Monday Message Board

It’s time once again for the Monday Message Board. Please post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.

35 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Thanks Jack,
    I think you help prove the point that the blokes are treated rather more gently for behaviour which is rather worse. Getting upset when asked to move from a table allocated by the restaurant although not having finished the meal is understandable. Belinda Neal will not be a first to get testy in a restaurant and it is not news to say “politician lies”. Think AWB bribes and SIEV X – far worse because of the lives lost as a direct result of those lies.

    I do wonder though how you can support the view that the Liberals and Nationals have been better for women. They have never had a female state leader, their number of women politicians is far lower than Labor and they certainly have never had a female deputy PM. The Howard cabinet had a blokey look which may explain why they were so cavalier about the effect of their policies on women.

    The arguments over the stat decs where everyone has an opinion and where the accusations are from everyone but those who were there – with the exception of a witness who states she is a liar and went on TV to say so because of a large cheque – have yet to be tested fairly.

    Tony G I am upset with the Liberals for their incredible failures and the nastiness of their politics. The current bullying is very reminiscent of that which occurred whilst they were the government. They prefer to conduct a witch hunt in an attempt to get Rudd through a woman backbencher. I want an effective opposition not one which acts like a mob of bullies. I am also upset at the bullying behaviour shown by Rudd. The lynch mob mentality is particularly ugly.

  2. Seeing I just want to express my sense of opinion on matters,I hope I am worthy of some description.And, as not to be off subject,last time I logged in here… I did say I felt friendlier to economists because of some statements in print here by you. Tonight,I am not so sure,because of some sort of lecturer from S.A. on matters Murray -Darling..who had presented something recently and is part of the Wentworth group.[Was on ABC P.M.] I felt like a few pubic hairs had turned to barbed wire,when the amazing fact was presented, by him, of Forests plantings and dams as….. volume users of water had been decreasing water flow recently. Given ,I do not know where these forests are, along the Murray Darling and it natural catchment areas,and, the likelihood of any larger dams being built in the immediate past being distinctly silly. I couldn’t actually visualise how these forests were effecting the potential rain fall to river flow outcome,in any sense directly,that would suggest that…. if there were better regulations.. then the immediate potential water flow would of been greater recently! Because surely to find a direct connection,even in correlate form, between less water flow from either run off or changed weather conditions because of new plantings,must mean the availability of statistical evidences that allow the point to be made about better regulation!? I say again,I dont know what Forests and what dams he was referring too,because I thought the run-off water at least was essentially that of snowmelt!? And if that isnt the case then,I suppose the other known fact,of weather modification for snowline purposes is negligible in terms of water outcomes for the Murray at least!? Do you know what I am getting at!? Could you,if you aren’t time pressed, see if these statistics about Forests and dams have a direct and realisable placement in the physical proximity and reality of flows in the Murray at least!? Thanks! My feeling is the S.A.n is fudging something,which then gives an entirely erroneous outcome,even if it is still bleak as far as the rivers are concerned.

  3. We had a lengthy tortured discussion here where John tried to convince people that if you tax their carbon emissions by $100.00 and pay them $100 in compensation they won’t simply spend the compensation to maintain the same level of carbon emissions.

    I must have missed that one Ian.

    In actuality they’re likely to spend it on other less carbon-intensive (and therefore cheaper) products.

    I didn’t realise that renewables were that cost competitive. I guess when you think about it a $200 per person per annum price signal is quite significant.

    What really concerns me at the moment is that while there is general agreement that a lot has to be done; politicians here in Queensland are also talking about the doubling of our coal export industry. It really is an inconsistent message.

  4. Well Jill, some of us were wondering when the importance of having women in positions of power trumped bullying underling women in the workforce into illegal activities to the point where they felt it necessary to quit and you certainly answered that for us. Welcome to left, liberal progressive, feminist tradeoffs folks! Since you have such clarity of principle Jill, perhaps you could help one of your mob out here, from a feminist perspective, since he seems to be in some sort of similar bind with some rather ticklish tradeoffs too.(I’m a simple minded, slippery slope man myself of course)-

    ‘Muslims living in polygamous marriages have been put on notice by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

    Polygamous marriages do exist among Australian Muslims, a sheikh with the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney has said.

    But such relationships are illegal under the federal Marriage Act which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    “Everyone should be on notice that the law in Australia is that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,” Mr McClelland told reporters on Wednesday.

    “That’s based on a long tradition.

    “It’s based on the culture of our community and polygamous relationships are entirely inconsistent with that culture and indeed with the law.

    “Polygamous relationships are and will remain unlawful.”

    Sheik Khalil Chami on Tuesday said polygamous marriages should be recognised under law.

    “Why not change the law?” he asked.

    Well-known Islamic spokesman Keysar Trad admitted he had once pursued the possibility of marrying a second woman.

    “I certainly would not have entertained the thought of having a relationship without a religious marriage and I thought the relationship with that person was developing to the stage where we had become too friendly with each other,” Mr Trad told ABC Radio.

    “Rather than entertain any thoughts of an affair I thought the only decent thing to do was to consider a proper commitment to that person.”

    Mr McClelland said the debate on polygamous marriages was entirely different to issues surrounding same-sex marriage and discrimination of homosexual couples.

    “The same-sex law reforms that we’ve introduced remove discrimination.

    “But we’ve confirmed and reiterated a number of times that the Marriage Act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others so a polygamous marriage necessarily offends that definition and we won’t be changing it.”

  5. Final snark warning. I’m sick to death of this stuff observa. Please take it as read that we’ve heard and understood your views on this point. Any repetition will result in a permanent ban. If you want to start your own blog, feel free.

  6. Observa (#29),

    Its quite simple really – many people have loving relationships with more than one person. Polyamory (love of multiple people) is becoming increasingly popular. Governments should recognise what is already going on and legalise marriages which involve more than two people. Governments should also recognise same sex marriages as well of course.

    It should not be the role of governments to interfere in peoples relationships.

  7. Observa,
    Perhaps you should watch Big Love on SBS on a Saturday night which deals with the good and bad parts of polygamy. It also shows how religion can mask evil deeds with holy words and it is the Christian religion.

    My point which you have decided to label rather than consider is that we have many flawed people in politics but that there is a particular kind of politician who goes out of their way to conduct a witch hunt so that the guilty woman can be thrown into the water. If she floats she is guilty and if she sinks she is innocent but is dead anyway.

    A new staffer decided to quit because the pressure of the job was too great because of a lack of moral compass. This same poor moral compass led her to sell her story to the tabloid media which weakens her credibility. Who is the bully in this story?

    Observa you obviously are able to know what happened without being there although natural justice would suggest that facts are presented in a way that can be tested rather than printed in the media which often gets things wrong.

    It is also the tabloid way that real issues like climate change can be ignored.

    It is the double standards and general lack of fairness in process and the nastiness in this tawdry affair that concerns me. If that makes me a left liberal progressive feminist it will be a label to wear with pride. Thanks

  8. Abhorrent actions such as chair sniffing and bra snapping, ignoring bribes paid to Saddam Hussein’s regime, are totally acceptable to the Liberal blokes and blokettes but let a Labor woman behave badly and she must have the full force of the press, the opposition and the law descend upon her.

    Jill,

    The Liberal party no longer has it’s hands on the levers of power. It can’t be blamed for the actions of the press, it no longer has executive or legislative control over the law which only leaves the “opposition”. In other words you are in effect saying that the Liberal party is using the full force of the Liberal party which is currently close to stuff all force.

  9. I moght have agreed with you once Peter in my teens or twenties, but I recognise now, as Senator McLelland almost does, that it’s really middle class delusion, coming from the smug security of leafy suburbs, compliments of the true values of my parents. Beyond that warm, protective safety blanket lies the truth of what you politely describe as ‘polyamory’-
    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23919144-2682,00.html?from=public_rss
    a truth that has shocked a State to its very foundations now, but perhaps the epitome of the cartoonist’s art is worth a thousand words here-
    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/news/opinion/cartoons/
    (scroll the link to Valdman’s cartoon, number 6 of 83, today, Jun 25)
    It’s my observation that those with traditional middle class values, would be horrified if their children strayed from their constant implicit values and yet they are no longer prepared to stand up and defend them publicly and loudly, or condemn those who err, from some misguided view that everyone’s entitled to come to their own sensible conclusion too in the fullness of time. Unfortunately for them, they seem to be oblivious to the fact their world’s not full of well drilled, middle class adults like themselves.

  10. “Final snark warning”
    Well John it has been said that the Observa does range from the mischeviously flippant to the scathingly acid(snarky too by all accounts)in the pursuit of some occasionally intelligible and serious point. Since he’s not always the best judge of approach to the task at hand, he’s often found in the company of a more astute sidekick, perhaps aptly so described for the frequency of applications under the table of various footwear for the purpose, in order to moderate and adjust said approach to the moment. Naturally that does foster a certain love/hate relationship with stilletoes.

    That said, my serious point was that the glimpses of cap and trader’s brave new world are all about them if they look carefully. Not only do I think they are in denial about that, but furthermore they are worshipping a mythological creature, rather than any real substance. Nowhere yet have I seen its true form, not least from a Labor Govt that had plenty of opportunity to unearth it in Opposition. It seems they are all waiting for Garnaut to paint a picture of it for them now. That picture can largely take from 2 schools of art, which I outlined on Weekend Reflections. Will it be one where we (ie via our Govt) own/licence the final emission permits or not? There silence is deafening on that right now, but the painful sounds of the wrong alternative are all about us according to my eardrums.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s