@Dave & Kev - you need not convince me about nuclear power. I have been on board for many years (just don’t do nuclear testing in nearby waters like the French did in the late 90s).
Ros Burgess - 02 August 2010 12:29 PM
Afterthought from previous post…Oddly enough, though, Labor preferences the Lib Dems right after the Greens. I wonder….could it be not just what your policies are on paper, but how the party or candidate is actually likely to act…whether they’ll be actively obstructionist, or open for trading?
Preferences are really weird. Why would Labor put Liberal Democrats high up when the Liberal Democrats put the three major parties Labor included near the very bottom. It goes something like Liberals (fifth last), Labor, CDP, Greens, Socialists & Communists (last few) from memory. Then they go and put the Climate Change Skeptics reasonably high?!
I would pray mainly for the continuation of religious freedom and connected to this, true democracy.
Thanks for those links about nuclear energy. I have noted them and will take time at a later date to work my way through them - it is a passion of mine too.
I most certainly am not going to vote for a party cos it appears to be Christian. Fred Nile’s mob have annoyed me for years. Is he still trying to push the creationist agenda into schools? That is sufficient in my books to never vote for him. But his rabid and vitriolic anti-gay attitude drives me crazy.
Took a look at the LibDems. Not interested so far. Will watch and see what they become.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation LATELINE Broadcast: 02/08/2010 Reporter: Peter Lloyd
Christian groups are continuing a long tradition of attempting to exert pressure on both major parties.
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Just how Julia Gillard’s pre-poll affirmation that she doesn’t believe in God will play in the electorate remains a great unknown.
And while the Gillard declaration may be politically unique, Christian groups have continued a long tradition of attempting to exert pressure on both major parties.
How much influence do Christians really wield on politics in Australia?
How much influence can Christian ‘greenies’ wield on politics in Australia?
Will anything ever happen about climate change or peak oil before it is too late? I’m not a doomer. Indeed I’m currently writing a response to a doomer article that really got up my nose! Anything could happen.
But the ABC announced the final oil crisis back in 2005, and yet STILL we ignore it in 2010. The doomers could well prove to be right.
HYPOCRISY by politicians is something I find paticularly annoying at election time. Hypocricy is mentioned adversly several times in the Bible, even in the old testament, such as :-
Proverbs 11:3 ” Integrity guides decent people, but hypocrisy leads treacherous people to ruin “
Being hypocritical treats electors as morons. WE deserve what we get if we can’t see through the hypocrisy of politicians.
eg, Abbott ( and of course B. Joyce ) are using the “Faceless Men ” analogy again to ridicule Labour. Do they really believe that everything is out in the open in the Coalition? NO secrets, no backroom deals? No vested interests, family or business pressuse groups? Even my school playground was riddled by secret deals.
The Coalition and others have been relentless in accusing Labour of gross incompetence with the insulation batts business. The facts are that Rudd had the guts to give the people something that was beneficial to the individual and the enviorment. Any works program that has to be done quickly and not through the normal business channels is bound to have problems and even fatalities, despite everyones best intentions. The Snowy scheme and Sydney Harbour Bridge both had many fatalities.
Whitlams’s “work for the Dole ” schemes also suffered ripoffs galore. Obviously this sort of Government injection of money is bound to attract the “business sharks” , who can kill two birds wih the one stone, i.e. get filthy rich and discredit Labour. I wonder who these business sharks vote for?
Of course the unions have been sharks also, perhaps misappropriating the batts before the business sharks even got their hands on them.This is called “balance ” in an argument. That is something that Rudd was very conscious of and IMO a feature of Christs’ messages.
OK, my money is on Abbott, maybe with an increase of the Greens influence.
I’m still toying with the idea of voting Green as a protest to the 2 main parties, whatever that so called “Christian” attack add says. The CHURCH does the job of converting people, not the law or saying the Lord’s prayer in Parliament!
I could wish for the Greens to be less anti-Christian and more pro-nuke, but they’re on board with almost everything else I care about. “Do the least harm possible to the most people” is my voting mantra.
Dennis Shanahan From:The Australian August 05, 2010
KEVIN Rudd has vowed to campaign for the Labor Party to prevent Tony Abbott being elected.
In so doing he’s left Julia Gillard and the ALP with a dangerous dilemma.
Rudd has positioned himself as a positive force for the re-election of Labor, saying he will do whatever he’s asked to do for the Labor cause.
To refuse this offer carries with it the danger for Rudd’s executioners of appearing vengeful against a forgiving victim, as well as the equal danger that at every appearance Rudd makes he’ll draw further attention to his plight.
The former prime minister has declared that he’ll attend the Labor campaign launch if he’s well enough after surgery, and if he’s wanted. But his appearance there will overshadow Gillard’s appearance in Brisbane and Labor will be divided.
He’s recognised that the election is on a “knife edge” and pushed aside any claims to be promoted to foreign minister if Labor is re-elected. But Rudd’s show of magnanimity by not indulging in “wouldya, couldya, shouldya” introspection has left Labor possibly worse off than before his act of forgiveness and offer to co-operate.
That last sentence makes interesting reading. Perhaps some atheists just don’t understand the concept of forgiveness ;)
IF you thought Kyoto and Copenhagen were nonsense, wait until you see what the Greens have in store next with their global oil depletion protocol.
The big parties may be converging on significant policies but that is not an indication of a lack of serious consequences at the election outcome.
Parking a vote with an irresponsible minor party—the Greens—is not a mature choice, and here is why.
The Greens support the “development and ratification of a global oil depletion protocol”.
This is based on a deep peak-oil belief: that oil and gas extraction will peak and decline terminally in the near future.
Trouble is, it seems Armageddon has been delayed yet again.
The global oil depletion protocol is a retreat from human ingenuity, an admission that the world is a scary place and that humans are not up to the job.
The protocol suggests that every nation “aim to reduce oil consumption by at least the world depletion rate” and that “no country produce oil at above its present depletion rate”.
This non-thinking assumes there is nothing to do but accept the cupboard is about to be found bare.
And the strange thing is the Greens seem to want to increase the chances of peak oil by locking up future oil and gas resources.
Hence the Greens’ call for a national marine reserves plan to protect (read lock up) 30 per cent of Australian marine reserve areas from all oil and gas exploration.
I note the Labor candidates for Dobell and Robertson were similarly craven by claiming a victory this week in delaying Advent Energy from drilling for gas and oil off Newcastle.
Jumping on the tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 people, a fact almost forgotten in the rush to show pictures of oil-fouled sea birds, the Greens would have us believe the world can do without such mining. Think again.
As of May this year, 703 mobile offshore drilling rigs were in existence, a 19 per cent increase in the fleet size since 2006. And 126 new offshore rigs are still under construction, most for delivery by the end of 2012.
Deep water drilling is not going away.
The International Energy Agency begs to differ with the Greens’ pessimism.
Its outlook this year suggests demand for oil and gas will expand by nearly 70 per cent in the next three decades, but that as output from the world’s existing production sources inevitably declines, probably at 5 per cent a year, this decline will be compensated with new supplies.
For example, last year the Potential Gas Committee (members work in the natural gas exploration, production and transportation industries) found the US’s natural gas resources were the highest in the committee’s 44-year history.
The US has total future recoverable natural gas resources approximately 100 times greater than present annual consumption.
Further, the US Geological Survey estimates the Arctic holds about 22 per cent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources.
Compared with 2006, traditional resources increased by nearly 40 per cent.
In 2006, Peter Odell, professor emeritus of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, set out his insights into the long-term future of the oil and gas industry.
According to Odell, oil and gas will account for more than 40 per cent of world energy supplies in 2100. Natural gas will become the prime energy source by the second quarter of the 21st century, “streets ahead of renewables”.
He remarked that the “ultimate physical sufficiency of global oil and gas resources is not in doubt, so one can ignore the present-day Jeremiahs. Their predecessors in the 1960s, the 70s and the 80s were all quickly proven wrong and a like fate will overcome the so-called peak-oilers by the end of the present decade.”
He and scores of other resource economists and technologists argue that post-2020, an ordered gas market will emerge, with continuing long-term benefits based on the near-limitless supplies available from a range of gas-rich locations, including Russia, the Caspian region, the Middle East, North Africa and Norway.
Further, consuming countries overwhelmingly prefer natural gas over the high-cost alternatives of renewables and/or nuclear power and the high carbon dioxide emission levels from the use of oil and coal.
Addressing an Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries meeting, Odell predicted the establishment of a greater European strategic gas authority, which he said would be the precursor to similar developments in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and the western Pacific rim in the first quarter of the 21st century.
While the Greens want to wrap the world in cotton wool and indulge in undergraduate denialist protocols, the rest of the intelligent world is getting on with business and solving problems, not wishing them away.
Gary Johns was a minister in the Keating Labor government.
On 702 a few minutes ago, there was an interview with a ‘committed Christian’ in Bowman (marginal, Qld) who said she couldn’t vote for an avowed atheist, and knew ‘hundreds’ of others with like opinion. (Because it would inevitably make the nation go downhill, no doubt.) She also mentioned something her pastor said (presumably from the pulpit), which I didn’t quite catch, but I don’t like the idea of a pastor pushing an opinion in such a manner. This is embarrassing bigotry, IMO.
I thought the 7.30 report on Tuesday was appalling. I am thoroughly sick of the media reporting on Gillard’s and Abbott’s media presentation, and whatever the latest polls say. And disappointed that Gillard actually answered this nonsense, instead of insisting they talk about something of substance.
I would pray mainly for the continuation of religious freedom and connected to this, true democracy.
This is what I came up with:
Pray for the Federal election . Give thanks for our freedom, peace, and democracy. Pray that Australia will continue to be a country where we can freely live as Christians, and have freedom to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Pray that the representatives who are elected will be inclined to serve this nation well, with foresight, integrity, wisdom, justice and compassion.
The choice is so bad, praying for whoever gets in seems the best option.
He’s missed the main point of the Oil Depletion Protocol which is basically to prevent war. The “Carter Doctrine” puts the world on a bit of a war footing over the middle eastern oil. The ODP is a free-market mechanism where everyone in Australia gets an oil ‘allowance’ each year and if you get around on a pushbike, you can sell your ‘allowance’. It’s basically to prevent the ‘bumpy plateau’ of prices which would boom and bust and boom and bust with an increasingly erratic marketplace that couldn’t plan energy infrastructure around an ever changing price of oil as it declines. So rather than letting the price super-spike one year and then crash as the economy crashes the next, they want to keep the price of oil high, but not unbearably so, so that EV manufacturers and other alternatives have clear market conditions in which to gear up.
This Gary Johns guy is sounding quite ignorant.
Further, the US Geological Survey estimates the Arctic holds about 22 per cent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources.
Compared with 2006, traditional resources increased by nearly 40 per cent.
That’s just laughable! Does he quote a source document? I mean, really! The Arctic is anything but ‘proven’ resource right now! Denial is ugly when it’s so obvious.
I don’t know why this guy is peddling false hope in unproven oil when we have real energy hope in proven electric car technology, nuclear power, and New Urbanism. (Did you catch SBS’s “E2” special on Portland, Oregon, that has drastically cut its oil dependency over the last decade or so by rezoning their city forms and public transport system? They are now the 2nd ‘greenest’ city in the world! Right in the USA, the home of the car and suburbia!)
In 2006, Peter Odell, professor emeritus of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, set out his insights into the long-term future of the oil and gas industry.
According to Odell, oil and gas will account for more than 40 per cent of world energy supplies in 2100. Natural gas will become the prime energy source by the second quarter of the 21st century, “streets ahead of renewables”.
This guy is a fruit bat! A completely fruity bat, with fruit tingles dangling off his fruit-bat ears while trying to whistle dixie through fruit-loops! I mean, his interview with the ABC shows how magical thinking has clouded this guy’s fruity experience of the world.
Peter Odell: I hear what he says but I don’t accept what he means. I think claiming that Hubbert’s peak was correct in terms of the year is fine, but the decline curve since then has been much less steep than he forecast, because what he failed to observe was that reserves of oil grow over time as demand necessitates. That has happened in the United States; it’s not reversed the downward slope, certainly, but it has made it much less steep. It’s certainly not happening at the international level. Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia is not only sure that it will get through 10 million barrels a day but is aiming towards it, and even up towards 15 has been indicated as a potential future for that largest of all the world’s oil producing countries.
Even the 4 Corners on peak oil explains why Saudi Arabia is such an idiotic thing to trust in! They won’t let us audit their fields. We just have to trust them with the very lifeblood of our whole civilisation, the foundation of our transport, our food system, and how we manufacture all our plastics.
And basically, with China and India ramping up their oil use, we’d have to discover a whole new Saudi Arabia every 4 years just to keep up!
Yet I have heard NOTHING about a proven field of any magnitude in a long time. Sorry Kev, but the following graph is just a historical fact. Even Exxon are forced to admit this 40 year trend. Nothing has changed. We’re burning oil our grandparents discovered. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/40780
He and scores of other resource economists and technologists argue that post-2020,
Oh, right? And what scores would that be? Please note he said ECONOMISTS and TECHNOLOGISTS, not resource GEOLOGISTS! Yes, ECONOMISTS are REALLY the people we need to talk to about oil supply! ;-)
But politicians don’t have time to check all these facts. This is the kind of article that keeps them comforted. It’s why EV’s and nuclear power plants are not THE topic of discussion this election, and why I despise both this article and this election.
But hey, Big Kev, thanks for sharing. Keep ‘em coming! ;-) Better luck next time.
5 to 10 years and you’ll see. Fortunately Australia has got a lot of natural gas, but we keep selling it off to China. Eventually even gas will peak about 10 years behind oil. But yeah, we should be able to survive peak oil, even if it isn’t going to be any fun. Greater Depressions are not much chop, or so I hear. We haven’t experienced one for a while.
EDIT TO ADD:
On the left is the world with gas-to-liquids included in light green.
On the right is the world with all natural gas included.
Natural gas out to 2100 hey? Tell ‘im ‘e’s dreamin’!
Because there are areas like Saudi Arabia that don’t let us in to audit them, there could be a 5 year window of error. But that doesn’t matter. 5 years grace here is REALLY needed because it will take something like 20 years to wean off oil. I see severe rationing ahead… but we’ll get through it as long as we all work together, and can agree on nuclear power, electric vehicles, and the emergency implementation of trolley-buses. We’ll make it. No need for Denial Kevin. ;-)
Lastly, I think I prefer this graph because it tells the historical part of the story. Just look at the green USA down the bottom, the light blue Europe and the crimson Russian peaks. They’re all verifiable history now people!
I’m really quite surprised by how much the Christian vote (whatever that is) is in the news.
Follow-up to the bit on 702 this morning. It was referred to again in the afternoon - by Richard Glover? - questioning whether pastors try to influence votes.
The consensus seemed to be that few do. It actually ended on a positive note, citing an Anglican minister who said he encouraged his congregants to not only vote for politicians, but to pray for them. RG seemed to think that was pretty OK. Surprising?
Gillard bid to win back Christians BARNEY ZWARTZ
August 6, 2010 PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has agreed to be interviewed by the Australian Christian Lobby today in an attempt to recover ground with churchgoers.
In June, videos of then-prime minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott being asked eight questions were posted on the group’s website, three days before Mr Rudd was toppled.
This afternoon Ms Gillard will answer the same eight questions, put by ACL director Jim Wallace, and the video will be posted on the group’s website, australiavotes.org.au, which was launched yesterday.
It contains answers by seven political parties to questions in 10 areas - refugees, aid, homelessness, climate change, freedom-of-religion, euthanasia, abortion, marriage, education and the internet. It also allows candidates to upload short videos explaining their positions. Mr Abbott’s interview is on the site.
ACL chief of staff Lyle Shelton said Ms Gillard’s atheism might be a factor for some voters, but Christians were a discerning constituency.
“Kevin Rudd was attractive to many Christians because of his personal faith, but also his policies such as overseas aid, homelessness and support for marriage,” Mr Shelton said.
Ms Gillard’s decision comes as religious leaders expressed concern that the main parties’ spin was detracting from their credibility. Uniting Church president Alistair Macrae, who complained two weeks ago that the superficial standard of debate was insulting voters, said matters had not improved.
“We need some statesmanship from our leaders, where they cast a vision that emerges out of some core values we can identify with,” he said yesterday.
Mr Macrae said the appeal to voters’ self-interest was sad. “It’s spiralling downwards, and I think we’re better than that.”
Issues that concerned the Uniting Church included asylum seekers, climate change (including a carbon tax) and a long-term aged-care policy.
Catholic spokesman Brian Lucas said the Bible urged a day of rest. “Could both parties have a couple of days off, and give the media and the rest of us a day off too?”
But Father Lucas, general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, said people should not become bored or cynical about the election. ‘‘It’s a privilege to live in a country where you can vote and make a difference, and where people in politics respond to what people want,” he said.
No church is recommending a particular party. But one leader doing so was Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries, who released a statement giving five reasons not to vote Labor: it would be a vote for the Greens, Prime Minister Julia Gillard is in a de facto relationship, she is childless, she is an atheist, and she refused to take an oath on the Bible.
But fellow Pentecostal leader Mark Conner distanced himself from Mr Nalliah. Mr Conner, senior pastor at Melbourne’s biggest church, CityLife, said he was not concerned by Ms Gillard’s atheism: ‘‘Primarily you are looking at them to have what it takes to run the nation” - but felt Mr Rudd’s dumping would cost Labor more than the party realised.
Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem, spokesman for the Australian National Imams’ Council, said: “We feel it is becoming interesting now, people are talking about real issues.” He said Muslims were naturally concerned about asylum seekers, and hoped both parties would deal with the issue with respect, compassion and in accordance with Australian values.
Hindu spokesman Kumaran Thangaraja said Indians felt the federal government had to work harder on multiculturalism, and particularly on attacks on Indian students, given the poor response by the Victorian government. “They haven’t done anything about it except PR spin, but that doesn’t help. ‘’
Buddhist Federation of Australia spokesman Kim Hollow said Buddhists, the nation’s second-largest faith community, wanted religious groups treated equitably.
I heard the bloke for the Australian Christian Lobby being interviewed. not impressed at all. As far as I could see his questions were not representative.
I doubt I’ll be interested in what Catch the Fire Ministries have to say as well.
The rest of the article was worth reading though. Thanks
Catholic spokesman Brian Lucas said the Bible urged a day of rest. “Could both parties have a couple of days off, and give the media and the rest of us a day off too?”
Ahhh, that’s the best advice these pollies have had in a long time! Time for a glass of milk and some cookies, and then a nice long nap!
No church is recommending a particular party. But one leader doing so was Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries, who released a statement giving five reasons not to vote Labor: it would be a vote for the Greens, Prime Minister Julia Gillard is in a de facto relationship, she is childless, she is an atheist, and she refused to take an oath on the Bible.
He’s being a nutter again!
Hi Owen,
[ big aside ]
I heard Jim Wallace on a show about why Australia should not get a Bill of Rights because it would ‘enshrine the rights of the individual over the community, and basically enshrine selfishness’. It’s a complicated debate, but basically that’s how I see the Bill of Rights. A bit of paper saying we ‘guarantee’ certain ‘rights’ to people doesn’t actually deliver services to the marginalised and oppressed. Our justice system keeps more people out of gaol than the USA, and our health system treats more people more equitably and more effectively than the USA. But they’re the ones with a ‘Bill of Rights’? So it’s more about the policies that the parliament runs, and an effective democracy, than codifying the beliefs of one generation as binding for all future generations. There has to be some ‘give’ in these things.
Or do we want ‘the right to bear arms’ to turn our nation into a bunch of homicidal maniacs for all time?
I liken Danny Nalliah to the picture that Kev put on the other thread. If you follow what he says you end up being a monkey! So it’s best to either disregard or do the opposite of what he says!
New Julia’s right on gay marriage - SMH, 6 August 2010
For all the exciting new recycled policies New Julia has conjured up as she “moves forward” to election day, she has stopped short of rubber-stamping marriage for homosexuals. Just like Old Julia, she says: “Not on the cards.” And the ALP official line is the same - no to gay marriage – although a few rebels have broken ranks in a cynical search of votes in marginal seats.
It was only a couple of months ago that the Pope also reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s attitude too - no gay marriage. The old fella was in Portugal and must have felt he was swimming against the tide: the Portuguese parliament had just given the nod to same-sex marriage, joining the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Swede,n which have done the same. No doubt the Australian gay-rights lobby will keep chip-chipping away here but is it necessary?
Personally I can’t see why gays would want to engage in what was created as, and has been for centuries, a legal coupling (with a lot of window dressing) for heterosexuals. And the common basis for that legal coupling, until recent more-liberated times, was to provide a secure domestic base for raising kids. Nature being what it is, two of the same gender cannot produce offspring.
Having gays wanting to go through the heterosexual marriage vows is like a Protestant, fancying the joys and celebration of a Jewish bar mitzvah and asking the rabbi to perform one for his kids. He’s not Jewish so why should he horn in on a Jewish tradition. Gays are not heteros so why ape a hetero ceremony?
I’m not crazy about gays raising kids either, not because their sexuality makes them any less worthy but because I think every kid deserves the chance to have a mum and dad, the balancing yin and yang of humankind, the mix that produces kids in the first place. Having said that, I have a young friend I greatly admire who moved in recently with her lesbian partner and produced a son through IVF. She seems far happier than the last time I saw her so who am I to cast judgment? But I have to wonder whether the little bloke will miss out by not having a father? And despite the professed change in community attitudes, the young lady’s caution in letting people know of her new arrangement says to me that her transition has not been entirely trouble-free.
The young lady isn’t talking about marriage - and no gay males I know have mentioned the word either. But I notice the local gay-rights agitator, Gary Burns, is gnashing his molars: “They (Gillard and co) are making the right noises,” he snarls, “but when the push comes to shove (unfortunate phrasing on a sexual subject, Gazza) nothing will change.”
Well it changed in Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Sweden – and this week a gay-marriage ban in California was overturned by the courts - so it may still change here. I hope not. France and Denmark chose to recognise “same-sex unions” which makes it clear - this is an arrangement exclusively for gays. I doubt you will find heteros seeking legal recognition as same-sex unions so why would gays want to parade down the aisle in a traditional heterosexual ceremony?
The author is getting barbs from the left and far-left on this.
Some interesting and amusing comments in today’s SMH :
In bed with Julia and Kevin and John and Tony August 7, 2010
So the failed Kevin Rudd is brought back by the clique who threw him out, to help the failing Julia Gillard sell the very policies that had Rudd thrown out in the first place (’‘Labor to rain on Abbott’s parade’‘, August 6). The executed is hand in hand with the executioner.
These two opponents in cabinet over parental paid leave and more money for pensioners will attempt to gloss over the desperation and panic in Labor ranks, who must now realise that dumping Rudd and promoting Gillard only served to highlight the dysfunction of federal Labor.
What hypocrisy, what a farce and what a gift for Tony Abbott.
Julia doesn’t want Kevin or Tony to be prime minister, Tony doesn’t want Julia or Kevin to be prime minister, and of course Kevin doesn’t want anyone (particularly Tony and to a slightly lesser degree Julia) to be prime minister except himself. I’m guessing most of us don’t want any of them to be prime minister. What did we do to deserve this? I tried to add phony Tony, fake Julia and Kevin’s gall bladder into the mix, but my head started to hurt.
I would like to submit the following for your puzzles page. Please study the following sequence: Kevin loses his way - the answer is Julia; Julia loses her way - the answer is ‘‘real’’ Julia; ‘‘real’’ Julia loses her way - the answer is Kevin.
Assuming you are a faceless backroom boy of the Australian Labor Party, and that Kevin loses his way (again), who should you select next to keep a sustainable Australia moving forward for working families?
(a) original Julia
(b) ‘‘real’’ Kevin
(c) Bob Brown
(d) Bob Hawke
(e) other.
I suppose with the resurrection of Kevin Rudd they are back to being a good government who have lost their way … no, I mean, a bad government who have found their way … no, I mean, a government moving forward in every way. If it’s the real Julia, is it the real Kevin - that is, the real Kevin who was the reason we got the fake Julia? Or was it the real Julia who assassinated the fake Kevin, and then told us the real problem was phony Tony?
Julia Gillard’s campaign theme may be ‘‘moving forward’‘, but Kevin Rudd’s is ‘‘moving back … to the Lodge’‘.
In the past 24 hours I have listened to Kevin Rudd and John Howard campaign for the federal election. Am I the only one confused?
Labor was thrown two lifelines on Thursday - Kevin Rudd publicly supported Julia Gillard and John Howard publicly supported Tony Abbott.
Just when the Liberals were on a roll, they have blown it by reminding us all of the one reason they lost last time - J.Howard of Wollstonecraft.
If Kevin wins the election for Julia, will she give him his old job back?
Interesting article - there was a similar tongue-in-cheek one in the Daily Telegraph on Friday (?) asking us to choose between original Julia, real Julia, original Rudd, real Rudd, original Abbott, real Abbott, original Howard and real Howard.
I would answer the multiple choice question with “real Julia”.
[null]Does It Mean Anything that a Record Low Are 'Pro-Choice'?New York Times (blog)[{}]Asked to pick one of the two labels applied to the abortion debate, a full 50 percent said they were pro-life, whereas only 41 percent said they were pro-choice, down from the previous low of 42 percent recorded in May of 2009. Republicans are the most ...
[null]Obama vs. Catholics, Catholics vs. ObamaNew York Times (blog)[{}]This would frame the issue as yet another intra-Catholic dispute over sexuality and abortion, rather than an external assault on Catholic religious liberty. Seen in this light, Georgetown University's decision to invite Kathleen Sebelius, ...
[null]Rally fights for abortion law changeThe West Australian[{}]Liberal MP Peter Abetz has spoken out against WA's abortion laws, warning "the womb is most dangerous place for children to be in this State" at a rally last night attended by hundreds of right-to-life campaigners. Addressing the 750-strong rally at ...
RSS Feed