re: mark latham on tsunami
sheephouse, it's not as simple as that. Questions to pollies never come singly. Had he answered the question, say, "yes" the next would be "how much" and had he not answered that question people would still be condemning him for not answering a "simple question." Had he answered "no," the next question would be "why not?" and so on.
My hope is that all this exposure of the behind-the-scenes knifing will make the party a little more focused, though I doubt it. Diatribe put at least this bit well: governments almost world-wide have given up their responsibilities of governing to big business, completely sold out to them and now are their little lapdogs. They are making themselves irrelevant ribbon-cutters, a job which will also be taken away from them very soon.
What Latham exposed was not only an ugly machinery behind one of the parties but also the ugly, bullying behaviour of the other party. Watch them as they gloat and gloat like hyenas over a carcass the next month or two. They behave as if they did something heroic whereas, in fact, it was a hero who took a picture of the emperor to show the world (well, at least Australia) that this emperor (called ALP) has no clothes; and by doing this, he threw the gauntlet down to the libs. I would not be surprised if another Don Chip does not arise from their back benches.
Julia Guillard is not only highly intelligent and articulate, she has her heart in the right place; but Oz is a "man's man" country, which is to say a country where only sleazey wankers are allowed to rule so I can't see any woman ever taking the leadership in this country.
I had to laugh at the suggestion by someone earlier who said that women are generally left wing! Christ! Name me one "left wing" woman in Howie's party. Panopoulos? Bishop? Vanstone? Who? Can this person remember Thatcher the Butcher? Golden Meyer? How left are the women rulling our nearby countries?
To be left one needs to have a need to search for egalitarianism in public services. Not to subsidise only big business (because, let's face it, small business is always given the flick with some crumbs and much rhetoric churned out by the monkeys sitting at the computers at the back office) but to equally look at the needs of every individual. That's called "left" by idiots who are captives of slogans rather analysts of actions. They're simply action which follow logic and justice, free from the shackles of huge corporations.
Latham, whatever you think of his politics, came into the political scene as a breath of fresh air and following in no uncertain terms the "australian values" which so many of you lot whined about. You don't like the values you're whining about. You don't even know what they are. You scream about Howie sucking up to the Yanks. Remember when the previous Yank ambassador was here? We saw him on our tellies more often than Howie, dIctating what we should be doing! Latham came out, spoke in our own accent -god bless the aussie accent!!!!- and said that he'd have none of this suckhole behaviour. Didn't your heart flutter at least a little at that? Or did you, like lucas et al, say, "Oh, the language! How rude, crude and unstatesmanlike!" Bloody hell, if statesmanship has to do with using some gobledigook out of foreign language book than you can have him. For me, a statesman is someone who speaks clearly, who speaks my language, perhaps also a couple more but is certainly not necessary, and is an honest, upfront, tell all politician. One who allows the people to make the "tough" decisions, not have them presented as a fait accompli after a bit of pillow talk with his moronic wife or his moronic priest.
And for those who don't like either party? What will they do?
