Dear Federal Government...

I would like to start by saying that you suck. More coherent and constructive criticism will follow, but the adolescent insult seems like a good way to start.

What's that? WHY do you suck? Well, let me enumerate, in no particular order, the various kinds of fail you people as whole are currently epitomising.

1. Banning bank exit fees/having a single account number that works across all banks

Look, my parents have been in banking for longer than I've been alive. You don't grow up in that kind of environment without learning something. To quote George Negus from tonight's 7pm Project, banks are not a charity, they are a business. Which means, if you remove one means of income from the business (i.e. exit fees) the shortfall will, and indeed must, be made up from elsewhere. In other words, Wayne Swan's calling people who quite rightly point out that the banks will do this "outrageous" is in itself outrageous. It's a denial of reality from a government I suspect will become famous for it.

As for the account number thing, there's actually a quite serious logistical problem there. Your account number is not like a phone number - there is no standard amount of digits, and no single way of organising bank account details. Some banks have six digits, others have nine or more, and apparently there are various squiggly bits involved along with the numbers. Can you imagine the time and cost conflating every bank/credit union/whatever account would take? It seems like a colossal waste (not surprising as it's Gillard and co,) and more to the point, pretty bloody stupid so far as security is concerned. At the moment, if someone hacks your bank details, chances are it's only one account at one bank. A single account number across all the banks would mean all your accounts at all the banks would be hacked and drained. Even if you do only bank at one bank, or have only one account, problems such as recently arose with NAB could and would easily spread throughout the entire banking system, because they'd all have to be linked. An entire nation with their pay cheques frozen. Yep, that's a great idea, Wayne.

2. Still all talk and no action

This one's pretty basic. Before the overthrow of Rudd and the Julia's rise to power, I blogged about how little the government had done since coming to power in 2007. I ought to search that out and just paste it here, because nothing has changed. Think of one thing that has been done - not announced, not promised, not discussed, nor had a committee set up for it. Julia says they'll discuss gay marriage. When? Ooh, in about two years or so. Julia says they'll start implementing the national curriculum. When? Oh, just some bits here and there for now. We'll wait another couple of years before we really get to work on THAT. And the list just goes on. Yes, I know it's fair to say that their hands are tied by the nature of their hold on power, but the fact remains that if they were serious about this whole hand-holding bipartisan bunkum they were spouting when Oakeshott and Windsor picked Labor, and they were serious about the things they want to do, then they would be actively finding ways to do them, because if nothing else, it would play well for them. But they're not - they're only interested in hanging on to their jobs, and hiding the fact that they don't currently have the funds to do any of it.

3. Failure to punish for failure

Has anyone but me noticed that Peter Garrett is, for all intents and purposes, Education Minister now? The guy mismanaged a simple insulation scheme so badly that it was rorted beyond belief, and had tragic consequences for four young men. And yet they give him a portfolio containing a scheme that was itself badly exploited by various unscrupulous persons and only slightly less poorly managed by the woman who is now our Prime Minister.

And Rudd, as we all know, has been given Foreign Affairs. He's probably quite good at it, because he was a diplomat. But the fact is, those same diplomatic qualities are the reason why he was such a shit PM. He fed us nothing but buzzwords and spin, and the Labor Party rightly ousted him for it. But to let him then take a central role in the new government is an act of brazen stupidity, no matter how well suited Rudd may be. No-one in the Cabinet can possibly feel comfortable with Rudd still in a central role, least of all Gillard. And Rudd can't in conscience trust any one of them, because neither he nor we will ever know exactly who was in on the deal, who supported it privately but backed in him publicly. The man is surrounded by people who he must distrust.

Both of these men are serious weaknesses in the Federal Labor Government, and considering Julia keeps insisting that they're looking to provide stable rule, why both of these obvious instabilities remain in key positions on the front bench is beyond me.

4. Focusing on the small issues/pandering to the media

The small issue here is the R18+ classification for gaming. Now, don't get me wrong, this is important to me and many other people. The idea that adults are essentially banned from accessing adult content is ridiculous, as is the fact that 15-year-olds can currently buy games that would require ID in other countries. But, as issues go, it's not massively important, relative to some of the others needing attention. The NBN is important. Balancing the budget is important. The list goes on and on, but all of these things need attention before something as relatively fringe as gaming classifications is dealt with. This is assuming that the government can only manage one thing at a time, and as I've yet to see anything to the contrary, I think it's a fair assumption. The reasons they are dealing with classification issue are pretty simple - it'd be cheap to do, potentially put more money into the struggling retail sector, and from there into government coffers via tax, they know that they have broad community consensus in support of R18+, and they desperately need to be seen to be acting on at least one issue.

It really is all about appearances over substance with this government, just as it was with the last one. For evidence you need look no further than last week, when our Prime Minister (who, as much as I find her contemptible and useless, does hold the highest governmental office in the country, and thus deserved some respect, if only from herself) seemed to decide it was appropriate and normal for her to join Oprah onstage at Fed Square in front of 50,000 screaming morons. Yes, I know that Oprah has interviewed Barack Obama, but he's a US politician and so actually vaguely relevant to the big-teethed shouty one, especially as she supported him (that's Yank political speak for 'gave him money') during his election campaign. There was no relevance to that meeting, beyond the pictures it gave the news outlets. It made Oprah look good, to get the Prime Minister of Australia, and Gillard's staff must have hoped it'd make the government look good too. Nope. Stupid, stupid, beholden to the media bullshit. Oprah (who I could quite easily write a whole other blog about, simply marvelling at the idiocy and spiritual emptiness of all the people who have essentially allowed our nation to become her private fun park, and who, what's more, are humbled and honoured by this opportunity to lick her boots) has no claim at all on the head of our government's time, even such an incompetent one as Gillard. This government must stop acting like celebrities and start being politicians.

So that is why you suck, Federal Government. Shape up or ship out, because goodness knows your grip on power is pretty bloody weak.

Sincerely,

Me.

A brief word about Ted and John

The Coalition is now in power in Victoria, and being a Liberal voter, this makes me happy. Though I quite liked Brumby himself, (he always struck me as quite a decent guy) there's no denying his government was a shambles. The Year 9 boot camp was particularly ridiculous. Having had that kind of touchy-feely education for my Year 9, I know it doesn't actually work. Myki hardly needs mentioning - my own card works, but no-one else's seems to, and there's a reason why take-up has been so-so - it is still confusing to many people, myself included. And they spent too much bloody money on something that seems quite simple. Then there's the closure of Hazelwood. Thank goodness the Coalition won, because do you know how much power that dirty coal-fired sucker provides to the state? Twenty-five per cent, and Labor (with the Greens egging them on) wanted to shut it off with nothing to take up the slack! It's all well and good to talk about sustainable alternatives like solar and wind. I'm all for these things, but until they are capable of consistently producing power the way existing power plants do, they will not actually be viable alternatives. Isn't it better to wait, and get something right, rather than rush in and get it horribly wrong, wasting billions in the process?

As for Ted and co, well, our new Premier is to me as he is to most Victorians - something of an enigma. No-one seems quite sure what the Liberals will do now - only that they were sick of Labor's mismanagement. In all honesty, Brumby was right to say that Baillieu won because the public was unwilling to stomach another four years of his government. We were sick of Premier Brumby, Deputy Hulls, Mr 'How many floors is it?' Madden and Mr 'Help, I'm lost on a mountain!' Holding. I am willing to stand up here and now and say that though I voted according to my own beliefs, there was no specific policy that made me more Liberal-biased than usual. The fact is that we as a state voted against Labor, not for the Liberals. And imagine that New South Wales and Queensland will do the same when their elections come round.

I just hope the Coalition gets it right, and doesn't create a disaster reminscent of those Ruddy days of yore. It shouldn't be too hard - after all, with the word 'myki' still a byword for 'catastrophic failure', it's not like they've got much to live up to. But I hope very much that Premier Ted and Friends will govern as if they had the best government in the world as their standard - goodness knows Victoria wants, needs, and in truth, deserves a government of that calibre.

Love and Marriage (and God, apparently)

As anyone has read my previous post about Alex Stewart (the guy who smoked the Bible and Koran) knows, I don't have a lot of time for a certain kind of atheist. Specifically, the narrow-minded ones who are more antitheist than atheist, who are full of all the hate they deride organised religion for. But we've been through all this.

This morning I was reading the paper and came across severals letter regarding same-sex marriage. What made me mad was this one guy who, wondering why the government should have any say in who marries who, said: "For us atheists, the whole thing is a moot point: we don't get married." The ignorance and stupidity of this statement is dumbfounding.


Once again, we've got someone with that crucial misunderstanding of what being an atheist means. Put simply, no two are the same, no two came to their atheism in the same way, and most importantly, there is no such thing as 'us atheists' because it is not a single unified creed but an individualised world view.

But I guess the real kicker for me was the idea that atheists don't married. This bloke's reasoning was because it's a religious ceremony. Maybe in earlier times, yes, that's all it was. Hell, there have been times when it was little more than a business transaction. There are still places where the latter happens.

However, modern marriage is about love, not God or dowries. The idea that you have to believe in God to get married is ridiculous, and I feel sorry for the guy because he obviously believes on some level that without religion, you can't really have a connection deep enough for marriage. Doesn't the fact that there is a strong movement towards legalising same-sex marriage in this countrry (a movement which I wholeheartedly support, I should add) show that rather than being symbolic of God uniting a man and a woman, it's actually one of the purest forms of expressing lifelong fidelity to another person, regardless of their sex? It's about stepping up and saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and bind your fate to theirs.

This is not to say that when two people love and are committed to one another, it is a foregone conclusion that they should marry. Of course this is not the case. Love takes many forms, and I believe many long-term de facto couples simply find a ceremony unnecessary in the light of all their years together. And if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry, they should be able to. Their connection to one another is no less meaningful and life-affirming than a heterosexual couple's, and the sooner that is recognised legally, the better.

As for atheists getting married, the drop in the number of church weddings and the rise in the use of celebrants shows that people everywhere who don't regard organised religion as important to their relationship are marrying without God or his priests looking on. Frankly, when the right person comes along, I can't see that I'll find any conflict between my atheism and my affection for the man in question. I'll love him, he'll love me, and I don't see how the fact that marriage is historically a religious ceremony is any impediment to that hypothetical wedding. It's not like God's going to stand up at the 'or forever hold your peace' bit and complain that we didn't include him!

So, yes, man in the newspaper, one day I fully intend to be a married atheist. I hope that doesn't completely blow your mind. Oh, and by the way, you, sir, are an idiot.

Beaches and Butts

Every year, around this time, our good friends in the media start telling us 'What Swimsuit is Right For Your Shape'. They also tell us about new kinds of (hide your) shapewear pretty much once a month. Both things irritate me because they represent two things - media's belief in the inherent stupidity/gullibility of women everywhere, and the constant peddling of the Jennifer Hawkins-esque body as the ideal and proper shape.

First of all, just because a year has elapsed, it doesn't mean we need a whole new set of bathers, be it bikini, one-piece or apparently exciting new range from, you guessed it, Jennifer Hawkins. Not there's anything wrong with buying a new set every year, the stuff stretches and fades, goodness knows, but the idea that a year has gone by and the number of swimming costumes women own has magically gone from several to nil and we're all primed and ready to buy more is just ridiculous.

Secondly, stories about what sort of bathers you should be wearing imply that you, the consumer, does not know how to dress herself. It whispers in your ear that you are stupid, and that these fashion designers, 'media commentators' and... (SNORTS) celebrity bloggers are smart, and that you need them to tell you what to wear. I'll be straight up here and say that sometimes you see a woman walk down the beach and you think, "Oh, that pattern is all wrong" or "She should NOT be wearing a bikini". There's no accounting for taste. But you don't go up and scream these things in their faces, not just for the sake of good manners and empathy for your fellow beachgoer, but because however questionable the fashion choice, people's right to dress as they please is indisputable, no matter how subjectively 'bad' or 'wrong' it may look to my eyes, yours, or those of the rabid and ravening monster that is the media.

So far as shapewear is concerned, my mother remarked (though not in these exact words) that with ever increasing amount of the body these lycra contraptions are covering, we might as well be heading back to stays and the like. That seems like a backward step to me, because it is perpetrating a twofold lie, one for each sex.

Shapewear makes it look to men, who, bless them, would never imagine such a stupid thing under a woman's clothes, that the shapewear-clad woman is a size smaller and an entirely different shape to the one she actually is. Forgive the meat-market turn of phrase, but that is quite definitely false advertising. Frankly, I think the opposite sex deserves a woman to be honest with them - in word, in deed, and in body. Been through this before, but isn't it better that a man love you for who you are instead of lust after who you're not?

The lie that it tells women is that you can look as leggy and perfect as Jennifer Hawkins without having to do anything other than squash your internal organs and operate on reduced oxygen. What's more, it tells women that this is the way they should always be. God forbid that men, who are after all the implicit target audience of all this pouring ourselves into shapewear and careful bathers selection, should see the real you, squidgy edges and all. And of course, every time a woman takes the stuff off, and the proper shape of her body reasserts itself, it is a kick to her a self-esteem. It actually encourages women to feel bad about themselves.

A specific one that disturbs me is the underpants that, no joke, make your bottom look more rounded and shapely. Incidentally, they do make these for men too. But seriously, padded underpants? A padded bra is one thing, but shit, is your arse really the make-or-break thing about your appearance? I mean, I'm technically the target market, being narrow of hip and flat of rear, neither of which I consider detrimental to my appearance, when I do bother to think about such things. I suppose what enrages me so about this particular one is that the producers of these things, not satisfied with normal-sized and overweight women encasing themselves in shapewear, have started targeting the slim woman, the one who is probably safest from the media's obsession with the perfect female form. I don't technically fit into this category, but there are women out there who are now going to ask the question, "Does my butt look small in this?", and that makes me sick, because it leaves the chronically insecure with absolutely nowhere to go.

At the end of the day, all of this garbage cluttering our TVs, websites and newspapers are all designed to project one single idea - wear this pair of bathers and you will find a man. Cover all your natural body in lycra, hide anything that could possibly break the illusion of perfection, and you will find a man. Because of course, the only thing a man looks for in a woman is a fucking sculpture of an arse and an hourglass figure, right? No way could they be looking for anything real behind the metric ton of make-up and the push-up bra. No way could they be looking for your heart or mind or soul. Those things are worthless, because a man wants your body, not you. These are all the words that all those perfectly coiffed, perfectly strapped, nipped, tucked, painted people aren't saying. These all the appalling brutal ideas they don't want at your conscious level.

And they take advantage of all the women who simply can't or don't want to see this, and reduce them into wobbling puddles of self-loathing. It's wrong, it's just so bloody wrong. I could easily go strangle the lot of them, especially when they start talking about promoting positive body image. Derisive laughter is the only sane response to these peddlers of misery, who so self-righteously pretend to fix a problem they created on the one hand and keep on driving the nails in with the other. We must all turn our backs on these snakes and their poison. They'll have us buying new bathers on our deathbeds.

Under the knife

I've commented on this before, but I really have to wonder why on earth women (and indeed, people in general, my own sex are just the serial offenders) have such difficulty in accepting what their DNA made them.

This particular gripe is specifically female, however, because today I'm here to talk about breast implants.

As much as it embarrasses me to have to say so, I am well aware I don't know how someone who feels they need breast augmentation feels. To put it delicately, it's not a feeling I have ever had or likely ever will have, barring something like cancer. However, what I do get is people wanting what they haven't got.

What set me off about this was hearing about Charlotte Dawson. (she's the slightly bitchy judge with the slightly frozen face on Australia's Next Top Model. Technically, Alex Perry also fits that description, but he's male, and besides, he's very bitchy. :P) Getting back on topic, Charlotte has breast implants to go with the Botoxed face. Old breast implants, which began rupturing because of their age. Now, we won't go into why on earth one would allow cameras (and Simon Reeve!) to be present while having surgery to rectify this, that's a whole other post. I was sitting there thinking, "Oh, good. She'll have them removed." Which she did, but with the express intention of replacing them with newer, smaller versions made out non-leaking materials. As it happens, medical things transpired and she couldn't do that part on the day the cameras were there. I'm not sure whether she's since had the new ones put in or not. Regardless, the fact that she had them in the first place is what bothers me. That anyone has them bothers me.

Now, I'm not disputing the right of women and men to have surgery done for purely vain reasons, but I am disputing that vanity, that belief that we as were made to be is not enough. Coming from the opposite perspective, there are definite downsides to having larger breasts, especially for those poor people who end up with back trouble. They at least have a medical reason to have things done to their boobs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no woman under normal circumstances needs breast implants. I'd like to live in a world when the only people who have it done are mastectomy patients who understandably want one of the chief signals of their womanhood restored after a terrible ordeal.

This growing propensity for women to become bubble chests is more than little disturbing. I mean, who is it for? Men? One could point out that if a man doesn't love you as you are, small breasts and all, then he doesn't actually love you. Though it may attract more of a certain kind of men, these are not the ones liable to stay. For self-esteem? To feel more womanly? Well, that is something I can understand, but what on earth is womanly about having yourself knocked out and your chest filled with saline or silicone? What is feminine about having serious difficulty with, or not being able to, breastfeed if you have children, simply because you don't feel like a woman when you look in the mirror?

Fun fact, ladies - you're still a woman, regardless of the size of your breasts. The appearance of the thing is not the thing itself. (I think I borrowed that line from somewhere...) But we live in times when it is the appearance that matters, or at least that's how it seems. It is easier for some to put themselves through needless physical pain and scarring simply to get the body they think is better, and in doing so, avoid the necessary self-awareness to be comfortable in your own skin and self.

I've said this before, but women in general, please just learn to look yourselves in the eye and be happy with who you are, and what shape your body is designed to be. There's nothing wrong with you, or with any of us, and the sooner we all realise that, the sooner things like breast implants can become a rare occurrence instead of a disturbingly common one.

The politics of belief.

I know this is slightly old news now, but Alex Stewart, that guy who smoked the Bible and Koran last week, has got me thinking a lot about my own absence of belief and a trend I'm seeing in a lot of our more prominent atheists.

I have discussed a little in my other blog, but that was more about me and my beliefs (i.e. lack thereof) than about the broader behaviour of atheists and atheists groups in the community.

Alex Stewart is clearly an intelligent person - unfortunately, it doesn't seem that this has prevent him from understanding what is to me the whole idea behind atheism.

Perhaps I'm more word-conscious than most, but every time you see the word atheism, you have all the information that is really needed. 'A' conveys an absence, a space where something you might expect to find something, yet it is profoundly not there. Hence its use in words like asexual and amoral. Theism is easy - it means religion. So in the most literal terms, atheism means having no religion.

I know that may have seemed like a lesson, and a tedious one at that, but this is what a lot of atheists, at least the ones who make their way into the media, or who are part of groups, seem unable to appreciate. I mean, I have no right to tell others how to relate to their atheism, not at all. It's not a movement, a creed or a cause. But I think it is fair to point out to these people who rail loudly about the farcical nature of religion or burn 'sacred' texts that they are not, in the strictest sense, atheists.

As much I love those UK billboards inscribed with 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life', the second anyone, anywhere, starts to preach atheism, they cease to be atheists. Lack of belief has turned to antibelief. In the same sense that negative numbers are still numbers, so too is negative belief.

And I guess it irritates me to see so many atheists fall into this trap. Don't get me wrong - it is incredibly easy to forget that it's meant to be a void and not a substance. But if atheism is treated as belief, then it is prey to all the things that atheism essentially rejects - i.e. preaching, attempting to spread the word, hierarchical structure (arising from atheist groups), and the one that I find hardest to swallow, lack of respect for the beliefs of others.

That's what Alex Stewart showed. For me it was not so much the act, though I find the burning of any books abhorrent in itself, but the disrespect to Muslims and Christians it implied. It disgusts me somewhat that so many fellow atheists and intelligent human beings have failed to notice they have come full circle, straight back to 'My (no) god is better than your god', which solves nothing and defies atheism itself.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with discussing atheism amongst other atheists, or with agnostics and people of faith. In my estimation, that's more than fine. Intelligent dialogue among people of similar or conflicting views is always a good thing. It's the way some atheists have essentially inverted the whole idea without batting an eye which bothers me.

Again, I won't attempt to dictate what others believe. That's the whole point. But people like Alex Stewart, in my humble opinion, probably need a whole other category for their view of the universe. Put simply, that kind of atheism is lack of belief taken to an extreme, at which point is ceases to be absence and becomes an often quite vehement presence instead. It seems that it is more about being against religion than not having one. In all honesty, there isn't actually anything wrong with believing that, if that's what's right for you. But identifying it as atheism isn't really accurate.

I used the word antitheism the last time I mentioned this whole idea. Though I think in the view of the intolerant among the religious, the word would carry even more unpleasant connotations than those already associated with the word atheism, it would be a proper representation of what these people actually believe.

In sum, I think atheism has, much like other concepts of faith and lack thereof throughout the ages, has evolved into two fairly distinct views of the world. Though I know it's partly my own desire to not be tarred with same brush as people like Alex Stewart, I would like to propose a split. The people henceforth known as antitheists can go on believing what they believe, and act to further its influence, and the individuals who consider themselves atheists can go on not being part of an organised belief system. Theoretically, everybody's happy.

It's not that simple, of course, but with people like Richard Dawkins becoming more offensively vocal all the time, I think the need for a change in the way we define absence of belief/non-belief is becoming imperative.

For myself, I don't want any part of this disrespectful, purposely inflammatory monster some people are making atheism into. For the concept in general, I think it need to be rescued from being made into a group of angry, godless crusaders. It's atheism. There is no group. There is no creed. It is is the absence of these things. It's that simple, and needs nothing more.

Mirror, mirror

"For there was never yet fair woman/but she made mouths in a glass."

The Fool, Act III, Scene II, Shakespeare's 'King Lear'.

I was first introduced to this quote back in the swamps of high school life. To this day I know King Lear inside and out, and more to the point, it's the reason I love Shakespeare rather than think I should love him.

But my point is that there was never yet any woman but she made mouths in a glass. Or man for that matter. We are all some level trying to capture our own essence via the mirror, and increasingly Facebook profile pictures.

I am guilty of both. As I said, we all are. There is nothing wrong with looking in the mirror or down the lens and trying to see if who we think we are matches with the vision before us.

What worries me, and what worries many people, is that there are people who look in the mirror and point the camera and say to themselves, "I hate you. You're ugly. You are so unattractive no one will ever want you. People must recoil at the sight of you, for you are a disgrace."

It is the self-loathing that frightens me more than anything, mostly because I do not and cannot understand. Maybe I am oddly blessed in my outlook, in that I look in the mirror and go, "Yes, that will do. I am happy with that." I almost never wear make-up and despite general confusion by hairdressers and others about this point, my hair is fine, thank you, and no, I don't want it straightened. I admit that I am probably speaking from an outside perspective on physical insecurities.

But there are lot of people out there fighting to improve body-image, especially that of the teenage female, who many feel are being bombarded by sexualised, negative images and the resultant feelings of inadequacy. They say every woman should be taught to know that she is beautiful.

While I applaud their efforts in trying to redress the issue, I have to ask why 'beauty' is the chosen ideal for self-loathing young women and women in general to aspire to. They use 'beauty' in order to encompass a beautiful spirit as well, of course, but I have always felt that this is a cop out.

I don't feel beautiful, and yet I am more than happy with the way I look, and the mirror holds no terrors for me. Encouraging women, and in fact people in general, to feel that they are representative of an adjective that is stuffed full of physical connotations goes right past the actual problem.

It's not that many people of all ages and sexes don't like their bodies, it's that they don't like themselves. Too much of what is plain truth or good old-fashioned self-esteem is perceived as arrogance or conceit. Too often people feel that they can't express the good feelings that they have about themselves, and then progress to believing that the original feelings were invalid and untrue.

In short, people shouldn't walk around feeling beautiful, they should walk around being themselves, whoever that might be. Rather than looking outwardly for physical validation of themselves, they should look inward for full validation. It's about embracing the good in yourself and understanding the bad. We are as human beings inherently flawed and we should not therefore judge ourselves on our faults, or our looks. Sounds cheesy, but seriously, everyone out there, if you won't be yourself outwardly, then at least try to understand and accept who are inwardly. You will be a much more contented person for it.

Ok, so now what?

Well, this is

I think it'll probably be an Abbott minority government, not so much because I'm a staunch Liberal voter, but more due to the fact that Oakeshott, Katter and Windsor (the three independents) are representative of country electorates. Their constituents will be pretty pissed if they hand power to a party that owes what seats it has won or retained to Greens preferences and are thus beholden to that party. And Bob Brown, whatever else he calls it, wants to take employment opportunities from the struggling country areas. However you feel about coal mining, those people need it just to keep their heads above water and Rob, Bob and Tony all know that. Whatever their feelings about the Nationals (the party they were all in before becoming disenchanted and running as independents), they are people who have consistently won their electorates by actually doing the work on the ground in full sight of their community. Their image and power relies on them doing what keeps their constituents happy, and if a Labor government means an ETS and an RSPT, then it also means no mining, no jobs, no money, and more broadly, no more nicely stable economy.

And on that point of the economy, that's the other reason why the independents will probably support the Coalition. One of their major considerations is the stability of the country. Australia will not be stable if the investment of the mining corporations and the Chinese desire for iron ore is restricted. We saw that with the original announcement - mining projects were cancelled all over the place. A stable country requires a stable economy, and with Labor in power and largely indebted to the Greens, you'd be taking out the main support.

Look, I know the environment is important. I know that it is vital that we preserve it, insofar as we can, for future generations. But shouldn't we also be preserving our prosperity as a nation?

Like or not, we need mining to keep us afloat in the face of Labor's monstrous debt. Like or not, we need coal fired power stations in order for us all to have electricity. Yes, there are sustainable alternatives, but they are only sustainable in terms of the fact that the resources being used are ones that are esssentially unlimited - the sun and the wind. But they are not yet capable of actually sustaining the nation's electricity needs. The clouds will cover the sun, the wind will be still and then we'll have rolling blackouts. If we're going to switch to renewable energy sources, I would rather that we took the time and did it properly, with the certainty that these sources can actually do the enormous job they need to do.

We need the mines for our economy, we need the coal for our electricity. Until suitable replacements for these two pillars of Australian society can be found, these must be kept in operation and safeguarded, because a country where there is money in the bank is what future generations of Australians will actually need.

Incidentally, I find it very curious that the people who are furthest from nature, the city-dwellers, are those who vote most to save it in voting for the Greens. Out where there are the native animals and vast tracts of bush, the people who live off the land, the farmers, all tend to vote National, Liberal, or the independents like Oakeshott, Katter and Windsor.

But on balance, yes, I believe Tony Abbott will be our new Prime Minister. If nothing else, those seats in doubt are (except for Denison in Tassie, where it will eithe be Labor or a Labor-leaning independent) probably going to go to the Liberals, because it's going to come down to the postal vote, which is largely pensioners, who, in general terms, do one of two things - vote Liberal, or vote for the incumbent. These are people with much more traditional values, who will like the idea of a Catholic family man more than an atheist woman with a de facto partner. I'm not saying that it's the right way to choose your leader. In fact, it's almost certainly the wrong way. The people who voted for Gillard for being female should feel ashamed of themselves. Sexism is sexism, regardly of which sex is discriminating against which. But the point is, with the postal vote, the Liberals will probably scrape home in both La Trobe and Corangamite. I am biased about La Trobe because I live in it, but I also keep thinking of all those rich old men and women living in retirement villages in the middle of Berwick and feeling sure that they will probably stick to the man they know in Jason Wood, (Liberal) over Laura Smyth (Labor), who is barely a blip on the radar around the electorate. Obviously I don't have similar insights with regard to Corangamite, but Sarah Henderson, the Liberal candidate in that electorate is a rather well-known ex-ABC journo. The fact the Labor candidate is the incumbent will make it incredibly tight, but I think the Libs might snap that one up too. I believe the last electorate in doubt is Hasluck in WA. I think the Libs will get that one too, if only just barely, because Ken Wyatt will make history if elected, by being the first indigenous Member of Parliament. Though this is only came to the attention of the nation last night, one would imagine that the people of Hasluck would have had this very much in mind when voting.

There's a lot of qualifiers in this blog, a lot of maybes. It's because I don't know, and neither does anyone else. People who have been studying the Australian electoral process their entires lives don't know. I can only say what I think according to my own perspective. If it ends up being a Gillard minority government, then we're in serious trouble, because the well-intentioned Greens will be pushing and pushing for actions and policies that our economy has no ability to support.

I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for Abbott as PM. There is no other outcome that will give Australia that stable government and economy it needs.

A final word on the election.

I went to sleep last night worrying somewhat about what will happen at today's end.

But I woke up this morning with a pretty clear realisation of what the whole point of an election is. At the end of the day, no such thing as a single consensus of who will best lead Australia will ever come into existence, whether at this election or in the future.

In short, it doesn't actually matter what you believe in, or who you vote for, or even who wins. What it is important about an election is that the entire nation goes out and exercises a right that we were all born to, and generations before us fought for - a say in who is in charge of the nation.

It sounds cheesy, but for one day, it is eminently clear that democracy can and does work, is in fact working as we speak. People go out to polling booths, they take their kids and their dogs and they stand in line. No one speaks, but there's an atmosphere in the primary school assembly hall that says, "What we are doing matters. Maybe we hate election campaigns and spin, and we only do this every four years, but right here, right now, this is important."

So whatever happens today, be it a Labor victory, a Liberal one, or a hung parliament, no matter your emotions about the result, I think we can all take solace in the knowledge that whoever becomes Prime Minister will be so by our will, and our votes.

This election is getting on my nerves

Greetings all,

Have not been as prolific with this blog as I wanted to be, but it's now about to fulfil its primary function, i.e. act as a vent when the world of politics starts to get me angry.

So here's a countdown of 8 things that have been annoying me, and that you should probably think about before you vote.

8. The idea that Tony Abbott is not experienced enough to be Prime Minister

As a fairly solid Liberal voter, I naturally distrust the Labor Party and though I have no doubt that solid Labor voters feel the same about the Liberals, there are certain facts about this particular point that cannot be denied.

Number of years in power over the last 14 years: Labor, 3. Liberal, 11.
Number of years Abbott has spent as a minister or parliamentary secretary: 11
Number of years entire existing Cabinet has spent as ministers: 3.

Being in Opposition is not the same as actually being in government. In Opposition, the decisions ultimately lie in the hands of other people. Shadow ministers can make comment, and possibly support or block the government's policies, but they cannot actually make policy.

All this Labor government knew how to do before they swept to power in 2007 was to make comment, not to govern. Abbott on the other hand has more actual federal governing experience than Rudd, Gillard and Swan combined, with a little to spare.

So sorry, if you're going to talk about having the most experienced government in power, then it is not Labor.

7. That voting the Greens is a good protest vote

I know that friends of mine are planning to do this one. I can't change that, and I respect their opinions, but ultimately, a vote for the Greens IS a vote for Labor. If you really don't want your vote to go to either major party, do it some other way. (I'm not gonna do a Latham and say you donkey vote, that's in some ways worse)

The Greens look new and exciting a full of forward-thinking policy right now. Remind you of anyone? Kevin Rudd looked new and exciting and full of ideas to transform the nation, but here were are, three years later with a mountain of debt and a few empty gestures to show for it.

And actually, voting Green straight up is not really a smart choice for our economy. I know, what about the environment and climate change, etc. However, we are one of a tiny proportion of nations in the world that is isn't in the serious financial doldrums. We really are the lucky country right now, and I think we tend to forget that. I have relatives in the UK - things are still really bad there.

Put simply, now is not the time to be tearing up the proverbial carpet of Australia, which is ultimately what the Greens want - big, big changes which are really not feasible with that debt load on a reasonably stable economy that's ultimately being kept together by the mining industry.

6. Julia Gillard

Yep, just Julia. I know she came to power and people were saying, "What a victory! What a triumph for Australian women everywhere!" Yeah...no. You can't commit political assassination and keep your hands clean. You can't repeat stock phrases ad nauseam and think it passes for policy. It is ridiculous to leave your campaign launch till 5 days out from the actual day we go to the polls. And finally, you cannot, CANNOT compare yourself with Barack Obama. I mean, what a joke. Parroting 'Yes, we will' in an appalling bastardisation of a phrase and indeed a man who brought inspiration to millions not just in his own nation, but globally. What kind of arrogant person is this 'real' Julia, that she thinks can compare herself with such a man and not be harshly derided? Or more to the point, how arrogant are her minders and strategists?

5. WorkChoices

To all unions who are running various nasty advertising campaigns: It is NOT 2007 anymore. WorkChoices is not coming back under any name, shape, form, guise, or permutation. Talking about WorkChoices three years after it was dismantled and replaced is useless scaremongering. WorkChoices is a political Frankenstein raised by the unions to cow the voting public into re-electing the union-controlled Labor Party.

4. Labor saved Australia from recession

Not true. There is more evidence every day that Labor's stimulus package was a rash squandering of all the billions of surplus government money Howard and Costello built up over a decade. The money is gone, it is never coming back, and it's pretty clear that by the time the various stimulus projects got off the ground, things had already started to sort themselves out economically. This is an interesting article to read if you want to know more about this: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/08/12/did_labor_really_save_australian_economy_99114.html

But the point is, they're not responsible for us doing so much better than everyone else. They can say it as much as they like, but they didn't save us. If anyone rescued this country from recession, it was probably the Reserve Bank. All that $900 Rudd gave most of us did was hand large wads of cash to the Chinese manufacturers of flatscreen televisions.

3. Labor has a good economic record

This is was another one that really set me off. I was watching Sunrise this morning and heard
Labor strategist Bruce Hawker say the following, "...we do have a strong economic record to point to on the Labor side." Ahem. How can spending billions of dollars on grossly overpriced, rorted beyond all belief schemes make for a good economic record?

The BER projects have given mind-bogglingly expensive and in many cases, unwanted or unsuitable buildings to schools, most of which aren't finished. Some haven't even begun. Furthermore, how does twice or even three times as many hot water heaters as there are showers in sport clubs even begun to suggest good fiscal management?

2. Labor has, in general, done good things for Australia

Ok, so here are a few things Rudd made really important in 2007 and its aftermath - saying sorry to Australia's indigenous population, signing the Kyoto protocol and the 2020 summit.


Number 1 was, I believe, cathartic for many people, especially (obviously) the indigenous community. But I felt at the time that as wonderful as many found that moment, did it actually do anything to tangibly improve indigenous living standards, health or education? No. What use is a good feeling if it's not a prelude to action on the issue? Fast forward to 2010 and the indigenous are somewhat angrily wondering why no-one's talking about their very important issues in this campaign.

The Kyoto protocol made Rudd look committed to action on climate change. Whatever your position on climate change, Copenhagen was all too obviously a futile talkfest. Kyoto expires in two years. Again, what good is an apparently landmark gesture if there's nothing to back it up?

Finally, the 2020 summit. It sounded lovely - a diverse meeting of the minds to make plans for the future of this nation. Not a single idea put forward at that summit has been implemented, or has even come close, and just as well, because a lot of them were just plain stupid. And the Australian public knows how stupid it was - just look at the reception Julia's 'citizen's assembly' got.

1. Labor's incompetence has killed people

That sounds melodramatic, but it's true. They were Matthew Fuller, 25, Mitchell Sweeney, 22, Marcus Wilson, 19, and Reuben Barnes, who was just 16 years old.

And there are thousands of homes across the nation with electrified insulation, thousands of home-destroying fires waiting to happen, and some where it already has. All for a scheme that aimed to provide a product a lot of people already had in the name of stopping the recession.

The scheme was rushed into effect so quickly that shonky operator after shonky operator took advantage, to the point where the deaths and dangers and rorting forced it to be axed, leaving hundreds of legitimate businesspeople pretty much destitute except for warehouses fulls of insulation they can't give away.

Four people died because Labor was in too much of a hurry to 'save' us from recession to think the policy through like a competent government. Of all their failings, that is the most unforgivable for me.


So that's my piece. I don't know if it'll make a difference to how anyone thinks, or votes for that matter. But I feel I've made my opinions on who would do a better job of running this nation pretty clear, and for me, that's enough. :)

Riding the politcal merry-go-round (continued)

Due to time constraints, I didn't really say all I wanted to say last night - hence a third post in two days.

So, Julia. Our first female prime minister. There seem to be a some people out there, women and men, who seem to feel that in itself this a positive omen for her ability to lead the country, and distinguish herself from Rudd and his never ending waves of spin, lies, backflips and quite clearly, terrible people skills. (Cue brief tangent) One could ask just how deluded in his position on Wednesday night to pointedly and directly attack the very people who ultimately have control of his party - the factions, in particular the union based ones. Once the Australian Workers' Union had had enough of him, he was screwed.

It is vital to Gillard's success that she be seen to act and work differently to Rudd. No long-winded, ridiculous speeches that, with cursory examination, prove to be saying and promising nothing. No undue breaking of promises, election related or otherwise. I say undue because breaking promises is something all politicians end up doing at some point. What I mean is that she must not be seen to lack conviction, to be devoid of any sort of guiding ideology. Because the problem with Rudd was that it slowly became clear that these things were what he lacked.

Someone told me today that Howard was playing just as badly in the polls as Rudd was and yet he survived to win the next election. Now, lots of people don't like Howard, in fact some seem to say 'the Howard era' in the same tone as you would say 'the bad old days', which seems ridiculous considering the majority of the Australian public consistently voted him for 11 years. But the point is, Howard managed to carry on because despite implementing sometimes unpopular policies (the GST, for example), he was nonetheless convinced of their worth to the country. In other words, he had conviction. He had a strong belief in his own policies, regardless of how the opinion numbers stood and that won him both respect and votes. Without that, Rudd was always going to be dead in the water. How can you possibly run a country when, despite constantly speaking to the contrary, you obviously don't have strong enough beliefs on any issues to push it through even when the public don't like it?

PM Jules must not be like that. Luckily for her, she's not. Her strong beliefs are rather well documented. She'll never have the vague non-opinions of Rudd. I can respect that in her. But for her to lead our country, unelected or not, is something I find somewhat disturbing. Because she is so fundamentally different from Rudd, I fear that the many people who refused to vote for Rudd may vote for her. I mentioned this in my previous post, but she is just as responsible for all of the Rudd government's failings as Rudd himself.

Think about it for a second. We all know that Rudd was a bit of a jetsetter. I don't have numbers, but he was out of the country a lot during his truncated term. And I mean a lot. Normally, a deputy doesn't have to step up that often. But Gillard was in that position every time Rudd went off the shake hands with Obama or other similiarly pointless exercises. The Education Revolution is a shambles, and that was and remains her baby and her folly. With the wrong buildings forced on schools at extortion level prices, it's pretty clear that there was some serious mismanagement at the top level of that project. And as Minister for Education, the buck stops with her. The insulation fiasco, the shelved emissions trading scheme and all the stuff-ups, the currently glowingly portrayed Julia Gillard had a hand in them all. Never mind that we saw Rudd with Swan more often that we saw him Gillard. She was still part of that inner circle that set those debacles up at high speed with no regard for checks and balances to prevents rorts, and in the case of the insulation scheme, deaths. All because both Rudd and Gillard wanted their government to be seen to be doing something.

But something people don't talk about with regard to Gillard is the national curriculum. I believe you can check it out online somewhere, but what concerns me is that what snippets I have heard about it, (it's comparatively boring and doesn't have the wow factor of burning insulation, so the media has largely left it undiscussed) suggests that despite the idea of having standardised teaching across Australia being quite a good one, there is a somewhat serious problem. It seems to have been set up as vehicle for thinly disguised Labor rhetoric. Now, I'm not saying that it should be Liberal rhetoric instead, quite the contrary. The next generation of voters must not receive teaching with an inbuilt bias of any kind. Children only gain an ability to form true opinions as they get older. It's one thing for their parents to instill in them one kind of political leaning, it's quite another to have a government move to do the same. It's too much like vote-gathering some 10 or so years in advance of these kids being old enough to vote. And who is at the helm of that project? Why, our education minister turned prime minister, of course.

My point is that Gillard is no better than Rudd, except that where he lacked the conviction and indeed the ability to make tough policy decisions, Gillard will push it through and the results will likely be just as disastrous as the existing governmental embarrassments.

Now, there is one person I haven't mentioned in all this: Tony Abbott. I'll do an in-depth discussion of him and why he's not the dinosaur/chauvinist/conservative/monster some people in the media and the public perceive him as the next time post, I think. I may change it up a bit. But Abbott versus Gillard is an interesting proposition. In a way, they are both quite typical representatives of some of the stronger elements of their respective party ideologies. In this time of political shock, it's hard to say who'll come out on top. This will become clearer over the next weeks and months, but I don't think that Labor's position is necessarily better with Gillard instead of Rudd. It may even be worse, particularly as if people do pick up that she really is just another captain at the helm of the same leaking boat, they'll more than likely jump aboard the Abbott Express. And regardless of where Greens preferences get directed in the next election, that means that the good ship Labor is heading for the rocks.

Riding the politcal merry-go-round

Ok, it's time to ramp blogpost number 2, and more to the point, talk about the issues I'm actually here to talk about.

Australian politics have been in absolute uproar since roughly 8 or 9pm yesterday. And I love it, frankly. It feels like the winds of change are coming through.

I'll talk about my political leanings at a later date, but for now let's focus on the events of the day.

Rudd out, Gillard in. Doesn't do justice to the enormity of what has happened, really. Both are entered into the annals of Australian political history in a single day. Gillard is the first female prime minister of Australia. Rudd has been ousted from the leadership without even serving a full term. This sort of sudden change is on the level with one-term presidents in the States; i.e., it is is extremely rare and above all, career-ending for the individual.

Because Rudd's career IS over, no matter what role he serves in the Labor Party and in the government going forward. I have no idea what his standing is in his own seat, but considering the perceptible relief I've encountered from every person I've discussed the event with, I would suspect that he may lose that as well. Because the fact is, despite the gargantuan levels of popularity Rudd experience during his time as PM, it was clear public sentiment was flowing as strongly against him now, and more to the point, he'd lost the most important thing supporting his position . He is no longer trustworthy or even believable. Next no-one still believes Rudd when he says anything at all. As far as the public was concerned, if he says something's white, it's probably black.

As for Gillard, she's a bit of an unknown. It'll be interesting to see how she plays over the next few weeks. She's got a much better image, obviously, but I would point out one very important thing. She is just as responsible for all the really major stuff-ups of the Rudd Government as Rudd is, the 'Education Revolution' in particular. I seriously question whether she's not just more of the same.

It has begun...

Greetings, all.

I'm Sarah, your friendly neighbourhood politically-interested bystander. It's a pretty basic set-up here at Interrobang Central at the moment, so I'm gonna go with a quick intro here and then cut to the heart of the matter with a second post.

Basically, quite a few years of political apathy have been superseded by a wave of sudden interest, knowledge, and above all, mental fist-shaking. Having realised I've caught that quintessentially grown-up disease known as politics, I decided it was time I joined in the general shouting.

Some of you will be thinking, "What the f***'s an interrobang?!" Well, that is. And when I say that, I mean this: ?! Yep, it's a legitimate use of punctuation with a genuinely fantastic name.

So that's it. That's why I'm here and what I'm going to do now I am here. I hope this blog will be at least vaguely interesting to some people. Catch you in a sec.