise that as disingenuous, please tell me how you’re NOT writing off Nova Peris?

      The mere fact that what you’re characterising Peris’ association with Labor as “shared history” (do I surmise baggage?) and lacking Judgement, all while stating she has “obvious merit” seems like you’re either pulling punches and back peddling or wanting to have an each way bet on this. And it’s not as if I really blame you since I suspect we neither of us really know the cut of Peris’ cloth as a potential Senator.

      At the end if the day I really only fired up because Zero’ seemed to be crying racism of Gillard in a way that I thought needed to be challenged. S/he said some shit, I said some shit, Helvi I think reckons Zero’s the ghost of Christmas past or some such thing, and at the end of the day we may have tried to hose it down and make nice, but some important things about what you can and cannot say without evidence probably got made painfully clear along the way. I hope some good came of it :)

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

        What you wrote was
        “You’re making it seem increasingly like you’re really not even prepared to give Nova Peris a chance.”

        Which is not what I have done.

        I have repeatedly stated she should be there IF SHE wants to be there, and by desire, not an exclusive magic wand.
        It’s Mal Brough all over again, FFS.
        If she goes into politics this way it will be a disaster for all sorts of reasons.
        The first and obvious being she was pushed,Don’t you see the problem there?
        She will be scripted and cotton wooled. And I am ONLY basing that on history.A lot of it.

        As for the racist angle see my reply ^ to DQ.

        And yes I have officially written Gillard off.I , like many, was excited at the beginning and slowly but surely she un-Labored Labor.It has been totally fucked up / over for about the last 4 – 6 major policy betrayals and rogue decisions/appointments/deals.
        Look around.her days are numbered and I will happily pursue her every move,because IMHO she is nothing but “the town Trojan Horse”.

        I seriously respect NP way to much to want her associated with either Gillard or this shonky deal.She needs to press the pause button, or come up through the ranks.

        Gillards Office should be nicknamed The Puppy Farm, because her sales record is relentless, but look around HG, there’s obviously a willing market.
        The sad thing is we all know what happens when the family gets bored with the unwanted puppy, or it starts to stink the house out.

        We’ll see how many universal Labor love-ins we have, when we get our brand new Big Brother, data retention,privacy invading internet rules.
        The big bad boogy man is coming and Conroy and Julia are there to protect us.
        Thank-you Jesus,Allah and Buddha.

        PS: Cathy Freeman must have said no.Hopefully emphatically. ;-)

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

          Okay Hypo, so here we go again!

          In its correct context you aren’t prepared to give Nova Peris a chance now that she’s received her nomination from Gillard, and nor are you prepared to giver her the chance Gillard has.

          I am. We disagree.

          I think in this case a helping hand is a positive thing, and shouldn’t be demeaned by calling it tokenism. I may join others in sympathising on Crossin’s behalf, but I won’t go along for the ride when it comes to giving Nova Peris a less than fair go. Granted she’s had a more than even break at the outset, but after as little as a couple of minutes at the microphone writing off someone seems premature to me.

          As for the Labor preselection system please know I couldn’t care less about it because clearly I think this is a better and more inspiring choice of candidate that has been plucked from outside that system.

          That’s my say on this. You’ve gone off on a rant about other matters I’ll leave for anyone else who cares to take you up on them. I don’t think many are accurate and they’re certainly not relevant to what we were discussing.

          Like

  26. doug quixote January 24, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    I’ve had a look at Trish Crossin’s record in the Senate, and it seems to me that she has been somewhat of an underachiever.

    That the Prime Minister has decided to tap her on the shoulder should not surprise anyone, especially her. We may note that Crossin was counted as a Rudd supporter in the 2012 ballot.

    Now if Julia can just get rid of Robert McClelland from Barton, that would be a good start.

    There is no evidence that Gillard is a racist. Those advocating open slather on accepting millions of refugees immediately and those pushing their own anti-Gillard agenda are the only ones who even allege that she is. They seek a way to attack her, and don’t draw the line at any discredited tactics; If you don’t agree with someone, play the race card.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

      I’m not that lazy that I need to resort to labelling Gillard a racist.
      Her record offers to many other opportunities of failure and betrayal to even bother.
      I am a bit disappointed but not surprised you attacked Crossin.
      Don’t suppose you would like to list her ‘faults’ now that you’ve found them?
      I mean it would be nice to have the earlier list of Rudds failures which justified his removal, but given none came we can safely assume it was BS.
      Is that what the latest bagging reflects?

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

      Geez Doug,

      Seems like you’ve pasted Julia with your very first sentence. Wasn’t that her yesterday in the same speech where she announced Nova’s candidacy saying what a fine servant of the Party Trish has been, even as she dismissed her without a hint of explanation or even irony? I don’t mean to seem divisive in my comments here, but damn that’s cold. And it could well be that the reason is as you say because Crossin backed Rudd, but that’s not going to be said aloud either because it really is divisive and totally off script as far as making political capital out of this goes.

      As for the whole racism deal I think you’re right and you’re probably wrong. After all how many racists will admit to it? The thing is that it is precisely what we can’t say in fairness to Nova’s candidacy, because if we do any and all arguments about merit…. straight out of the window! Bang! We’ve started a bunfight. It’s not a fair accusation and its certainly not a helpful one, especially when talking about an indigenous person and leaping to conclusions without evidence. I shouldn’t need to explain that the reason for this is because that’s what prejudices are, they’re accusations without evidence. It’s just so hypocritical to argue against a prejudice while basing your argument on the mere assumption of that prejudice that nobody should have to listen to it.

      That’s been my problem with the debate around Peris’ appointment from the outset. There’s not that much known about her, so the whole debate is completely constructed out of almost nothing but prejudice along partisan lines, either within Labor itself, or without. And frankly (I know I’m not really just talking to you here anymore)… frankly its pretty sickening if you really think about it.

      As for Nova, she has her candidacy ahead of her, if she’s going to just be a celebrity blow in as awkward as I suppose Garrett has been, then fine we might be entitled to say so. But I suspect the idea of making a place for an indigenous person in the Senate is actually a laudable one that deserves a fair go!

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

        HG,
        I don’t like the way that you seem to insinuate that those who criticise the process, are anti Peris.
        For all the reasons stated above, a zillion times in my posts, this process has cost Peris a clean and uncompromised political career.And she and her people deserve just that career.But not so heavily compromised.
        It seems to be yourself who wants to lump everyone canning Gillards shallow act, as connected to racism.I see those types are rife at the Drum.That is where they play under the approving eyes of the gutless Mods who willingly allow comments which quite frankly are ignorant and at times almost enable race hate.
        And it’s pretty obvious that the indigenous people don’t need another dose of contaminated air in their lives, which for centuries have been lived as convenient political footballs.
        So back to rat smelling;
        Can you direct readers to any public discussions Labor has conducted to pre-empt this decision?
        Any public fora where NP announced she was entering federal politics to better the lot of her people?
        To me it is simply about the hypocrisy of whining about about Abbott trying to discard Slipper to get Brough in again, and thinking that the shunting of a sitting member or the ignoring of other suitable indigenous advocates, to install NP, is somehow fundamentally sound.The only difference here is that ‘at this stage’ Labor has not resorted to dragging skeletons out of Crossin’s closet.
        Watch this space,if they need to quell the flames the Gillard string pullers would not hesitate for a minute.I hope she reciprocates.

        Repeat.The way this is being done is wrong.
        I hope NP pulls out and finds the passion to do this off her own bat.
        This deal may actually put back the Constitutional recognition of First Australians back even further,IMHO.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

          I don’t think I can help you Hypo,

          I just don’t think you’re going to see it!

          That the only reason you’re saying that Nova Peris’ candidacy is compromised is because of the lack of process.

          I think that the process is crap because it seems to have FAILED to produce a candidate of Peris’ quality where as it turned she was available. It is as Gillard says a process that has NEVER produced an indigenous Labor member of the house. And if it comes to it only produced a woman PM under duress.

          If there’s a narrative that sees Labor’s own Stupid White Men dragged kicking as screaming towards a more inclusive parliament then it’s probably about time. They had their chance and they gave us Rudd. I’m not sure the “process” was ever going to get it done!

          I may be being a touch unfair! But can’t you see that I’m just not buying the whole process thing? Maybe I’m just so over all the branch stacking and factional infighting that I figure if a person crops up who might make a halfway decent candidate then the backdoor’s as good as the front.

          Thanks for explaining what you meant by the Brough thing I ignored it earlier because I hadn’t drawn the same conclusions. Nor am I sure the comparison is so apt. You point out the differences yourself.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 10:55 pm #

            “I think that the process is crap because it seems to have FAILED to produce a candidate of Peris’ quality”

            Firstly I challenge you prove they were EVEN fucking looking.
            Secondly that really does sound like even if they were looking, they needed ‘one’ to fit THEIR fucking mould.
            Thirdly Peris has claimed to ‘agree with Labor’s values”
            (Define what the fuck they currently are.Because frankly I don’t think they are anything like the ones which attracted Peris long ago.)
            Fourth,Labor’s record is to plagiarise Howard’s intervention even when communities did not need or want it.
            Where does Peris stand on that do you think?
            This is a harsh world HG.
            She has Buckley’s chance of surviving as a Gillard ornament.(perceived, or factual)

            “Stupid White Men dragged kicking as screaming towards a more inclusive parliament then it’s probably about time. ”

            Ooh excuse me
            Are you blind?Why then is Gillard singing Howard’s refugee tune?
            Why then is she doing the ACL’s bidding?
            Why did she tick off on foreign Labor?

            The stupid white men could not give a toss about Gillard Peris or indigenous people HG.Why do you think they got rid of Rudd?Because he emphatically locked them out of the process to set cabinet up as the Stupid White Men version.
            Which is what we now have, despite the ‘nice frilly shop front’ it displays.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

              Look in your latest post with the links I think it makes a good case for Crossin, a one sided one, but a good one nonetheless. It means Peris has a fair bit to live up to, but come on by the time you got through calling her a Giilard ornament you’d just about turned inside out and started arguing against yourself. Which by the closing line I’m pretty sure you had.

              You’re critical of Labor, we get that I am too and Jennifer won’t mind my saying she’s been that way too, even Doug does…. a little. But the difference here is that we wish the Party well that we’ve supported more or less for most of our live, and which we still think is vastly better than their main opposition in Abbott, We’d like to correct things and have them really improve their policies A LOT! Because there are huge problems we’re not ignorant of.

              But you’ve turned against them and seem to wish them ill. I’m not hearing about the wonders of whoever else you endorse. But the fever pitch of negativity this reaches probably negates the veracity of anything you might be hoped to offer by way of constructive criticism if you catch my drift…. It’s easy to argue the negative and hard indeed to take the positive side, oppositions thrive on that fact. I’m just struggling to believe you’re really for the opposition I suppose…..

              So what’s it gonna be, wish Nova well and make your point as a constructive criticism, or aid and abet Abbott? Because if there’s really a third choice I’m not seeing it.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

                Leading up to the election I will analyse everyone’s policies, and vote accordingly.At this stage and for some time the third and only choice has been Green and getting Greener.Examining how the preferences flow will be interesting this time around because each seat will have a different take, and since Labor is purely reactive now,anything can happen until they call it.
                I expect to be sucked dry by faux Labor lies, and subsequently rolling over for a post political ‘thrattle job’ cigarette every five minutes or so, between here and the election.
                So at the risk of melting the screen, with the heat of repetition, it’s anyone but Abbott and Gillard, who has a ‘big picture view’. A human touch.An accountable process.
                It’s important to send a signal.Call it idealism if you want.I call it principle.Something Labor used to have, and something which Gillard wouldn’t know if she stepped in it.And something which her string pullers have never had/will never have, and which Gillards toadying accomplices have sold out of.
                The apathy of those who worship the status quo of these two sphincterial tea parties plays like a Sunburnt Country.
                Wide and Brown.
                The party you claim to have supported most of your life is dead as we know it.
                They chose to lose me and tens of thousands of others support.Them’s the breaks.Defend away HG, she’s all yours.
                I hope that’s clear enough?

                I thought it was crystal clear to start with.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

                  Yeah course it was, clear as mud, which is why you’re always that bit too willing to be sucked into Labor intrigues even while damning them with, as it turns out, a little more than feint praise.

                  Sorry I’d to bring it up but really trying to be constrictive is hard going under the circumstances. And while I’m not willing to polish a turd, I do think this has a shot at working with luck and determination to make it do so. I may well be proven wrong as the weight of your evidence already seems to suggest, but I won’t relish the prospect.

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 12:50 am #

                    Good night, John Boy.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 25, 2013 at 8:40 am #

                      Good night Pa

                      You can go back to your own bed now.

                      Like

                    • doug quixote January 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

                      I thought it was the Three Stooges, not the Waltons!

                      Like

      • doug quixote January 25, 2013 at 7:57 am #

        I’m not the PM and I don’t need to be tactful. I call it as I see it. If I thought Gillard was racist I would say so. I see no evidence of it.

        The truly tragic thing would be if candidates of unknown potential such as Peris were driven away by a media kerfuffle like this particular storm in a teacup.

        BTW, what number are we up to? I’ve lost count, but at one per week since 2009 it must be around storm in a teacup no.200.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 25, 2013 at 8:38 am #

          Around 192 allowing a few weeks off per year for holidays and elections ;)

          Like

  27. Hypocritophobe January 24, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3675179.htm

    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/nova-peris-the-prime-minister-and-trish-crossin/

    (Seems to also emphatically destroy DQs ‘underachievment claims,dunnit?)

    Perhaps you have more racist dragons to slay HG?

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 24, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

      We’re in Australia in case you haven’t noticed there’s no shortage of racist dragons, in damsel’s clothing most of ‘em!

      Like

      • zerograv1 January 25, 2013 at 12:42 am #

        NP will have a hard time getting local suppot in the branches, shes a competitve woman, hard worker but not particulalry people friendly (she is genuine and committed though to the idea of winning) and that by itself is enough to indicate a failure to engage local support which she MUST do to gain a seat, It’s not beyond the realms of possiility that she wont get enough votes to get in given the hearlty-sick-of-ALP-stuff-ups electorate that dwell in the NT. The backroomer cant be named unfortunately and Im not mongering rumours here but it was a cold hard look at the electoral damage that prompted the comment to Gillard. The PM by the way gave a roasting to how the local campaign was conducted and decided that they were unable to run there own branch hence the overuling from God Almighty Gillard. NP hasnt got an easy task with Gillard as bedfellow because the smear of Gillard’s tactics will be used by both the oppostion party here and those in Labor who have been very slighted by this decsion. Personlly I hope NP gives due consideration and decides not to proceed, Shes done enough to deserve better treatment than what she’s heading for.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 25, 2013 at 8:22 am #

          Yep. It’s already turning nasty with whispering campaigns and smears against her.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 10:02 am #

            And those same smears and whispers will target other possible(rejected) individuals and Crossin herself.
            And we know exactly why that is.And the idiot who started it all would have known how much damage this would bring on indigenous people and the NT in general.
            And to NT’s family,friends and supporters.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 10:08 am #

              EDIT the last “NT” should be NP.

              Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 25, 2013 at 10:14 am #

              Omelette anyone!

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 10:19 am #

                Morning, John Boy.
                Can you get out of your little sisters cradle,there’s chores to be a doin’ ?

                I’ll have eggs,sunny-side up, ifn you don’t mind.

                Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 12:51 am #

        Surely you joust?

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 25, 2013 at 8:35 am #

          Nah, told ‘im he was dreamin’

          Like

  28. doug quixote January 25, 2013 at 7:42 am #

    To Hypo :

    Crossin has been in the Senate since 1998, and has never been a Minister or a shadow minister, nor would she ever be likely to be. I don’t need to be a tactful as the PM! I have nothing personally against her, just as I have nothing personal against Rudd, and see no useful purpose in rehearsing all his manifold shortcomings vis a vis being PM. He is a fine member and was a competent minister.

    This particular storm in a teacup will be over shortly.

    Like

    • zerograv1 January 25, 2013 at 9:16 am #

      Perhaps the “storm in a teacup” will be soon forgotten interstate, it wont be in the NT and they after all are the ones voting, up here they have long memories and few politicians to focus on to distract attention away from this. I still think its a tactical error on Gillard’s part, she may think shes being smart or showing leadership but a non-consultative approach that ignores the voice of the people is fatal in politics. Nova has been handed a poisoned chalice….and although Trish was unremarkable and a bit of a plodder, she is experienced, genuinely engages the community, is a good doer as they say – not disliked even by the other side and respected and would have comfortably retained the seat….now its in play and thats the last thing the Federal ALP needs to do, push safe seats to risky status – very poor tactic and the cynical NT voter sees straight through it as this monrings local newspaper comments continue to show…poor judgement on Gillards part, she wont win her first outright election if this is an example of her political acumen

      Like

      • doug quixote January 25, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

        Bullshit. Crossin will be Senator until mid 2014. Mid 2014!

        Summary fucking dismissal as some idiots tried to say today.

        A pity the PM couldn’t get rid of her earlier.

        Like

        • Poirot January 25, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

          Hopefully the PM will get rid of “herself” earlier – one way or another….

          Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

          Well DQ,
          If what you say is true about the 2014 date,it makes Gillard out to be a bigger scammer.
          Why rush it at all?
          Why not an orderly,peaceful amenable transition.
          You have confirmed her yourself, as either the selfish,narcissistic, opportunist, or a principle-free puppet, doing the errands of the unelected, illegitimate, male dominated NSW right political hit-men.
          I see her as both and then some.So do plenty of others.And I reckon a few thousand more than her latest FIGJAM announcement.

          She is trying to paint herself as a friend of the First Australians, when she has never shown a single iota of concern/action of note,until she saw a few votes.

          Backfire alert.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 9:51 pm #

            EDIT
            So do plenty of others.And I reckon a few thousand more SINCE her latest FIGJAM announcement.

            Like

          • doug quixote January 26, 2013 at 12:05 am #

            You misread my earlier posts. She saw that Rudd had to be removed and she was the only one with enough numbers to do it, but only if she appeased the concerns of the right wing of the Party.

            “The rush” as you put it, is that the process of preselection was about to re-endorse Crossin. Then it would have to be overturned, an even greater intervention.

            Alles Klar?

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 26, 2013 at 12:11 am #

              You have misread everyone of my posts DQ.
              Gillard has a history of betrayal and of doing the errands for patriarchal / megalomaniac (al) bullies.
              And the frequency is beginning to red line.

              She is gone.
              If she has any unpacked moving cartons,it is in her best interest to leave them that way.Trust me.

              Like

              • doug quixote January 26, 2013 at 2:13 am #

                No, I understand you perfectly. Crystal clear.

                But you are wrong. “Trust” doesn’t come into it.

                You have one view of it, I have another. Perhaps we should agree to differ, until the next storm in a teacup upsets your sense of propriety once more.

                Like

            • zerograv January 26, 2013 at 8:28 am #

              Theres been a really strange twist to this….Trish Crossin is a founding member of Feminist Emily’s List and as such you would expect their support should Trish listen to public opinion and run as an Independant Labor Senator since te No 2 spot has now been announced to be another indigenous candidate from Alice Springs this time (Too bad if your a working class white laborite who has other issues they need labour support for like Work Choices reintroduction etc) – Neither candidate has any interest or credentials in this area or in the union movement, So for the 60% non-black labor vote they are going to have to vote for the party not the candidate and may feel disenfranchised. To get back to my original point,for some reason Emily’s List have disowned Crossin, no story, no reason, its very very odd…I’ll try to find where I read this for you – theres something quite strange in that turn of events especially since as far as I know Peris isnt a member so its not a change in support of their candidates…. Talking to people all day yesterday about it, The appointment of Peris is a widely unpopular move among the bolted-on laborites I know, most have nothing against Peris but would love to vote Crossin in to give Gillard a big “Middle finger” message for the interference and way this has been done – it seemed to be the general opinion and their was a distinct sense of disappointment in Federal labor…that may have been an undercurrent for a while but this decsion has underlined it in red ink and put it to the forefront, in my reading even with an backlash anti-CLP vote Peris will need every vote she can garner to get over the line, the safe seat is no longer. Comments on the NTNEWS forum were running 60 to 1 against but mainly against Gillard not Peris herself.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 26, 2013 at 10:43 am #

                Your snapshop of peoples spleens is accurate.I have already booked my “I told you so” tattoo.
                I may even shout DQ a “Why,why,why?” tat.I like a tat with humour and irony.
                It will look good on him.

                Like

                • zerograv1 January 27, 2013 at 9:24 am #

                  One last note on this thread side track. Crossin was shoved for purely political/marketing reasons. Her son is in trouble with the law and it was decided to be a too easy target for the opposition to attack her on during the election campaign. Poor Trish is stressing badly over it and may have easily given in to the order to step down. It’s likely she has decided to put her family troubles first before her career. End of Intrigue

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

                    Faux Labor has become a swarm of killer bees, eradicating all traces of their previous species.And every sacrifice must be made to preserve the Queen bee.She carries the destiny of the NSW right in her political egg factory.
                    She is protected by a battalion of specialist, drones.
                    Hopefully a mite infestation is imminent.

                    Like

                    • zerograv1 January 27, 2013 at 5:40 pm #

                      I cant see any hope of Gillard getting over the line, she cannot depend on the independants being re-elected, or on Qld since the Rudd popularity isnt getting much steam , Katter is making inroads and if Newman capitlaises on the Qld flood crisis and wins some brownie points back in those always critical Qld seats. They arent the only ones that will decide the election but Labor are a very long shot of getting re-elected without them.

                      Like

                    • doug quixote January 28, 2013 at 10:04 am #

                      Au contraire, she is odds on and has been ever since mid 2012. Gillard and Labor will win by perhaps 10 seats in October.

                      Like

                    • zerograv1 January 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

                      Doug – although your a fanboy of Gillard’s, your clearly not very “up” on the political science of wiinning elections, Gillard needs the same or better result than she achieved last time to get in, not only is the political tide against her (polls etc) but the basic bones of winning seats from the opposition arent either, to regain 10 seats would be 100/1 minimum. I see her losing 2 or 3, one or more independants reverting to the LNP and no evidence of the required swing in her favour to get her over the line. Admittedly polls and opinions change and I might review this comment closer to election day but as things stands now she is at best a narrow loser but more likely comfortably beaten purely on the numbers. She has peed off the pro asylum seekers, almost lost the greens completely, where is her extra support going to come from? – even the WEL is looking askance and dont even think about the blue collar worker, Those tradies earning above average pay became Howards aspirationals a long time ago….

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm #

                      Zero,

                      The ebb and flow of politics is less like a tide, more like droughts and flooding rains.

                      If the flow away from Gillard doesn’t all go to Abbott, because it is just as likely to go to the Greens or Independents, then it probably will result in the same situation she has now, or better. Because the ABBA (Anyone but bloody Abbott) vote’s likely to be a fairly strong one.

                      Like

                    • zerograv1 January 28, 2013 at 6:11 pm #

                      @HudsonGodfrey : I agree there is a strong group in the electorate that wont have Abbott, but that only works for Gillard if there isnt any corrosion of the existing ALP vote…and clearly that has occured…she’s going to need a lot more than a dislike of Tony to get her over the line this time because she cant count on last elections voters sticking with her (at least a fair chunk of them). Shes steadily built up almost an Anyone but Julia bloc of people that feel cheated, disillussioned, lied to and sadly they were tame ALP supporters before she came along, they dont like Abbott, arent terribly green and have no one to vote for – but they wont have Julia for quids! She only just scraped in over the line last time remember, this time I picture her hanging by the fingernails from the wrong side of the electoral cliff and its a very deep chasm below her given the ground has slowly eroded under her feet (all of her own making I might add) . The bookies think shes no hope, while they dont always get it right the percentages are currently sitting at 68% Abbott, 31% Gillard, – it doesnt equate to two party preferred voting, thats just their probability estimate and Im just cant see sufficient people coming back to the ALP fold to get her back in and make up for the people she’s put offside as well. My two cents, lets see what coming months bring.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

                      Zero,

                      Does it really need to be spelled out that every true Labor supporter who’s deeply unable disappointed with Gillard’s policies will quickly recognise that their sentiments are far more closely attuned with those of the Greens than they are with Abbotts’ coalition.

                      Apart perhaps from Hypo, few are so embittered as to wish to celebrate the sight of Abbott dancing on her political grave.

                      And god knows as your dog knows that a vote for the greens will be a vote for a Labor/Green coalition, at best and a preference deal with Labor in many cases.

                      Like

  29. Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 10:26 am #

    Someone over there, gets it,

    “atomou:

    25 Jan 2013 3:34:50am

    Having been a member of the ALP for a great many years of my life and a passionate worker for it, I had great faith in Gillard as a Deputy. Lost some faith at the way she got to be PM and kept losing faith as she uttered one thought bubble after another, promoted one immoral view after another, performed one trick after another, like a bad magician. She has warped and corrupted the values at the heart of what was once a proud Left party.

    I know about Crosin only what I heard and read around the traps. She has been described as a person who has worked hard for most of her life as a devoted member of the ALP. Her only sin, it seems is that she was against Rudd’s overthrow. Quite a moral position to hold, I would have thought. Typical of the ALP’s position. Instead of being thanked she, along with her vast experience, has been ditched in a most disrespectful, unfair and, one may well argue, illegal way. At the very least, it is a way that goes against the democratic principles that made the ALP great and stood in direct opposition to the undemocratic ways of the LNP.

    Hypocritical and sycophantic ways are evident when people become nothing more than “yes” men and women!”

    Like

  30. Hypocritophobe January 25, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

    Here’s Julia doing a Magic Macklin Makeover, and changing her evidence after the event.
    Only to retract it later.
    It seems she has upped the ante to Abbott’s ‘trust’ declarations.
    So instead of ‘don’t believe her if it is not written down’, don’t believe her until the first version is spoken,the second version is written and the amended version is published.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/gillard-backtracks-on-defence-budget-claim/4484430?section=justin

    Of course, as we know know, there is the other more sinister category too.
    The one with no spoken or written announcements.
    Where there is no evidence, just an arbitrary announcement based on religious paybacks for electoral obedience or regarding preferred candidates to weaken a Prime Ministerial opponent. etc.

    Like

  31. conor January 26, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    I’m encouraging all men to whenever they see a woman breastfeeding, or about to, to make an immediate beeline and go and sit close bye admiring and capturing this beautiful event for posterity. Throughout the breastfeeding keep the woman company and ask in detail about the feelings i creates, ask to see the breast and nipple, and just revel in how beautiful this event is.
    I of cause know all of us would have the FULL support and encouragement of everyone supporting breastfeeding in public on here. Anything else would be discriminatory.
    Lets then move onto loudspeaking and noisy children in public and beautiful that is too.
    David Koch did not demand/ask breastfeeding in public to stop, just that it doesn’t have to be in a public thoroughfare, as I would turn from most people whilst blowing my nose.
    If we are not careful the sense of outrage, entitlement, and demand for everything to be accepted/given will potentially make the world a horrible place.

    Like

    • Poirot January 26, 2013 at 9:31 am #

      conor,

      “I’m encouraging all men to whenever they see a woman breastfeeding, or about to, to make an immediate beeline and go and sit close bye admiring and capturing this beautiful event for posterity. Throughout the breastfeeding keep the woman company and ask in detail about the feelings i creates,ask to see the breast and nipple, and just revel in how beautiful this event is….”

      Or……you could just grow up.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 26, 2013 at 9:44 am #

        Well said Poirot.

        Conor,

        Don’t be such a sarky bastard, I know what you were getting at, but it’s the lowest form of wit. It is you who have the problem if you think breastfeeding is the equivalent of expectorating over others.

        Like

    • conor January 26, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

      Hypocritophobe – grammar is your only contribution? The ( us ) is clearly men.and David Koch
      Poirot – lighten up
      hudsongodfrey – lighten up

      Self righteousness is not endearing.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

        Get back to your filthy pub Steve.

        You’ll only get tossed into the Troll bin as you always do, and rightfully so.

        Like

      • Poirot January 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

        “Self righteousness is not endearing.”

        Nor are the self-aggrandising and immature rants of someone apparently devoid of actual “wit” attempting to be oh-so-clever.

        (But it is entertaining :))

        Like

        • helvityni January 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

          What happen to Paul Walter, did you lot chase him away? :)

          Like

          • doug quixote January 26, 2013 at 11:36 pm #

            Not sure about Paul, but I come and go as the mood takes me. Perhaps he does too. Whatever ‘conor’ is, it is not a presence we want here.

            Hypo, why did you bother to correct etc that rather pathetic post? Once posted was once too often in my view.

            Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 26, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

        Sorry if you felt that wasn’t light hearted enough, maybe you can riddle me this then? Did you or did you not, without the flourishes and attempted humour, effectively say “I agree with Koch because women breast-feeding should be expected to respect the rights of others to avoid something comparable with the blowing of one’s nose”?

        Light-of-it as you may now wish to make, either I missed the joke badly and have insulted you unfairly (something that I should regret and apologise for), or what you said was quite unfunny in a way that delivers an insult to mothers you might consider backtracking from.

        I’m not trying to pick on you unfairly, guess at whether you’ve ever masqueraded under a duplicitous pseudonym, start a flame war or feed the trolls. Its a simply a matter of the content and merits of some statements you’ve made that are at issue. I think everyone deserves at least one opportunity to argue the issues. If they neither want nor avail themselves of it then I suppose we’d know where we stand.

        Like

  32. Hypocritophobe January 26, 2013 at 11:03 am #

    Conor, I won’t even begin to highlight your poor use of the humble comma.(There is no world shortage) Personally I like a hyphen in breast-feeding.Loud speaking is two words.
    I did,however, bracket the obvious spelling errors for you.(See below) This should help in improving your ‘pre-uni grammar’ (If the marks improve,that is!)
    The ‘wiggly brackets’ indicate an area of ‘follow up’. Your assignment is to identify who the ‘us’ is.(Is it those deprived of mothers milk in their infancy, or those left to suckle into their formal years?)
    And, seriously, I’d like you to restructure your penultimate sentence.
    Breastfeeding is nothing like blowing your nose.You need to do more biology revisions.
    6/10 (just)

    PS- I think you may end up with a camera embedded in your China plate, the very first time you employ your ‘cunning plan’.
    **************************************************************************************

    “I’m encouraging all men to whenever they see a woman breastfeeding, or about to, to make an immediate (bee-line) and go and sit close (bye) admiring and capturing this beautiful event for posterity. Throughout the breastfeeding keep the woman company and ask in detail about the feelings (i) creates, ask to see the breast and nipple, and just revel in how beautiful this event is.
    I of (cause) know all of {us} would have the FULL support and encouragement of everyone supporting breastfeeding in public on here. Anything else would be discriminatory.
    (Lets) then move onto loudspeaking and noisy children in public and beautiful that is too.
    David Koch did not demand/ask breastfeeding in public to stop, just that it doesn’t have to be in a public thoroughfare, as I would turn from most people whilst blowing my nose.
    If we are not careful the sense of outrage, entitlement, and demand for everything to be accepted/given will potentially make the world a horrible place.”

    PPS
    No sarcasm intended HG.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 26, 2013 at 11:05 am #

      (I have placed a weeny, booby-trap in my post)
      CFU find it.

      Like

  33. hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

    meanwhile in where else but in Colorado?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267969/Lori-Stodghill-death-Catholic-hospital-ditches-pro-life-beliefs-argue-fetuses-NOT-people-wrongful-death-suit-involving-unborn-twins.html

    And for those who may be interested (because I don’t want to hog Jennifer’s page with YouTube Clips), Ana Kasparian makes a great analysis of this on her YouTube channel… you know where /watch?v=EMkosqqzCHg

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

      They twist,they turn,they obfuscate.Hypocrites,snakes and cowards.
      A taste of how the RCom will likely pan out.
      And another reason to avoid any push(WA has already begun such a push) to allow lawyers to blur the terms defining unborn foetuses.
      Whilst we must protect life,narrow ,bigoted, religious ideology has no place in law.The RC church (ACL etc) is not entitled to design laws,period.They are the first to squeal for bans on Sharia and other such laws, and yet demand to control the glossary to suit their end.

      As far as policies, Gillard is a moron for sharing the same air space as Wallace or Pell.

      Scamming heartless hypocrites,one and all.
      I hope the poor bloke burns their a*ses legally, and mortally wounds the brand forever.This stuff probably occurs on a weekly basis.
      .

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

        ..and before the trolls distort my pro choice view, my views on abortion are crystal clear.
        Fully pro choice.

        Like

  34. Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    @hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm #
    (No Reply available)

    Disagree.There will be a ‘punish Gillard’ factor which will see those punters assuring their vote for Abbott and Gillard are not rewarded.(More damaging for Gillard) Those who previously went Labor 1,only, will number the boxes.In safe years people do that,in years like this they use their vote wisely.
    The best Gillard can hope for is the same as Rudd got,and the people she needs may not be there to be her allies,nor are they likely to get sucked in twice by a two faced NSW right union puppet.
    The odds are that Abbott will form a minority govt,long before Gillard can.That is likely to be the ‘one term at most’ scenario, during which Labor will have a choice.
    Revert to their roots,or die.
    It is also possible that punters will risk a term in govt to avoid a coalition hung parliament.
    There is no way Gillard will form any type of govt without outside help.None/nada/zip/zilch.
    The MSM just has to replay all of Gillards faux-ups to see her banished,The coalition could remain silent for the whole campaign and still match her share of votes.I hope(suspect) the Greens have woken up to the faux Labor scamming.
    The indies certainly have.
    Count the betrayals Gillard has delivered her early hung govt allies and you will see she is a walking deadhead.
    The vast majority of grass roots black and gold Labor punters I talk too have nothing good to say about Gillard and have all expressed the view that they will not vote for her party.
    I believe and support this as a genuine political reality.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 6:05 pm #

      EDIT
      It is also possible that punters will risk a secure one full term Abbott govt to avoid a coalition hung parliament.

      Like

    • zerograv1 January 28, 2013 at 6:22 pm #

      (Almost) SNAP – See my comment above!

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

      You’ve both snapped. You don’t really want Abbott or you’d be singing that guys praises. Which would at least be kind of amusing compared to this exaggerated outrage love in that you and Zero seem to be having here the best part of a year out from the election.

      Draw a few deep breaths and think for a minute because I think we might, if we’re honest, agree that in general BOTH the major parties have shifted discomfortingly to the right. Which means that by all accounts for many people they haven’t carried the electorate with them. Or in other words, the electorate are spoiling to shift either to the left or back to the centre. Votes Gillard is losing are bleeding off to the Greens. They’re not going to Abbott.

      Two party preferred some of the polls are already hinting that what we might well be looking at by Xmas is a Labor Green coalition government of sorts.

      If nothing changes!

      Though a betting man would probably say that it will change. For better or worse Australians, and the media in particular (lazy good of nothings that they mostly are) love to see politics through the prism of the leaders’ cult of personality. So money is on leadership changes by whichever party blinks first.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

        Has someone stolen your pseudo?
        Love in?
        You are demented.
        Not capability of accepting the harsh reality of a political dead Gillard.

        Very disappointing HG.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 11:55 pm #

          Just can’t see what dementia it is that grips you with the feverish urge to install the Mad Monk!

          Like

          • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

            I can’t either. It seems to me like a person disappointed with the ice-cream flavour deciding that dogshit was the way to go. I hope he never gets to savour the product. :)

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

              So do I.
              But you guys have yet to learn how to honour your principles, read properly or vote with a conscience.
              If you think anyone sane would prefer to eat the cat shit Gillard is serving up to avoid Abbots dog shit, you under estimate the power of those who choose to eat elsewhere, or go hungry.
              I get the impression that no matter who gets in you would (both) deny you had any part of it and weasel out of the responsibility for the result.
              Que sera sera.

              Here’s a free tip.
              (whisper) the bilk of people outside this forum are not influenced by your online electoral wish list.
              And as much as I know you love hearing this twenty times an hour,I will make it twenty one.
              Gillard will lead this faux Labor experiment to apolitical dead end.It will be HER and her masters who will have sole responsibility for the once proud workers party.
              If I didn’t know how lazy you both were I would refer you back to the installation of Gillard, and my ample praise of it.(It’s here in black and white) .Loyalty is a two way street boys.I hung in their for quite a long while, till I saw her as what she is.Scum.
              Oh how I wish your slumber would end.
              Perhaps the tsetse flies are trailing you?

              WAKE UP!!

              Like

              • doug quixote January 31, 2013 at 12:37 am #

                All about you isn’t it? This is the same boring post. It doesn’t improve by repetition.

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 10:11 am #

                  Meow

                  Like

  35. Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

    Yep, she’s history, Zero.
    People forget what happened to an arrogant Howard.His support base melted down.
    Punters have seen that Gillard is extra keen to bring in foreign workers.
    Wedge,meet thin end.
    Punters aint dumb, they know Gillard will betray them for big business deals for a Workchoices deal under a different name.She has sold out on every other platform.
    Regarding workers rights, she is as Labor as Reith is.
    Hers is a view of cruel to be kind.

    Not only that, it’s hard to believe the large slab of intellectual thinkers who cannot grasp the concept of change.They think that because something has not happened before, it won’t happen this time.It’s like an out loud wish syndrome is their last desperate plea.
    I’ve said it before that Gillard has damaged the brand of female PM’s.
    The experiment may have lost all of it’s momentum.
    Gillards demise is a day of celebration for humanitarians.Bring it on.

    Like

  36. Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

    “Apart perhaps from Hypo, few are so embittered as to wish to celebrate the sight of Abbott dancing on her political grave.”

    I wont put you words into your mouth if you can struggle to do the same HG.
    It’s not the first time, either.
    And just because you cannot stretch your imagination to suffer a single Abbott term, (looking more and more likely) which Gillard et al have manufactured, doesn’t licence you to bullshit.
    I put Gillard at Abbott on the same bottom rung in the effluent tank.It is you and DQ etc, who have created an imaginary one a half a mm above it.

    If Abbott dances on Gillards grave, it will be her own doing.
    It is an honourable but futile pitch to continually apologise for her at the expense of what I would have thought were Labor/your/ same basic values.
    I also wish you could fathom the concept of not rewarding someone who has out Abbotted Abbott.
    It is a simple case of ‘how to vote’.
    I seriously hope you do cross the road from defending Gillard to defending your beliefs.(Fair go?) The two are positions (Fair go and Gillard) incompatible.

    There are many more anti Gillard than you think HG.Man,many more.
    And growing in number.

    I don’t care who dances on Gillards political grave.(Hopefully it is a ‘real’ Labor type.)
    As long as it happens at the coming election.And as long as I have the footage to play over and over again.I hope she takes Wong/Garrett/Ferguson with her., as bed warmers.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

      “And just because you cannot stretch your imagination to suffer a single Abbott term”

      You wish nightmares upon us all?

      I have no problem with Wong, she seems like a decent person to me, doing a decent job under the circumstances. Garrett has been something of an underachiever in the parliament, no more so than others perhaps, but certainly less successful by comparison with the heights of his musical career. I think we judge him harshly in that light, but that it could’ve been expected. Ferguson is something of a regressive character whose contribution many on the left would rue. I’d see two out of those three as not unwelcome retirements.

      And while I may disagree, violently at times, with Gillard’s personal style, your failure to face the fact that we’ve only two choices, one of which is aiding and abetting a political enemy is more mind-boggling than reprehensible.

      At least be honest and halfway pragmatic, and propose a better Labor leader and hope that they’ll flick Gillard before the election. And I don;t understand all that shit about Gillard apologetics anyway, because I found most of it totally incomprehensible….

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 12:21 am #

        Not true.There are more than two choices, and the results are infinitesimally variable according to that fact.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 9:27 am #

          I’ve canvassed the possibilities here, and I’d say you’re just plain wrong to make that statement and boldly as you do. There are infinite nuanced variations on two main themes in Australian federal politics. You basically get either a Labor led government or a Liberal led one. With or without coalition parties, independents, changes in leadership, control of the senate, cockles and mussels alive, alive, oh!

          They say a week’s a long time in politics but as late as we might guess that we’d call the election it doesn’t seem anywhere near like long enough for a third party to roll either of the big two. Which is basically the only thing I’m really against about your opinions here. We all get the general thrust of disappointment with Labor not remaining faithful to the values or ideals of the left in Australian politics. And we get that a fairly sizeable slab of the electorate is disenfranchised by that, and have very few choices other than the Greens, or to agitate for a leadership change within Labor.

          My contention would be that changing the Labor leadership is simply a heck of a gamble that argues anyone but Gillard in a very non-specific kind of way. If anyone I suggest could be knocked down then I get the feeling that it could be a waste of time, and that agitating to force Labor into coalition with the Greens at the next election might be the more effective way to shift policy to the left.

          I’ve said a number of times in a number of ways that you’re not going to convince me that there are as large a number of people out there seriously wanting to move the centre further to the right, or that to do so would somehow be to play a long term strategy that is more constructive despite the obvious destructive potential of an Abbott government.

          There are people out there who possibly do want both, and they’re called Liberal voters. But from the way you argue, you’re not one of them, you’re just anti Gillard.

          Have you ever heard the adage about cutting off your nose to spite your face?

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 11:30 am #

            Yep I’ve heard the adage.And I have also parked the one about dogs and fleas in my frontal lobe.
            Subject to pork barreling,I reckon aa i said before a hung parliament is a possibilty,for either camp.
            If that plays on voters minds,or is used in the MSM,which I think it will, we may end up with an Abbott govt.
            However if large enough proportions of Green/smaller party and Indie votes are scattered around in disgust,anything could happen.
            The red-neck vote could deliver a soul destroying alliance, and the opposite may occur.
            Either way I hope Gillard is jettisoned.
            She is an impostor.

            My consolation comes in knowing that a right wing govt would need to be careful in the first term,so as to avoid subsequent annihilation in the following election.(Keeping in mind Gillard thus far is as right wing as Abbott. I expect she will pork barrel any minute, and also discover a heart at the last minute, in order to dupe the sheeples)
            I can live with a one term bunch-o-arseholes, (again-what we may get) but the sales pitch for another term of Gillard will need to include a winning lotto ticket to every man/woman/child/dog/flying fox to get any traction.

            Like

      • doug quixote January 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

        I agree, HG. Penny Wong seem like a well adjusted person who is administering her portfolio quite well. Garrett has always struggled, with the baggage he carried from Midnight Oil days. (I knew Garrett back then, through Martin Rotsey, a good friend who was in the group),

        Some make the grade in several different fields; most do not.

        Like

    • zerograv1 January 29, 2013 at 8:38 am #

      “There are many more anti Gillard than you think HG.Man,many more.
      And growing in number.”
      Certainly most of the miners – typically from a trade and union background despise her. These were traditional labor voters for many years, but Gillard just puts them off : Inconsistency and policy backflips threaten their jobs from time to time and federal approval to proceed with the expansion or new project is time consuming, hard won and often threatened by non existant threats for those outside the industry. The ghost of unemployment stares them in the face sometimes for months and some mines lose staff because the worry and tension causes people to drift off to more secure pay packets. Gillard/Green garbage is the general holdup in approval. A real example was the McArthur River expansion where all sorts of psuedo arguments stalled it for over many many months, so many had left by the time the expansion had been approved that the mine was forced to employ contractors. So what you say? Contractors on minesites have far less rights and poorer working conditions; nor can they rely on federal legislation to protect them, they are real pawns who are hired and fired at the whim of commodity prices. Labor had a ready made rusted on bloc of votes but chose to listen to some lunatic harp on about a species threatened with extinction by the expansion. It turned out the species had been extinct 30 years anyway, long before the mine even had started. And DQ et al you think these types of labor natural voters will vote green? I think not.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 11:19 am #

        Sorry Zero but I don’t see that miners demands should ever override due process environmentally.Not many get knocked back, and there are some which should.The resources are not going anywhere.Their bottom line is their problem.The rate of extraction and start up dates are their problem.
        Those mines are on the land belonging to all Australians.If they don’t like the process you know what they can do.
        If you bet with DQ make sure you get odds based on his ten seat victory prediction.That should convert a $100 investment into a 3 bedroom Gold Coast apartment.

        Like

        • doug quixote January 29, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

          I’m the one who should be getting the odds – Labor by 10 seats would be at 20-1 or so according to the polls.

          But as I say, only one Poll will count.

          Like

  37. doug quixote January 28, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

    Poor Hypo. Three or four irrelevant posts with no connection to the thread whatsoever.

    And somewhat divorced from reality. Oh well. Labor by 10 seats in October.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

      The joy is that the ensuing crushing massacre will shut you (and your toadying to the NSW right) down for all eternity.

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm #

      My guess, barring leadership changes is that the election will be held at the last possible date.
      When running against Abbott the longer Gillard goes the better her chances that he’ll fall victim to a case of congenital foot in mouth.

      If leadership changes then it may well be reversed.
      When changing leaders to a more popular individual a honeymoon period ensues during which posturing and platitudes may well hold the public in their thrall for a time, best to strike quickly while the iron is still hot.

      For those willing to take a mystery bet odds on Gillard and the first bloke deciding to marry in the next few months might we worth a small outside bet.

      A handful of seats at best and several may well be held by Greens or independents.

      Like

    • zerograv1 January 29, 2013 at 8:25 am #

      Doug, Want to bet on that? Name your odds!

      Like

  38. Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 12:09 am #

    Please accept my apologies for my outbursts above HG.

    I am going to accept that you (personally) believe that real Labor is a good choice and that a vote drift to Greens or leadership change is in the best interest of Australia.I agree.
    I just cannot accept any feasible reason as to why ANY supporter of Labor,be they left or extreme right would support what Gillard has done.

    This is the faux Labor dilemma of Gillard versus a real Labor value leader
    And, genres aside, it’s like having a choice of baby sitters.Charles Manson V Olivia Newton John, and opting for the former because you don’t like Olivia’s music genre.

    And that’s before we even get to vote!

    Like

  39. Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    Oh dear.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-28/pm-gillard-partner-jokes-about-prostate-exams/4488008

    Misogyny,sexism,racism or by the Gillard script.?

    Tabloid Gossip Alert
    Seriously, if body language means anything, does anyone notice the lack of chemistry between Timmy and Julia?

    Here’s a hint Timmy.Keep your anal fantasies under wraps.Your ‘soul mate’ is the PM.

    Like

    • helvityni January 29, 2013 at 8:11 am #

      How very disappointing Hypo, why sink this low and start talking about some one’s partner. What has Tim got do with all this. Do we need to drag Margie in as well…please, how
      shock-jock-ish
      I was not surprised by Zero’s racist comments as I have known her views for years…I expected better of you….

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 11:13 am #

        He is the partner of the PM.Read what he said.

        Is it OK to make fun of small Asian women Helvi?
        Make anal jokes about them?
        Why do I think if Mrs Abbott cracked the same joke your view would be different?
        And why did the comment make the ABC news if it was not dodgy?
        I respect you Helvi,but your not my conscience.Nor are you right on this occasion.

        Like

        • helvityni January 29, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

          If this silly attention to Tim’s jokey comment is getting more scary cat men to have their lower regions checked…gently, then good on him…I rather have men taking care of their health issues, it saves lives…not concerned if a non- politician’s comment wasn’t PC.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

            Well that’s your view Helvi and your entitled to it.
            My view is that he tried to be another Prince Charles and tripped over his own input.
            Like I said,if Abbott had said it,he would have been crucified.

            The parliament has been dragged into a cul de sac of PC.Like it or lump it is is where we are,Labor did not have to play the silly game Abbott began,but they did, and here we all are.Whatever Gillard now says about Tim’s faux-up, she will lose a few more votes in this hypersensitive vote market.
            Remembering of course that Tim’s partner is also allowing churches to say and do discriminatory things,it is a real can-o-worms.

            Like

            • helvityni January 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

              Tim is not Abbott, Tim is not PM, he’s on the same level as Margie, they are partners of politicians, they are not politicians, ordinary people like you and me, and like Jeanette Howard was/is.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

                Helvi,
                And don’t you think that when ‘Margie’ is wheeled out to defend his view on women ‘she’ buys in?
                Do you really believe that when the PMs partner is speaking publicly (and because he is chosen for that status) he does not become more accountable for his words/actions than ordinary me/you?
                Do you believe that any PMs partner when in the public spotlight as the PMs partner is immune from any criticism?
                I don’t.
                I am arguing consistency of treatment.
                By that measure next time the coalition has a faux part moment by way of their partner,will you defend them too?

                It looks to me like like Tim is being micro managed, to create a media look that the religious gimps can handle.It also looks like he is uncomfortable in the spotlight.(Who can blame him) .More intense micro-managing will probably exacerbate that discomfort.He and Gillard knew what they were in for.
                This day had to come and there may be many more.It’s the same for both key players.
                There are people on both sides who are trigger happy when it comes to every single word spoken, and the MSM is only too willing to fan the flames.Them’s the breaks.

                Tim may have driven some men away from examination with his very words.He may have lost a few converts.

                Like

                • helvityni January 29, 2013 at 4:36 pm #

                  Sarkozy’s first wife had affairs, nobody blinked an eyelid on this mere bagatelle, here somebody is trying to do some good and is nailed for something trivial.He has apologized…

                  When we had alpacas when my sturdy strong vet could not come , he sent his slightly built female Thai partner instead; I was disappointed, not because I’m racist, but because it meant that I had to step in and do the heavy lifting. Size matters in certain jobs and/or activities…

                  Like

      • doug quixote January 29, 2013 at 7:17 pm #

        I agree entirely Helvi. The man was trying to suggest that “threatened” men seek out a female doctor with small fingers, and the obvious place to find them would be on a female Asian doctor.

        Hardly offensive, if perhaps in poor taste.

        This may qualify as the smallest storm in a teacup ever, as Abbott sounded off. Perhaps he should talk to Brandis, who actually send something sensible for a change.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

          The man himself disagrees with you, as does the charity/org involved.
          He apologised for his error of judgement.
          E R R O R.

          Julia will probably enlist Macklin’s media minders who will claim the original joke was inaudible.
          I know you two will not admit it,DQ but if Abbot et al, had said it, you would both be all over it like rash.

          I forgive you Tim.Now back in your box.

          Like

          • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 7:20 am #

            If Abbott had said it, it might be newsworthy : he is probably as threatened a male as any I have seen. All the boxing, footballing, running, triathloning etc are diversionary tactics as he struggles with his demons.

            “The man doth protest too much, methinks” as Shakespeare might have put it. Mind you, De Vere might have fancied Tony . . .

            Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

      Oh come now. I’m still predicting a marriage in the run up to the election and you’re saying “no chemistry”? I told Howes he should have employed actors….

      It may not be funny but it is true, about the small hands, that is!

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

        Looks like DQ and I will both get our wishes at the elction.

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-29/mcclelland-to-quit-politics/4489534

        and no more Gillard.

        I actually hope Timmy boy has the good fortune to find himself slipping into a pre-op stupor one day, only to look up and see a petite female Asian Dr smiling down at him.
        When he returns the smile he notices she has hands like Andre the Giant.

        Like

        • doug quixote January 29, 2013 at 7:23 pm #

          Oh Frabjous Day! McClelland to go, Crossin to go, Gillard by 10 seats! :)

          Now who else needs to be removed? Certainly Brough ought to consider withdrawing. Cory Bernardi should be encouraged to go elsewhere; half the opposition front bench ought to be removed. Probably after they lose again come October. :)

          (Extreme happiness; I’ll even forgive Hypo his nonsense!) :)

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

            Other side of DQs face, meet uproarious laughter……

            The queue to bet with you is growing.
            Odds?

            Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

            Perghaps John Howard will run in your seat?
            Win,win.You get a male and female refugee hater to run both aspects of your political life.You could even sing your fave chant over a schooner of cheap red wine, and coloured mini pickled onions on toothpicks”
            Lalalala we decide who, lalalalala,stop the boats, lalalalala,we’re full,lalalalala

            Like

            • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 7:35 am #

              I detest Howard in a way that you can only dream of, Hypo. The bastard made one good speech and his speechwriter wrote a few quotable lines.

              It seems that Morris Iemma may decide to run; Iemma would seem a good choice, and of course is minister material.

              Please be a little more polite, if you would.

              Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

          I’m sure you’ve made Doug’s day!

          And I’m sure you know that hands thing wouldn’t matter so much if you were anaesthetised. You’d probably just be extradited to Sweden.

          Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

        They would only wed for image and to appease the ACL.
        More smoke and mirrors.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

          You don’t think it mightn’t make the tabloids and Womens’ magazines slightly delirious? It’d be the best thing since the latest Royal Naked Romp!

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

            Lets make a concerted effort to manufacture a banner/headline for such an event.
            JW can put the cash she gets for selling it to the glossies,towards her site expenses, or her fave charity?

            Here’s my first one,old but good.
            Labor of Love.

            The reception should be bipartisan,I reckon.
            I think Greer could be the matron of honour.(She knows how to dress to lowlight Gillards assets.
            Julie Bishop a Bridesmaid(she always is)
            (Accompanied by the other stocking wearers,Pyne?Downer etc.
            Rudd can be best man,the speech in English and Chinese, with a suitable outburst thrown in.
            Perhaps Chris Uhlmann can do the hitching?
            A honeymoon on Manus or Nauru.
            MKR can knock up a cake, bright red icing!
            with two faces on the the top of it.(Both Gillards)

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

              Do you think the headline, “PM Honest Woman” would be too far fetched!

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

                Even the flip-irony of our traditional nicknames (blue for redheads,stretch for short people,Einstein for gimboids etc) would not justify that headline!
                I reckon Abbott would split his spleen over that banner.
                Going along with the Hollywood tradition we could call them Timmia.

                Like

  40. Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

    Sorry DQ,
    I didn’t have time to wrap it.

    10 seat victory to Julia you say?
    I guess we better all prepare for the biggest spendathon (pork barrelling) since Paris Hilton discovered online shopping.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

      DQs gift

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-29/labor-could-lose-18-seats3a-poll/4488670

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

        This is the effectiveness of divisive politics making it harder for anyone to succeed in Queensland and to some extent I also think WA while simultaneously hanging on to seats in the southern and central states.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

          I believe this model is likely to be the most accurate reflection of electoral reality.
          Large Nationwide polls are nowhere near as accurate as this will be.
          This analyses the votes (electorates) that change govts.How is Gillard doing in her own seat?What sort of back bencher (we know her back-stabbing skills are adroit) will she make?

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 29, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

            Well it probably beats casting runes or the oft touted belief that the whole thing pivots on Eden-Monaro. But it is unimaginative and Machiavellian to say the very least.

            It fairly screams “try and work out what the marginals will do.” Go ahead and pork barrel them to your hearts’ content and fuck the rest!

            What it doesn’t do and should when you’ve still the best half of the year to make up lost time is to encourage politicians to actually lead with policies and campaigns we can all get behind in a less divisive fashion than we have been these past few years.

            Like

      • doug quixote January 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

        Is that a credible poll? More of a rightist push-poll I suspect. Only one poll will count, come October. Labor by 10 seats.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

          It’s more credible than yours and close to my straw polls wherever I go.
          I agree that there are plenty of MSM right drifting push polls, but you will need to sound less desperate DQ to get labor to even maintain the status quo.
          And their disloyalty has set them up for a hard time getting any alliance outside the NSW right from hereon in.

          Labor will LOSE .Election/respect/face/good representatives/all forward momentum.
          What odds are you you offering on this fictional result?

          Like

          • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 7:43 am #

            Disloyalty? Gillard has abided by all her promises to the Independents. Even Wilkie has realised that what he sought was not possible.

            Gillard is honourable, honest, determined and resilient in ways the Noalition alternative wishes he was, from time to time, when it suits him.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 10:23 am #

              I politely offer you the song of the day, for your red headed beau.
              Pay attention to the first two lines.

              Frank Sinatra-My Way
              **************************************************
              She will confirm her imminent demise by enacting a special pre-arranged signal to her NSW puppet masters.If she wheels out an announcement about increased spending on education in the next week, you know she has surrendered.
              Make sure you don’t miss the signal DQ.

              Like

              • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

                As I suspected, the Poll IS bullshit. See Bob Ellis’ analysis and my comments.

                http://www.ellistabletalk.com/

                “The JWS Poll Fraud”

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

                  Bob Ellis is a faux labor hack like you,who believes Gillard could do no wrong.
                  The election is called for September.Prepare for a massacre.
                  (Didn’t you call 10 seats in October?

                  I believe it may have been you and/or Ellis who also called for a victory in NSW when they got massacred/smashed/pummelled, so I will say thanks to you, and g/bye to Gillard.
                  I reckon the sleazoids of the Libs will now expose a few skeletons,which won’t help your heroine one little bit.
                  Remember DQ,this is all faux-Labors (led by Gillard) doing.They (if anyone) are responsible for a coalition govt,should that arise.
                  What odds are you giving for your ten seat dream?

                  Like

                  • zerograv1 January 30, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

                    He asked for 20/1 – it seems he is not as confident as the certainty he predicted it to be.

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 1:55 pm #

                      I look fwd to bagging him till the end of time, over his back-downs/back-flips/mistakes/apologies.
                      If his mouth matched his fantasy he would be offering anyone NOT backing Gillard 100/1.
                      I hope Gillard even loses her own seat.That would be sweet serendipitous justice.

                      Apparently Bob Ellis does ‘independent’ analyses on polls,now.
                      Can you see the side splitting irony in that?
                      Goodbye Julia.Good riddance.

                      Like

                  • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

                    No, not so. I annoyed Bob by predicting a Labor disaster in NSW, He held out to the end, as did Kristina Keneally.

                    The indications are that her bravery prevented the total disaster which befell Queensland when Anna Bligh gave up.

                    Labor had to lose in NSW, they really did need a spell in opposition to allow a rebuilding process. They will be back in 2019.

                    Queensland? Who knows?

                    The “Lib sleazoids” have plenty on their own side, fuck all on federal Labor. They were getting ready to destroy Abbott, hence the election announcement :

                    1. to lock-in Abbott as “leader”;

                    2. to end the speculation and to get them to put up a policy or two.(one would be a start)

                    As for my prediction, I am still entitled to 20-1 right now. Get in quick. Could make your fortune from the bookies.

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 8:13 pm #

                      Pinch-o-salt on account of your emphatic statement about the RCOm being only a state matter.
                      It’s pretty obvious you cannot delineate a wish from nightmare from reality.
                      Faux-Labor is dead,unless Gillard goes.

                      Smarter people say so.Namely ordinary everyday voters.
                      Ironically the ones who will cost her job will be ‘real’ Labor people, not the sucker fish kind.

                      “With the last bottle shattered below, the wall that held them green bottles is crumbling now,DQ.
                      Stand aside or lose a limb.

                      Like

                    • doug quixote January 31, 2013 at 12:33 am #

                      It was and is a State matter! They had to refer powers under the Constitution. I answered that one before. And there may still be challenges to its validity.

                      If you think you know anything about the Constitution, show me which placitum of Section 51 gives the Commonwealth Government any power to investigate these matters whatsoever.

                      Put up or shut up.

                      Like

  41. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 2:01 pm #

    Hey DQ, could you please pass the following onto Bellis.
    His pro-Labor site seems to not want to upload criticism(surprise/surprise)

    For Uncle Bob
    “Well-Election called, election lost.
    DQ and Bob will start the next round of flooding as the desperation of their dreams turns to the sadness of reality around two and a half hours after the real polls close.
    I pity you both.But I pity Australia more.
    Labor under Gillard had a minuscule chance, but after stabbing Rudd in the back,they implemented every available coalition policy.
    We will end up with a coalition govt,installed by faux Labor.
    Total Fail.

    You’re just plain wrong about what the poll says Bob.Cute and loyal, but just plain wrong.If anything it is optimistic to the max.Labor are dead.”

    ***************************
    I won’t annoy Bob until after the election when I will be straight over to gloat and forensicly, eviscerate each single upside down platitude and erroneous prediction.

    No green bottles, hanging on the wall………

    Like

    • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

      You are probably banned. :)

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

        And why would Ellis do that, DQ?
        If multiple pseudos or trolling were the reason you’d be candidate?No?
        Given I could count my visits on one hand and posts on the amount of thumbs on one of them,what would his reason be?
        And frankly looking at the lonely fuckwits who fester the place, on a regular basis, and the grinding, fictional tosh he writes, I can only assume he is a masochist.

        A ban would be a wasted effort.
        I’d need to get aroused enough by actually seeing something interesting there,in the first place, to bother to participate enough to get banned.
        Guess what?
        Fakespeare is not everyone’s turgidity meter.
        As I said above,it harbours narcissistic trolls from both ends of the spectrum, who sock puppet away like maggots on a carcass.
        It should be called

        (un)S) table (S) talk

        Like

  42. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 2:13 pm #

    This is what the hypocrite said,what she meant as told by her actions is in brackets.

    “”For me, it’s not the upper most policy matter on my mind. I’m very focused on jobs (foreign ones for billionaire miners) , opportunity (for those who are not genuine refugees who come here by boat, and for those who are represented by narrow minded religious bigots) , fairness (even though I myself finished the Howard job of destroying our ‘fair go’ ethos) , on getting done the big things (like prattling endlessly about ‘thar ejjoookayshun revvolooshunn) that will shape this nation for the future.”

    Fail.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 30, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

      Sure maybe! But if you’re not part of the solution what are you?

      Come to think of it if you do read and post on Ellis’ site then who are you? I’ve looked in from time to time, when it’s not completely poisonous, and I’ve never seen anyone called Hypocritophobe posting there.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

        Nice try HG.
        I have only ever posted at Ellis once before(?) and used the same moniker as here.I have never posted there before until today,when the stupid password shit would not work despite several attempts.If you are insinuating I troll or have been there before than go fuck yourself.Ask Ellis himself.I only use one email address.I only have two in the entire cosmos.
        So you can bark up another tree.You Gillard supporters are so spineless.
        So put up or shut, you self righteous and verbose lying arse wipe..

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 30, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

          Chill Hypo,

          I don’t tend to change monikers either, but if you think that I’m insinuating that you’re a troll then bluster away. Knock yourself out abusing some other unseen individual on the internet. You might as well be screaming blue murder at an inanimate object for all the good that it might do.

          Think about me as somebody who’s happy to defend a set of ideas but who doesn’t give much of a damn about the disposable persona that the need for anonymity in my personal and professional life dictate that I use here.

          And when you’re done blustering I’ll thank you for what I believe to be an honest answer to a genuine question, put without any acrimonious intent, and then redirect your attention to the question you didn’t respond to….

          If you aren’t part of the solution then what are you?

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

            If you think another period of Gillardism is a solution then clearly I am not part of it.
            If you think because of that ‘I alone’, therefore, am responsible for Abbott getting the PM ship, then you need to stop inhaling DQ gas.
            The best thing Australians can do is what I intend to do, vote like they never have before.Interpret that however you want.
            And the reason I don’t post at Ellis is because it is a place prolific with professional trolls from both ends of the political spectrum.A narcissists playground.There’s more ego there than a James Bond marathon.
            They love to hate each other.It’s like a zoo.
            A place where people jack off in their minds to the sound of each others slurs and insults.
            Every now and then when the drugs wear off they seem to bore themselves shitless talking about conspiracy theories and dead ancient writers.
            DILLIGAF.
            The only upside is the world gets a free, safe glimpse through the windows of the rubber room.

            Like

            • helvityni January 30, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

              Hypo, I have never seen anyone under Hypocritophobe posting on Ellis, and I go there almost daily…
              Your pal Zero has been banned from there many a time, but she wants to come back…why humiliate yourself in that fashion…of course she uses quite few aliases there as well. Have you and Zero ever found anything lacking in Abbot…

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

                Abbott behaves as I expect him to.
                Gillard behaves as I would expect Abbott to.
                Do you see a problem there?
                Abbott is not the ring in PM.She is.
                *****************
                I recall visiting Ellis a few times after discussions held here about what was going on over there.

                I can see that for whatever reason you now have me pegged as someone unworthy, and you have taken to adding me to a category system, as you have done to zero.
                Why do you do that?
                Why do feel it is your role?
                It seems as simple as you also worship Julia and cannot stomach the thought that she has fooled you to.
                Is that it?It sure looks that way.
                It has bee gnawing away waiting to slip out,perhaps? Not all of us are that easily disconnected from our principles and beliefs, that we can forgive the 180 degree damage she has done to Labor.
                Reward her at the election if you must.It’s your conscience,not mine.
                ********************
                I think way back I posted there.It may have been called something else other than Tabletalk,not sure.
                (In the end I may not have even bothered posting .)
                It looks like a kindergarten where the fruit is laced with meth.
                It is boring,predictable goulash fare.
                Whether you or HG or anyone else is keeping track is purely your business.DILLIGAF.
                And for the record, just because I disagree with you(or anyone else,for that matter) I won’t be changing pseudos and coming back to attack you or troll like some sphincters do.

                Like

              • zerograv1 January 30, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

                Helvi, again you assume a) I post under psuedos, I never have, am comfortable telling that to the world (since its true) but note its a bit of an obsession of yours and appear to be very well versed in how it all works….is this pot, kettle, black? b) You forget, Im not fan of Abbott either

                Like

                • helvityni January 30, 2013 at 6:48 pm #

                  Two obvious lies there; keep doing what you do best, talk to yourself among your many aliases, you are not banned for nothing , are you?

                  Like

                  • zerograv1 January 30, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

                    Fantasise all you like Helvi, be my guest (For fear of boring ohers I wont need to repeat my statement again)…Im half tempted to post on Bob Ellis blog just to prove you wrong but cant be bothered entering your childish little sniping argument. Can’t you add something productive to the discussion for a change? You really are pretty tiresome. I tell you what post something of decent question or discussion point and I’ll even answer it respectfully, or do you just want to keep sulking? The choice is yours.

                    Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 30, 2013 at 4:46 pm #

              I agree with you about some of the characters on Bob’s blog they’ve been really odious in the past. I think there’s a whole succession of them who’ve been the same person. And that person seems to viscerally hate me for doing that same thing I’ve done with you today. I feel like they’re not trolling so much as their egos are just way out of control. You can’t interrogate any issues with them because the mere inconvenient suggestion of disrupting their apple cart with reasoning very nearly makes them explode.

              Anyway, if you really think that the solution to Labor’s problems is to get rid of Gillard by replacing her with Abbott I just plainly can’t believe that. I’ll tell you what though I’ll give you about eight and a half months to figure it out. :)

              Personally I think changing some of the policy directions might be a lot better than simply shuffling the deckchairs by changing leaders. But I’d still be better able to see other names put up to displace Gillard from within Labor ranks than I would to hear you opine that Abbott is in any way a solution to anything!

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

                Ellis obviously likes it that way then?
                Enabling ‘indifference’ so he can play with his true peers.

                ********************************
                Unless either party changes leaders,nothing changes my position.
                Should the Libs change they would still need a little thing called policy.
                Like I continually say,it is about the big picture.
                It seems to take both majors a hung parliament to see one.
                Sadly I don’t think the earth can wait that long,given the frequency of HPs.
                I must say the current one was doing OK till Gillard went all right wing and Abbott became the hate-enabler.
                Perhaps without them both, Australia can leap out of the 1950’s.
                I’d remind readers to do a head counnt on coal mine expansions and environmentally approved coal fired power sattions proposed or built under this govt.
                If you do it simultaneously as you sing their praises for introducing a carbon tax, you may see the futility of that wasted vote and legislation.
                And when done you may want to look at how much money the MRRT has dragged in, except you can’t.
                Then you can explain to me the little things like a dalliance with the ACL.
                Yep, they are surely a workers party, in 2013.On what planet we are yet to find out.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm #

                  All that but still we’re not getting to the heart of what it might really be like under Abbott.

                  The mining tax stands every chance of disappearing along with any hope of action on climate change or reprieve from regressive stonewalling against gay marriage, ongoing asylum seeker abuse etc…

                  As for dalliances with the ACL try full scale love in, and don’t even mention workers unless you mean those South African miners Gina keeps reminding us work for two dollars a day!

                  I really think you need to take a long hard look at what Abbott really means for Australia before you return to basting Julia because lesser of two evils as she might be the margin is far from inconsiderable, and you’re just not showing me that you recognise that.

                  By all means wish her in a narrowly held coalition with Greens as means to force her, once again as with the Carbon Tax, to actually do something useful. She did it! Would Abbott have? No Frigging Way!

                  And please do remember I’m talking purely policy here, Doug may like Gillard, I’m not particularly enamoured of her style in terms of where I feel her convictions lie. The things she seems to regard as expendable in policy hurt my sensibilities as a progressive as much as anyone’s, and it isn’t that I’d mind losing the political battles so much as it just doesn’t seem she’s prepared to fight them at all. There needs to be that sense of leading with values on the issues before anyone’s going to regard her personal leadership as a valued one.

                  You may on the other hand argue that to some degree Howard, and possibly his acolyte Abbott, would take a different approach, its just that the values they both hold would lead us in a deplorable direction. I don’t think that can be ignored!

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

                    “All that but still we’re not getting to the heart of what it might really be like under Abbott.

                    Howard, and possibly his acolyte Abbott, would take a different approach, its just that the values they both hold would lead us in a deplorable direction.”

                    The answer you cannot seem to grasp is staring you in the face.That scenario you describe, is the Gillard status quo.
                    All the crap about how bad Abbott is is based on speculation.When you place it up against the filth that Gillard has fostered,it is irrelevant.
                    I refuse to reward demonstrated hate or fear manufactured terror.
                    Neither gets my vote.

                    Numbers below 1 are wasted on your ballot paper HG.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 30, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

                      So you’re actually supporting Abbott as far as I’m concerned, and we’ll have to disagree violently on that score.

                      You ought to know that if you don’t want to Donkey vote preferences do unfortunately need to be filled in. And if you don’t appreciate that part of the electoral system then frankly that it doesn’t surprise me that your attitude to electing a government is the intellectual equivalent of better the Devil you DON’T know!

                      Like

                    • doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

                      Well said, HG. I think we can also say that it’s not all about Hypocritophobe. Did someone mention ego??

                      Like

                  • zerograv1 January 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm #

                    “what it might really be like under Abbott.

                    The mining tax stands every chance of disappearing along with any hope of action on climate change or reprieve from regressive stonewalling against gay marriage, ongoing asylum seeker abuse etc…” ….and this is different from what Gillard has currently given us how exactly?

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 12:14 am #

                      You can’t honestly not know the answer to those questions!

                      Gillard created the Carbon Tax albeit not entirely off her own bat. On this of all policies Abbott’s position is more clearly the opposite.

                      On the MRRT half an initiative that she watered down from the version Rudd was looking to install is still better than nothing at all, which is Abbott’s position.

                      On social policy in general anyone who doesn’t think that Abbott would prefer to undo progress such as we have struggled to continue is simply kidding themselves.

                      Next thing you know you lot will be trying to tell me that WorkChoices is dead!

                      Like

  43. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    @ HG
    Here we go again.

    You misread my post entirely, and frankly it is becoming habitual.
    What I said(please pay attention)

    “Numbers below 1 are wasted on *YOUR* ballot paper HG.

    You = the person who owns this Hudson Godfrey pseudonym.

    Not ‘your’ as in ‘everyone’.
    Clear?

    I am ONLY in favour of numbering EVERY box.
    Those who do not, don’t earn the right to participate in arguments about the future of the nation.
    How you conclude that I am supporting Abbott is something only a Labor hack, psychosis,drugs or a heat wave could account for.God forbid that Labor people should eventually have a gutsful.I gave Gillard every chance and even after the first few strwewn hurdles,but she kept running to the right and knocking them over.
    Now can you understand that I am entitled to REFUSE to change my principles for her, so you figure it out.You have 8 odd months to hypnotise/bribe/erase memories of a million plus people like me.
    And FFS sake if you choose to jump at shadows go for it.Gillard and Abbott are equally bad. One pretends to be on our side and is emphatically not.
    The other is just emphatically not.

    Let’s see how it pans out.I predict the exit polls will all say the same thing.
    Forced to abandon a party who abandoned their loyal followers.
    This will look like QLD all over again, and you can blame Gillard and the NSW right.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 30, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

      Hypo,

      I’m not going to go through this blow by blow again.

      How it makes that much difference to your meaning that the word “your” could be taken two different ways I’m not quite sure. So no not at all clear, but let’s try and move on anyway shall we.

      It appears to me that the crux of what you argue it that Gillard is just as bad as Abbott. Whereas I’ve offered several examples as to why I think there is a substantial difference that can’t be ignored just because you feel that you’ve had your fill and now want to punish Labor for not living up to your ideals or mine for that matter.

      Why it wouldn’t matter to you that Abbott vows to dump the Carbon Tax and what’s left of the MRRT. Or that rather than standing still relative to where the ACL would like us to be, Abbott would actually be working to undo progress.

      These are actual real questions about consequences of actions I think aren’t appropriate out of mere petulance when Gillard fails to dance to every tune on your dance card. Of course we’d probably be happy to see the back of her if we had any alternative. Got one? No! Well then what about a vote for the Greens then? Is that arguably better than Abbott? No? Really?

      At the end of the day given eight months or eight years we’re not going to be able to use logic to dissuade others from a concerted belief in some false position that assiduously denies all the facts.

      Maybe that’s where you and I differ. Despite what you’ve written from time to time, I think you’ll find I’m far more loyal to my reasoning as to what represents the lesser of two evils than I am to Labor or any other political party. I never joined one and I doubt very much now that I ever will. But I do know that this weird preference you seem to have for the Devil you don’t know is more than a little unsettling. If too many voters thought like you then poor though I think their logic might be the conclusion you draw that the rest of the country could wind up like Queensland might well happen, and it would be disastrous.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 10:06 am #

        HG,
        It is crucial you and your side kick get this bit.

        I always number the boxes.ALWAYS.
        I stated that ‘to not do so negates an individuals rights to participate politically beyond that point’.
        I say that YOU the person, sees only two scenarios so the numbers beyond ONE(1) are a total waste.I hope your pulsating intellect has time to digest that at some time before the lights go down.Why you feel the need to try to continually re-interpret MY words is something only a clinically qualified person would know.

        At which point did you deliberately ignore my voting intentions(at this stage) and why.
        As for Gillard not dancing my tune,that is not the issue.The issue is that she constantly dances to Abbott’s tune and yet you(a) refuse to acknowledge or condemn her with any vigour, (b) somehow conceive that it is OK to reward policies which pre-Gillard you abhorred.
        I know there is no hope for some with regards to Gillard,but your attitude is like an imprinted mouse in one of those wheels.Trying to run away from your fate but remaining on the one spot is a cruel deception.You claim there is a vast difference between Gillard and Abbott but you refuse the inclusion of the evidence which paints her as the right wing Doppelganger she really is.
        Good luck with getting her over the line.Her lurid history and vile political actions will eat away at her for the next 8 months.
        It’s so sad that despite an avalanche of evidence here where I have told you emphatically, over and over again, that I intend to reward neither Gillard or Abbott, you still stoop to bullshit about that.
        I (who could) can’t argue with someone who does that,no matter how ‘humanist’ they CLAIM to be.
        If only you could read and comprehend as prolifically as you write.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 10:20 am #

          Congratulations Hypeo, you know how to fill out a ballot. As do I. I really can’t see why you’re obsessing about this but if you want to argue that any third party can actually win, as opposed to grabbing the balance of power in the Senate, then run it up the flagpole and we’ll see who’s being unrealistic then.

          Yes Gillard isn’t ideal. But seriously, since you appear to be asking me, permission to hate denied!

          I don’t even hate Abbott. I think we just have to compare the pair and make a sensible choice between the lesser of the two evils we’re faced with. I’ve asked you the questions and frankly you’ve tried assiduously to avoid them with the worst kind of bluster more than once now. So at some point this stops being a reasonably productive exposition of ideas and I think we’d probably better stop.

          PS. Note to Jennifer someone’s probably getting a bit peeved about now and I hope it isn’t me….

          Like

          • zerograv1 January 31, 2013 at 10:53 am #

            Lets look at the other options if you don’t beleive either candidate is PM material (which is my position) 1) Vote for an Independant in your seat 2) Vote for a minor party or obscure minority group 3) Get your name marked off at the booth but elect to not enter a 1 on your ballot paper -effectively disenfranchising yourself but still expressing your preference for the candidates 4) Stand for election yourself …….as far as I can see these are the only alternative choices available….Now given all your stated posittons in this debate which would you choose? Personally Im swinging between 1 (if I can find a merit worthy candidate) and 3.NOTE: I would vote ALP if they dumped Gillard but that wont happen anytime soon. I want a Labor leader like Hawke or Whitlam that actually DOES something, not just flap around like a flag when the pressure gets too much…or pander to minority whack jobs like the greens (Is that delusional chikhead Hanson Young standing this time?). Historically none of our PM’s have been perfect but on the basis of achievements that actually matter and make a difference it seems we had leaders that effected beneficial changes for the Australian population as a whole previously…..think GST, Medicare, Australian Regional Development programs, abolition of conscription, floating of the Aussie dollar , introduction of competition to the banking sector, Hawkes accord which dramatically reduced workplace striking which was seriously hurting workers, companies and the economy….you get the idea – they thought BIG – neither Abbott or Gillard have anything other than boutique policies like pink batts and other kiddie stuff to offer, no vision, no leadership, no real intiatives or ideas of worth, they just appear to be gravy train types – there for the ride and benefits but without the performance to justify the perks. They are like kids arguing at play lunch in the school yard over trifles and that is becoming reflected in the tone of the posts on this blog too. Hell even Xenophon at least is running on a socially worthwhile platform even though I dont like the guy much. Anyway, which way would you vote if you could pencil in your ideal candidate for PM (ala US presidential election style)?

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:06 am #

              zero,
              That brick-wall you’re banging your scone on would look a lot better with graffiti all over it.As it stands, it makes a good fence to keep the logic out.
              I see it has a sign on it.What’s that?
              Oh yeah, “Selective Reading Area-Accuracy Optional”

              Like

              • zerograv1 January 31, 2013 at 11:08 am #

                I didnt even understand this post, what are you trying to say?

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:15 am #

                  You won’t get through.
                  He’s not capable of doing what ‘he’ demands others do.And he puts words in the mouths of others,or cherry picks what others have written to find an alternative tangent to dilute/divert the discussion.Very disappointed.Up until about a week ago I would have said he was fair and balanced in his discussions.It seems I was wrong.

                  Good luck.You may need a jack hammer or a Yes/no procedure.

                  Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:18 am #

              There’s a lot of thoughtful stuff in there that I’m probably skipping over, but essentially if you’re in a really safe seat one way or t’other then maybe a protest vote is on the cards. Otherwise I always take the responsibility to elect the lesser of two evils seriously even if I rather dislike both candidates. And for what it’s worth I tend to ignore how to vote cards in terms of how I preference.

              Like

              • zerograv1 January 31, 2013 at 11:33 am #

                Ive always ignored how-to-vote cards since I moved to the NT from Victoria back in 1994. The electorates are small enough to personally get to meet and know all the candidates prior to voting and not just rely on media spin or tv opinion to assess their voteworthiness. It makes for a far more interesting campaign since you get a reasonable amount of conversation time to get to know at a closer level who you are voting for, in that context How to Vote cards are a waste of time since come election day I have a much more researched idea of the person behind the name…..and I talk to all sides too even if I could never see my self voting for them just so I feel I have placed my vote with care and thought. But as far as the federal election goes, neither party has anything much to offer me, so although I reserve the right to change this should decent policy suddenly appear neither major will get my vote his time.

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:39 am #

                  I still have the articles and AEC spreadsheets etc from the last election.
                  I examine how to vote options in conjunction with as much ammo as I can.
                  It’s surprising how living with and for your principles is secondary for many.The same ‘many’ who whinge and moan about politicians usually just take the laziest option.

                  By the way perhaps the following may help voters choose.
                  ********************************

                  IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT from the AEC regarding the coming Federal election:

                  Despite and because of , the obvious destruction of Labors core values and principles ,under Gillard and her NSW right owners, upon studious
                  recommendations from the learned Doug Quixote,Hudson Godfrey and others, we the AEC as recognise the following as alerted to :

                  Anyone who doesn’t vote for Gillard is voting for Abbott
                  Gillard can do no wrong
                  No-one is entitled to exercise their right to vote unless it means voting 1 for Labor
                  No matter how you vote, you must vote Labor.
                  Julia good,Abbot bad.
                  There are only two possible scenarios, no matter how people vote, therefore please chant and vote as follows.
                  Julia,Julia,Julia,Julia,Julia….bla,bla,bloody bla
                  __________________
                  We the AEC have therefore decided to ‘customise’ this election and all balllot papers to deliver one single result.We hope you enjoy election day.
                  All correspondence to be directed to the marketing Dept, care of the individuals named above.

                  Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:58 am #

                  Fair enough! I’d just be hoping that the minor parties and independents in your neck of the woods aren’t a pack of hopping mad miscreants then.

                  Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:02 am #

            Your certainly a devious one aren’t you, HG?

            You said recently in your lecturing me about how I vote,compared to you and that i needed educating on that score.
            Quote
            “You ought to know that if you don’t want to Donkey vote preferences do unfortunately need to be filled in. And if you don’t appreciate that part of the electoral system then frankly that it doesn’t surprise me that your attitude to electing a government is the intellectual equivalent of better the Devil you DON’T know!”

            and now you accuse me of,
            Obsessing.
            Pot/kettle/black.
            BINGO, the game of hypocrisy is certainly your forte.

            You truly are a coward,HG.I have repeatedly outlined my voting intentions, and the possible alternatives of voting patterns if the electorate uses more of their brain and heart than you.
            Humanists don’t spend all day rewriting history by way of fabricated projections and pure bullshit,like you do.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:43 am #

              Devious Eh, said the spider.

              Please don’t think anyone follows or cares for your ramblings about how to vote. You number the f**king thing from one down to whatever in order of preference. How friggin’ hard can it be?

              You on the other hand seem to have some cunning plan to vote in such a way that might rock Gillard to her very core based on years of planning and quiet contemplation of her utter two faced calumny in offending against some core Labor principles. Never mind that you’d be installing a bloke who straightforwardly dedicates his very existence to uprooting Labor principles root and stem.

              Why accuse me of lacking courage when you fail to take responsibility for having to make an uneasy choice between the lesser of two evils astonishes me. You’re retreating into petulance and insults like a child that’s had its dummy stolen.

              I told you that we weren’t about to agree and I think nothing has changed. Would you like to drop it for the moment and come back in nine months? Granted that if Gillard loses to Abbott then I may still think the Australian people made a poor choice, but at least by then we can probably join forces against Abbott at the very real risk of my reminding you about these warnings.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

                Gillard and her actions/string pullers will insatll Abbott.Period.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

                  I disagree with your analysis.

                  Oh wait there isn’t any.

                  Like

  44. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

    @doug quixote January 30, 2013 at 8:14 pm #
    Ego?

    Says you who needs two pseudos to corral a position, when you begin to lose it.

    It’s about the death throes of Gillard.She set the filthy agenda.And you are her number one sales-boy.

    Like

  45. Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    Hudson said to zero up there(no reply available below it)

    “Next thing you know you lot will be trying to tell me that WorkChoices is dead! ”

    Going on Gillards form I’d say it is sitting waiting to be launched by her, under another name.Watch this space.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 10:23 am #

      That’s not how it works though is it. In the never ending slide to the right Gillard offers Nauru and Abbott wants TPV’s.

      If she offered WorkChoices I suppose Abbott would want indentured labour, and if she gave him that them Slavery.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 10:52 am #

        You’re doing it again.Pitting what is against what might be.
        Gillard has serious form for instilling Abbott’s policies.
        Given her ‘permission to import slaves’ policy, and her abandonment of the bottom rung of welfare, do you seriously think she is not going to fiddle with this facet of law?Really?

        “Oh who to to be enslaved by,that is the question.”

        Tweedles everywhere.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:12 am #

          Nah! You’re only kidding yourself there, Of course we have to compare what is with what may be its in the nature of the choice we’re always faced with come election time. It’s why I said “lesser of two evils” and question the choice you seem to want to make in favour of the “Devil you don’t know”.

          Nor is your logic improving as it becomes more hyperbolic. I think you need to back those claims about ‘permission to import slaves’. If it’s to do with a certain miner whose should remain anonymous, so we’ll just call her Gina for the moment, then do you really think Abbott wouldn’t have done the same thing with a higher number and possibly a small subsidy into the bargain.

          See that’s your problem here in arguing that Gillard is worse simply because coming from her side of politics she ought to know better. It may bruise you sensibilities to see Labor’s name alongside some of those policies, but it simply isn’t objectively true that Abbott wouldn’t do more damage.

          I just cannot grant permission to allow that kind of damage to occur out of spite.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:17 am #

            Good Lord,all roads lead to Abbott.
            You are seriously incapable of anything other than seeing one obstacle to good governance.Poor you.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:54 am #

              Okay So if all roads DON’T lead to Gillard or Abbott what alternative are you Hypo actually proposing?

              Spit it out in clear straightforward terms. I will brook no riddles, and no obfuscation. You have been asked before and the conversation simple circles back on itself.

              I’ve said maybe another Labor led minority government with the balance of power held by independents and (of the minor parties it could really only be) the Greens.

              But have you taken me up on the idea? Nope! because all you seem to care about at this stage is how much you despair of and disdain Gillard. And it’s a conversation killer!

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

                And my posts confirm my intention,should care to digest (for once.)
                Don’t you think,though, that the electorate (and the Greens/Indies) might be a bit wary of delivering such an alliance given Gillards deals and betrayals?
                I mean what would the level of trust be these days?
                25%?30%? Certainly not much more than that.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

                  I have to confess I’ve very little time for those who will tell me to go and do my own research into matters that they’re invested in. If you want to persuade me you do the work. I’m not interested in digesting a mountain of fibre to extract a milligram of nutrition. Just spit it out!

                  As for the Greens/Independents, they made a call at the last election knowing that, even at 30% or so, their trust level for the parties that basically deny climate change was pretty well stuck at around around 0%. I think the same problem still exists, and I just can’t the coalition in a Minority government with independents much less Greens.

                  Like

                  • zerograv1 January 31, 2013 at 12:33 pm #

                    Its a very real option that the outcome is a minority LNP government. Having to deal with independants wont be their longsuit and it will make a very interesting (although possibly unworkable) minority government for the right sie of politics who may welll have to forgo some policy in concession to the centre. They will probably fight tooth and nail but house of reps votes are a daily reality they will have to deal with. I wont be completely surprised either if this is the election result given a) LNP is leading in the polls b) JG only just scraped home last time and clearly isnt as popular as she was then c) The Electorate seems to have a reasonably large bloc of voters perpared to shun the majors and give an independant a go for “safety” reasons….I cannot at this stage see either ALP or LNP forming an outright majority in the lower house so maybe this is a very real scenario come election count day. Can anyone imagine a LNP/Green coalition? That is the only other option and I for one cant imagine it working long.

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

                      zero,
                      I have to agree (and have repeatedly stated it is a very likely scenario) that a seriously likely outcome is a coalition minority govt.
                      (Obviously with gratitude from the coalition to Gillard for her diligent work)
                      Of course,repeated, subsequent failed coalition legislation may also enable a DD and with the right marketing and MSM, support that minority may turn into a majority with senate control.
                      This is the biggest nightmare faux-Labor risk thrusting on us.They know it, and yet they still insist on backing their Trojan Horse.
                      The best case scenario is faux Labor,devoid of Gillard, a complete overhaul of the movers and shakers (ASAP) and a massive swing to the Greens.If Labor is to ever re-embrace its former self it must be reborn first.A Green landslide allows them the opportunity to do that.
                      A bubble and squeak election result will destroy most of faux-Labor,which is obviously a good thing_BUT_a pity that such an outcome takes out the true Labor value types.

                      Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

                      (Forgot to say) Coalition AND Greens alliance is VERY unlikely, but Abbott said everything but his arse was for sale.Personally, as I just said, they’d more likely try to introduce something totally unpalatable first,to force a double dissolution and get Murdoch to sell their way into control of both houses.That plan will be on their books in any case.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

                      Yep! All present and correct. Not sure Gillard’s personal popularity is quite the problem Abbott’s is, but I’d rather talk policy than personalities if it were just up to me.

                      I think we do start to get down to brass tacks as we find ourselves working towards some kind of acknowledgement that in our democracy just over 50% is what it takes to form government. So we’re naturally going to gravitate towards two major parties in the parliament.

                      And I think to be fair people in this country aren’t used to three cornered contests in the lower house and do expect to elect a Prime Minister from one of the majors. Granted that we think of the coalition in the singular.

                      Trying to avoid the conclusion, barring leadership changes, that getting rid of Gillard ushers in Abbott seems to me to be a very risky high-wire act at the best of times

                      Let’s look at the facts Wilkie’s seat wouldn’t be what you might call safe. The other two Independents Oakeshott and Windsor have I think variously said they may not run, though let’s not write them odd just yet. And Adam Bandt is likewise not entirely safe in his seat of Melbourne. So without wanting to exasperate people for the sake of it, I do think that the harder task for the voter is to say where this merry band of Greens and Independents we’re hoping to hand the balance of power in the lower house to are supposed to come from?

                      It’s just that the difference between choosing to vote anyone but Gillard or Anyone but Abbott as opposed to voting anyone but either is somewhat pragmatically challenged. If all one is really doing is registering the desire to protest as opposed to making the kinds of choices that relate to who’s actually likely to govern us then maybe it isn’t something one has thought through properly.

                      Like

                    • zerograv1 January 31, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

                      Except you are forgetting that it was a general disillusionment with the majors that lead precisely to the outcome we got last time!! They werent happy with Gillard’s tactics, werent ready for Tony so voted elsewhere in sufficent numbers to get the result we got. And in my reading the disillusionment factor of voters hasnt budged an inch. Now Im not pointing to specific independants like you are – we wont know the front runners in each seat until the election nears in any case, but I’m betting that we may get a significant enough number of unaligned voters again which may yield a surprise independant here and there. Katter for instance has traction in NQ and outback Qld (although not anywhere else), the Greens may yet surprise us with a 2nd lower house rep. I think the incumbency factor, while not guarateeing re-election will certainly assist the other independants alhough I agree most are line ball. I’d count on at least 1 getting back though. And who is to say similar campaigns wont be conducted elsewhere that play on the disillusionment factor?. One thing I do know is that appeals to deliver a majority from either major party leader will most likely turn those already considering straying, even further off. I’ll wait until I examine last elections figures in detail before making further predictions as to outcomes however a minority result is certainly not to be dismissed as a possible outcome.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 5:00 pm #

                      Oh indeed I think we’ll be promised the known world. But I’ll give you one tip, that if Abbott gets up on his hind legs and actually mouths the words “Stop the Boats” like he did last election I think he’s politically a dead man walking. People REALLY don’t want to hear that issue any more.

                      Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

                    FMD,
                    Why do I bother?

                    To do research you’d need skills you have willingly abandoned.Reading,comprehension,revision,an open mind and cognition.
                    What you are saying is that you have missed/and/or ignored all my previous attempts to get through your thick head,my voting intentions, and then you have the sloth/arrogance to ask me to review what you rejected and reintroduce it to you?
                    No deal.You have a logic filter HG, and it is blocked.Worse you have a narrow arrogance whereby if it exposes you, you look away.What a hypocrite you have become and are.Accusing others of failing to support their position.

                    “Selective humanist.”
                    Nice work.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

                      Apart from trying to tell me that I can’t read. Good on you! Shall I tell you again how to write?

                      You’ve been given a lifeline to make your case succinctly and you refused it.

                      I’m not inclined to your view that it is a requirement of intellectual honesty to regard attacking the Prime Minister as the only noble position in any political dialogue. Saying she sometimes gets it right even when uttered begrudgingly is more plausible than taking the view that in every case short of the personification of absolute perfection we’re compelled to jettison leaders (preferably with the assistance of an ejection seat) into oblivion upon their merest failure to meet our exacting standards. The test is somewhat less onerous than that. Whether you like it or not, they just have to be better than all the alternatives…..Alternatives of which you have provided exactly Sweet F**k All!

                      Words to the effect that you might wish to urinate or vacate the commode, come to mind!

                      Like

  46. Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 2:48 pm #

    REPLY To
    hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    You’re amazingly selective aren’t you?
    Do you vaguely recall what happened to a lazy,aloof and arrogant John Howard when he wore out his welcome by failing HIS own people?
    And why and how?
    So tell me oh political guru, what makes you think that;
    (a) We are not heading for the same outcome for Gillard
    and (b) that voters are not(will not be) entitled to mete out the same said punishment.
    I’d hasten to add that apart from Rudd’s time,we still slave away under the policies of John Howard since his departure, which seems to be dandy for you.
    Of course I realise that this is all based on ‘your’ own in house modelling of what you readily admit are your ‘suspicions’ of coalition policies,which as you point out are unknown. Yet you continue to weave a three dimensional fear blanket based on the modelling of what torture Abbott ‘will’ inflict on us.
    “Never mind the clear and present danger kiddies,look out for the terror of darkness.”
    Me? I’ll just keep shouting with the rest of the mob in the vain hope that Labor get the message before it’s too late.Come ballot day that’s exactly what it will be.

    And heres your rub,

    You just keep selling the vote Gillard cards HG, and hope (pray/beg)for a landslide her way, because you know(you just know) that under different numbers she will turn all warm and cuddly and round up all the Christian nutbags and lock them up and release the refugees, and replace all the solar rebates,and tell America to piss off, and be nice to the poor, and allow gay marriage, etc etc.
    Dream on.The die is set.She is a female Howard.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

      I agree that every politician wears out their welcome sooner or later. And we replace them with someone better when a decent offer comes along. So far in Gillard’s case I could imagine a different and better Labor leader, and I can even see Turnbull getting a run if his party would only back him. so far no such offer has been made to us so I simply and regretfully say that I’d narrowly prefer to give Gillard a second term, and hope that between now and the election she does in fact do something more to persuade me shaky as her current foundations clearly are.

      Like

  47. Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    Well,well.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/craig-thomson-arrested/4493722

    Notwithstanding Wixxi’s IA coverage earlier in the year, and all the seedy K Jackson baggage, this is likely to fuel Abbott’s furnace no end.Julia best pray to her newly acquired Christian God that none of any impending mud, sticks, if there are any gulty verdicts brought.
    150 charges of fraud is ine hell of a payload.
    DQ?
    Is this another coalition conspiracy?
    Storm in a teacup?

    Sadly .It looks like a gift horse.
    If I were Labor and re-election was the game I would be sending an apology to Rudd post-haste and cranking up Plan B.

    Like

    • doug quixote January 31, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

      If you haven’t noticed, Thomson is not now a Labor MP.

      As for the charges, I think that after wasting hundreds if not thousands of hours of police time in investigating, they had to lay charges or be an even greater laughing stock.

      It is time for the prosecutors to put up or shut up; the opposition should simply shut up, or risk contempt of court.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 9:27 pm #

        So do you still support Craig Thomson?
        Do you think he should stand down?
        If not why not and when is it approriate?
        Would you ask him to step down if he held Abbott in power?
        (The last one is rhetorical)
        Are you 100% certain (as the inside numbers Labor man) that the election date will remain the same,now?
        Can you see this event changing your 10 seat fantasy?

        BTW HG,
        (I know you will be reading this) No I am not Rudd or anyone close to him, but I think you should treat DQ as Richo.He is pusillanimous enough to fit the bill, and then some.

        Like

        • doug quixote February 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

          Richo sold out years ago. I did wonder what you meant, as it made no sense whatsoever to call me Richo. Perhaps just another of your typos – hey, that’d be a good pseudo for you : Typo!

          pusillanimous : do you even know what it means? (Hint : look at a dictionary). I doubt anyone else would apply that word to me, even in error. Any takers? Please sign up below :)

          Do I still support Thomson? Yes I do. He is at very least innocent until proven guilty. Umpteen hours of investigative time by various authorities and the police has eventually resulted in charges. I will be very surprised if he is ever convicted of anything.

          How can a member of parliament be made to stand down? A member can only be deprived of his right to be in parliament through section 44 of the Constitution, which as far as relevant requires that a member be convicted of a crime.

          No, not even if he kept Abbott in office (avert!)

          As he is not a Labor member of parliament even his conviction (very unlikely) would be completely irrelevant to the election.

          Your turn, Typo. :)

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe February 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm #

            Well DQ, that’s interesting,I guess.
            Obviously you think the election date will stay as is,which is where we separate.
            I honestly cannot see Gillard managing to survive.
            Tony is smiling too much of late, so I think the smear king hit is probably waiting for a friendly MSM to deliver.
            My judgement is simply based on tactics,MSM and inevitability.
            I stick to the view that Labor is mortally wounded under Gillard.The best she can hope for is a sympathy factor when the going gets tough.But I seriously doubt there are enough forgiving souls left.Not everyone(by a long shot) is dedicated to the figure head as you seem to be.
            It won’t go unnoticed that yesterday she denied get fwd notice of the arrest, which on top of the cynical time she chose as the election, and her demand for a campaign starters gun when she says so,all of which gnaw away at her crumbling relationship with the retreating support base.

            I know we hear that only one poll counts, but I doubt that anyone has won from as low as she is likely to be in a fortnight and beyond.Watch this space.

            How about pussillanirat?

            You can call me Typo if you want.That way, it kind of licenses me to avoid the spell check whenever I reply to you.

            Like

  48. Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

    Look at the number of comments submitted below;

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-30/green-gillard-brings-the-waiting-game-to-an-end/4491478

    Have the ABC Mods deliberately unleashed the hounds of hell?

    **********************************
    Rudd is Labor’s ONLY chance now.The longer they delay, the more time they will spend in oblivion.That is the harsh political reality, and has nothing to do with Thomson getting convicted.The charging alone has dramatically changed the game.
    If a by-election happens before the federal election Gillard is even more toasted than she is now.

    Wake up Labor.

    Like

    • zerograv1 January 31, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

      Rudd wont run, in fact the announcement early almost guarantees it, Also the ALP i losing two known Rudd supporters so even if he did challenge he is less likely to win than previously. But I truly doubt Kevin will run – the PMship is there to lose and Im sure Kevin doesnt want to blacken his record, but given Gillards record I think she’s less concerned about what people think of her otherwise we would have seen a lot more ethical and stateswoman like behaviour from her instead of the pie fight she calls leadership

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

        Like I said,their ONLY feasible chance.
        Thomson now becomes her (and faux-Labor’s) baggage till election day.
        Other than Rudd I doubt Labor has one single individual that (a) the populous would install, or (b) is thick skinned enough to want to be the shortest term leader, who still lost the un-losable election to Tony Abbott.
        That will remain Gillards badge.
        Some of Labors shining lights will probably also fade into oblivion.I lived through WA Inc.The sense of de ja vu is palpable..Carmen Lawrence would probably agree.Now is not the time for pride.It’s the time to release all skeletons and seriously consider Plan B.
        Gillard and the men who installed her will be the last to pull the pin.I don’t think I have ever heard her confirm her allegiance to Labor at any time since her installation, so it’s obvious she says herself as way bigger than the party or its members/supporters.
        Zero, I would also say that despite the September election date nominated,anything can happen from here.
        (including another change to the date)
        The 150 charges will change the event horizon.

        Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 6:30 pm #

        So that’s what it boils down to after three days of badgering the witness it finally emerges that yous’e are all Rudd supporters!

        Another leadership coup on a sitting PM? Really how does that make it better. Are we, and by this I mean the electorate at large, actually so cynical as to admit ambition trumps convictions in politics these days?

        So Labor sacked the guy because he was incompetent and had an abrasive, some said dictatorial leadership style, and they’d excuse reinstalling him how?

        Even if you thought he was better than Gillard, which he was on certain issues, the party would be better with a fresh face. And frankly the only one of those in town I can think might be taken seriously is Bob Carr.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 6:54 pm #

          Umm excuse me I am a Labor supporter.It just so happens than despite his legitimacy some non-caucas union thugs plotted his removal.
          I think when you can show me the democracy of a sticth up,I’ll swallow your bait.
          The ‘evidence’ of his personality is really convenient,isn’t it HG?
          Oh that’s right DQ said so.

          Given the opposition and media we have,
          If you think that one/all/any of the following is going to happen, let me know.
          Labor winning under Gillard now that Thomson has been formally charged(even though not convicted)
          The election actually occurring when Gillard nominated the date yesterday
          Thomson NOT standing down.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

            Whatever! But three days to drag it out of you? Bloody hell what would have been the problem to come out and just make your case, mister I call everyone else hypocrites whenever I’m pressed on an issue?

            I’m not convinced it would work, you know that. I already said as much. It even seems to me that it would do more harm than good. But you could’ve come out and said this without fear of attack just so long as you’re willing to back your statements up with a half decent line of reasoning.

            What I will say though is that Rudd difficult as it may be to see him coming back would still IMHO be better by halves than Abbott.

            So I really don’t think you had nearly the acrimony coming that you might have expected, Doug’s opinions notwithstanding.

            Nor by the way do I need to draw on Doug as a primary source of consternation about Rudd’s leadership style. Apart from a few reported outbursts the allegation may have been entirely confected by his detractors from within the Labor party, but it certainly is a matter of some public record that they were made.

            Yes by the way the Thomson thing was always a mess, but I’m tempted there again to say look what happens when divisiveness leads to rats in the ranks.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

              I think the common ground we have is that Rudd won’t do it.Who can blame him.
              Therefore as I have said, those Labor supporters who consider Gillard to be anything but are off to see the Wizard.
              I actually gave her a fair go.(as did all Labor voters) She unfortunately by way of repeated non-Labor behaviour,did not reciprocate.
              Every day she drags Labor closer to oblivion.That you cannot see that is not my burden.I now realise that.And thanks for spelling it out.

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

                Don’t be confused between being able to see that Gillard is somewhat regressive and knowing that Abbott is totally regressive. It may be that the two are matters of degree being capable of simultaneous co-existence as it were.

                You seem to want me to hate Gillard more than I fear Abbottm, and disappointing as that may be I just don’t see the point. Nor is it the case that I think Rudd is a bad bloke I merely suspect that Carr might have a greater chance of scoring that all important honeymoon period that I’ve often described.

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

                  I don’t want you hate Gillard,but if you don’t feel a sense of hate for her anti Labor behaviour,I think you’re in for a rude awakening if she gets back in.
                  But believe me I feel that is almost impossible now, so problem solved.

                  I hate what she has done, more than I fear what Abbott might do.
                  And I pity Labor because I felt Rudd was jettisoned at his first hurdle and many won’t be revisiting Labor again, because of his treatment.
                  Any d*ckhead who thinks Gillard is “Not” a control freak and narcissist knows little about anything.So, no surprise that someone in Rudd’s position should have those same characteristics.As I have also said he pissed off lots of the faceless men on day one of his PMship when he said he would choose his own Ministerial line-up.By jettisoning their parachute/union bigheads protocol, he (probably knowingly) set himself up for the fall that he eventually suffered.
                  It highlights what sort of person Gillard is to snatch the job the way she did.Anyone who believes Rudd was toppled for the good of the country is deluded and deserves to suffer under Abbotts reign.

                  Gillard has run her race.Lets hope the post election autopsy is thorough and inclusive,There are a few faceless tumours which need to be minced.

                  Like

                  • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

                    You’re not actually Kevin Rudd yourself are you, or someone close to him? There is a level of vitriol I find otherwise difficult to explain. If I seem comparatively detached then you have to realise that most of us expect little else from our politicians and certainly aren’t so horribly vested in their fortunes compared with the actual policy debate.

                    Like

                    • doug quixote January 31, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

                      :)

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

                      Not cool

                      Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 9:21 pm #

                      Hahaha.
                      Why is it you and you and you two amigos think that anyone who follows(ed) Labor who does not support Gillard is either ‘Rudd only’ or somehow a threat to your belief system?
                      Getting an insult from DQ from the NSW Cheer Squad is like being pummeled by a lightweight marshmallow.
                      Not once have you (either) explained why you tolerate the Howardism of Labor under Gillard.
                      Read my posts in total not in isolation.
                      “Labor” supporter.
                      You may rate political personalities like school-yard fare, as DQ does, and I must admit for a very long time I had you pegged as something above the rusted on set.

                      I’ll say it again so all three of you can get your mummy to read it for you.
                      Rudd should never have gone.ergo Dullard would never have installed the highly Howard coalition/NSW policy platform.
                      Now that Gillard has destroyed Labor, Rudd would be their only(last) chance at an electoral victory.(Based on what real voters feel/say/intend) But it is now beyond that.I’m looking forward to DQs 13 yo schoolboy take on how Thomson was set up by Pyne, or the CIA.
                      Gillard dropped him today like a meteorite in her undies.Tomorrow or sooner she will face the inevitable final landslide of her final debacle and her political entrails will be shared between Rudd and Abbott, and strewn about like Christmas decorations.

                      Here we go round the frikking Mole-Berry bush.

                      Still offering me twenty to one for Gillard to get smashed Dougy boy?
                      I’ll leave a wad of crayfish with JW if you can muster up two testicles to play the game.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

                      It was a joke Hypo. I don’t mean to gloat, just perhaps to jolt you our of your indignation a bit by letting you know how things look from a less animated perspective.

                      You’re right about more than you’re wrong about, but it’s like there’s a crazy little imp on one shoulder unbalancing your ability to deal with this rationally.

                      Gillard is one person, the Labor party is many, and most of them aren’t complete idiots, some are even quite good. The Pliberseks, Swans and Wongs of the piece may never be alternative leaders by that doesn’t mean they’re not contributing to a joint effort that results in government that succeeds on several fronts where it could easily be made worse by a Liberal led government and its ministers whose principles differ more from what I think we might agree to call ours than Gillard’s sub par efforts do even on her worst day.

                      I don’t know how else to say it other than to state the obvious, that if you want a government of the progressive left then you don’t vote conservative. You may vote Green, but even then if what you really want is a Labor government you still have to vote Labor.

                      Like

        • doug quixote January 31, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

          Well done HG! You’ve smoked them out of their holes! A veritable nest of Ruddites. And there we were thinking they had an alternative!

          Praise you with great praise, HG!

          (DQ very highly amused indeed)

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

            Oh dear what will you do when you wake up?
            I can see that by the trends here that JW herself holds similar views and has also questioned Rudd’s dismissal,Julia’s ascension and the Howardism policy platform.
            All those scary people walking around thinking differently to you,with morals, principles and stating them out loud as well.
            You must ‘toss’ and turn all night.

            Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 10:30 pm #

            Doug,

            If there was a hole for anyone to be “smoked” out of then have you considered that you might have helped dig it. Why after all should people who hold any opinion be reticent to come forth with it, especially where we’re pseudonymous on the internet? If it is for fear of derision then something interesting just happened.

            Today we had a discussion about ideas that we shared a respect for so deeply that I was honoured with the trust of somebody who decided to face that possibility of derision and say what they thought anyway. I’m not going to disrespect that by gloating! I want it to happen as often as possible, otherwise the so called marketplace of ideas becomes a parody wherein we spend all or time trading insults and jostling for kudos as if these phantasms of ourselves have great big narcissistic egos.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

              That must have been nice for you.

              Dougy is just like one of those ‘singing wriggling trout’ that people buy, and once the batteries run flat they let it gather dust.
              “Dorn war – ee bee arpy.”

              Believe me the batteries will flatten long before election time.Around the time when Gillard walks away from the media pack for the last time as PM.
              ;-)

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

                So situation back to normal then :)

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 31, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

                  Groundhog day

                  Like

                  • hudsongodfrey January 31, 2013 at 11:23 pm #

                    Night John Boy!

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe February 1, 2013 at 12:03 am #

                      G’night Gran’paw

                      Like

            • doug quixote February 1, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

              Interesting HG. From what you say someone calling himself “hypocritophobe” is worried that if he says he wants Rudd he’ll be derided. If the opinion is honestly held, I have no problem with its expression, but I reserve the right to say the said honest opinion is a delusion.

              Once that is said we can move on and discuss other issues of interest.

              But I do thank you for you efforts, because we’ve been wasting a lot of words flogging a very dead equine.

              Even your supply of words must be depleted, HG!

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe February 1, 2013 at 9:46 pm #

                The origins of the pseudonym I use have nothing to do with your interpretation.Your belief(and anyone elses that peg me as a Rudd tragic are desperate to say the least.Like Chris Evans I can see the writing on the wall.Rudd was my clear pick as Labors last and only chance this far out.Which may well be why the back stabbers who gutted Rudd chose it.They don’t give a fat rats arse whether they have to fling another PM in the bin.You should know that by now.
                I will put it another way,which you might understand,.
                I do not believe that any version of Labor is better than none, when the version is question is not Labor in any way shape or form.

                Or if you prefer the bumper sticker version, A Vote For Gillard is a Vote for Howard.

                Labor will reject the last and only option at their own peril.Evans will not be the last to snatch it, before September.

                Like

              • hudsongodfrey February 1, 2013 at 9:58 pm #

                antidisestablishmentarianism :)

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe February 1, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

                  pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

                  Believe me,you don’t want it.
                  It is a disease of the real workers in society.
                  eg Brickies,miners,stone masons etc

                  Like

                  • hudsongodfrey February 1, 2013 at 11:41 pm #

                    Either that word is factitious or I’m indulging in floccinaucinihilipilification.

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe February 2, 2013 at 12:02 am #

                      Congratulations HG,
                      That coin-tribution makes you the Friday Floccwit.

                      Like

  49. Hypocritophobe February 2, 2013 at 12:04 am #

    But hey,what would ‘I’ know?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-01/labor-official-takes-aim-at-sections-of-party/4496750

    Like

  50. Hypocritophobe February 2, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    “If we want to save our party, we have to reach out to the Australian people with the values that have always inspired our movement: a just society that empowers every community and every citizen to share in our nation’s success”

    Like

  51. Hypocritophobe February 2, 2013 at 12:41 am #

    Hypocritophobe February 1, 2013 at 9:46 pm #

    “Labor will reject the last and only option at their own peril.Evans will not be the last to snatch it, before September.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chris-evans-departure-opens-way-for-reshuffle-nicola-roxon-to-follow/story-fn59niix-1226567078648

    But what would ‘I’ know?

    Like

  52. Dust MiteHelp June 22, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

    Hey there, only converted into alert to your current weblog by using The search engines, and located it is seriously educational. I’m just about to watch out for brussels. I’m going to appreciate if you happen to proceed that in the future. All men and women may be benefited from your own composing. Regards!

    Like

  53. http://www.sommentomter.se/update.asp?p=104 November 25, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

    Wismer led Kimball in scoring with 15 factors. Shelby Vogel extra 10. Klinkhammer, Kilgore, and Daum just about every completed with 9 factors.
    http://www.sommentomter.se/update.asp?p=104 http://www.sommentomter.se/update.asp?p=104

    Like

  54. Porn Video January 27, 2014 at 1:53 am #

    Black women are very unique and, they are a really different type of ladies.
    There are so lots of stereotypes linked with black women and, you will
    discover the ladies really amazing. The women can be discovered in all parts of the world and, the most popular black girls are African Americans.

    Like

    • paul walter January 27, 2014 at 2:32 am #

      Glad you added, we needed to know this.

      Like

      • Gruffbutt January 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm #

        Don’t anger the trollbot, Paul.

        The Net cease never amaze me porn purple monkey dishwasher…

        Like

  55. http://crimesofthetimes.blogspot.com.es May 23, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    Very good info. Lucky me I found your site by chance (stumbleupon).
    I have bookmarked it for later!

    Like

  56. Porn Pros Review June 16, 2014 at 2:09 am #

    Helpful data. Blessed my family I stumbled upon your blog out of the blue, using this program . amazed why this particular collision did not came to exist in advance! I book marked that.

    Like

  57. Jame Millbern July 1, 2014 at 4:30 pm #

    I have to tell you that it’s hard to find your articles in google,
    i found this one on 11 spot, you should build
    some quality backlinks in order to rank your webiste, i know how to help you,
    just search in google – k2 seo tips

    Like

  58. free latina porn sexclip August 10, 2014 at 3:26 am #

    I have read so many articles about the blogger lovers except this post is genuinely a good post,
    keep it up.

    Like

  59. plan Cul gratuit August 24, 2014 at 10:51 am #

    When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four e-mails with the same comment.
    Is there any way you can remove me from that service? Thanks a lot!

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The political is personal | Let Me Digress - January 22, 2013

    […] to a very large audience, absolutely matter. Because all politics of the situation aside – and the politics of it is important, but that’s not what I’m talking about here – it has a very real, very personal impact. […]

    Like

  2. Breasts. Class. Public space. Language as a tool of repression « lmrh5 - January 23, 2013

    […] Breasts. Class. Public space. Language as a tool of repression. […]

    Like

  3. a few favourites | eutraphalia - February 15, 2013

    […] Jennifer Wilson writes about class, public space and language as a tool for oppression […]

    Like

  4. BREASTS. NIPPLES. BREASTS. NIPPLES. BREASTS BREASTS NIPPLES BREASTS. « No Place For Sheep - February 21, 2013

    […] This coincidence of Damon and David stirred my outrage, albeit for very different reasons. I’ve addressed my Koch angst here. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s