Nice balanced post WitW
Indeed. Society has, arguably, overtaken the role that traditional Priests provided, as you have pointed out. You'd be hard pressed finding a Priest that successfully sways the voting intentions of all their parishioners, for example. Whereas years ago, I imagine that what was said from the pulpit was followed to the letter. (Perhaps Imam's still have this power? :confused: )

A relative of mine owns a lovely collection of DLP pamphlets (Democratic Labor Party for the foreign viewers :8) with titles such as 'Communism on the Waterfront' and 'Spotlight on Santamaria' that were handed out after mass during the 1960s at many Church doors across Brisbane, if not nationally.

I don't know how many votes the practice actually got the DLP, but they certainly had a strong following amongst Brisbane's working Catholics.

Some individual priests are political (usually lefty, in my experience) but I've not heard an overtly political sermon in years. I don't know if it's frowned on or just unfashionable; I'll have to ask my cousin. He spends much of his spare time going to refugee rallies and the like, so if anyone was going to give it a try, it would be him. :E

MTOW

I hear you, but I am in Vic commenting on the GG's performance
as GG of Australia, not GG of Qld.

Now re flowers, yes, have heard and read about the cost of flowers.

Oh, and since you bought it up, re the clothes, she does wear the
outfits more than once. FFS, who really cares, it's like people commenting
on the Queen and the new Princess wearing the same outfit twice. Frankly,
I think it is good.

.

Meanwhile, three asylum seekers on the roof at Villawood refusing to come down - and Chris Bowen "unable" (read "unwilling" to force them back to earth), hunger strikes at Nauru (because, according to the Indian UN spokeswoman, of "intolerable" conditions for UNINVITED "guests" there), another boat arrived today, Peter Slipper, according to someone who was there, "drunk as 20 men", allegedly kicked out of an Oxford St gay bar (as he is appointed to a foreign affairs committee that will give him access to lotsa furrin' travel - and expense claims), and allegations that Julia had $5000 transferred to her bank account by an AWU official (at the request of her then boyfriend) back in 1996.
(Was she so "young and naive" then that she didn't notice her bank balance explainably went up by 5 Gee's? Apparently so.)

Business as usual for Gillard and Co as we debate (and some of us are apparently impressed by) the GG's slim ankles.

"The Prime Minister has made it clear on numerous occasions that she was not involved in any wrongdoing"

So that's OK then. No need to ask any more embarrassing questions.

That phrase is going to be right up there with:

"relendless negatividy"

"working families"

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

I suppose that with Australia's historical convict background it's only right and fitting that we have a criminal in charge.

WOW. That's possible? Stand by for more interesting tidbits from foreign shores. DFAT have probably already fired up Operation Pete Watch :ooh:.
I could have a rant, but that's probably what you were hoping for (welcome back, sisemen entity :E). ;) Suffice to say that if urban legend is correct, the British passenger who responded to the standard immigration question 'do you have any criminal convictions?' with the answer 'I didn't know it was still an entry requirement' took a looong time to clear Sydney Customs. :ouch:
Even powerful women are easy prey to trivialisation | The Courier-Mail
Worth reading IMHO, but way too forgiving towards the women's press and the pollies concerned. However, despite being a known lefty Dr Brooks illustrates the vapid nature of a lot of commentary about female pollies. What she doesn't do (maybe because she's a lefty :hmm:) is acknowledge those pollies' complicity in this commentary. It's much easier to talk about dodgy sex novels than discuss policy. Marie Claire may like to claim that they're the 'vehicle for women's voices in Australia' but in truth, like all the 'women's' magazines they're nothing more than a vehicle for cosmetics advertorial, poor body image and fashion.

In other words, in the land of PPE and decision making, they're largely irrelevant. That is why their sales are falling, because they no longer have anything to say :bored:. Why should I pay seven dollars for a pile of glossy paper that touts clothes I wouldn't wear, products I don't need and self guilt that I don't subscribe to? :confused: I'd rather buy diving or cooking mags that tell me something useful. Or I'll buy The Australian/ local rag so I can hear what's happening in the real world away from bikinis and mascara. I'm interested in bikinis and mascara as much as the next woman, but I don't need to pay for someone else's opinion on those subjects. That's what the free internet is for, and the internet opinions aren't filtered through the advertisers' left/right arc of fire. :E

The 'women's' press is staffed by yesterday's neurotic would-be heroines, and while they angst about women's place in society the younger gals are busy finding it, without this month's dose of insecurity and angst about their man winning technique.

As one of Queensland's first female coppers once said (she started when female coppers were unarmed and had to carry a handbag as part of the uniform), the best handbag has half a brick in it; quite a useful weapon. Whether this lot are hiding some half bricks or just political spin in their handbags remains to be seen, but me; I have doubts.

Lucky we are not bordering on racism.

Oh... my... God...
 

From the Piers Ackerman bl*g.

Melt? Can you melt from laughing yourself senseless? If McTernan and his team stoop this low, I think the journos will have to replace 'jumping the shark' with 'jumping the whale'. Make that 'a whole pod of whales'.

Racism only applies to white Anglo Saxons.:hmm:

Marriage?!!!~ FFS. But I wouldn't put it past the conniving maggot - whatever it takes :yuk:

Would you want to marry - either of them ???????????

Seriously, is it a case of the last two standing ?:O

I thought she didn't support Gay marriage...oh wait...my bad. :O

Directly under this thread title at the moment.....


some twisted sick people about..


:}

We can mock ..... but labor is being rather successful in shifting focus away from their performance and on to "personalities". Rather like was predicted here several years ago.

If the trend continues, it will be a sad case of Australia getting the government it deserves. :ugh:

Buster

LOL :ok:


Who will be the dominant one ?

Joolia has probably had a bit of strap on practice
which will please Tim :O

You're terrible, Muriel. :E
Not just jumping the shark but parachuting over Jaws, I'd have said. :hmm:
I know I sound like a broken record but... It didn't work for Bligh :ouch:

They'd also face the same problem she did; when someone who has been vocal about not believing in marriage does an abrupt 180 complete with white frou frou, horse drawn pumpkin and Slipper as the ring bearer (sorry :E) they look a bit hypocritical. The non-marriage people tend to think they're selling out and the others tend to think it's a PR stunt that devalues the whole concept.
Winners? IMO, none.
And cheer they might, but that doesn't mean they'll vote for them. IME, many of the under 25s are extremely politically conservative.

If the theory is true (and not Liberal psy-ops material :suspect: :}), what bothers me is that it shows their strategists still seriously underestimate the value of integrity to the electorate. Lack of integrity is an albatross around Gillard's neck; the marriage thing is one of the few demonstratable things where she has consistently stood by her beliefs, whatever the fallout. Take that away and it's yet another broken promise.

True believers can argue that they weren't really promises or weren't really broken till they're red in the face, but that's not how a lot of Aussies see it. Chucking in a Scott and Charlene extravaganza on top of every other about turn is a curious strategy.

Which is why their strategy has always been to demonise Tony (the) Abbott? ;)

Maybe. They demonised Howard and the state conservative leaders too though; I think it's been ALP 101 for a while now. It's lazy and boring, but the true believers love it. The problem is that IMO it's starting to alienate the middle-of-the-roaders and the swinging voters.

Abbott always reminds me of that quote 'a man of many principles, mostly bad ones.:E' I don't like much of what he has to say, but you can see he believes almost every word of it, even when it's unpopular with his own people. That's integrity, and as Abbott's popularity ratings demonstrate, too much is not always a good thing in a pollie. However, some would be nice. :hmm:

I don't know that the demonisation is a calculated attack on Abbot's integrity; more the only strategy they know how to use. TBQH, I wonder if many of them at the upper echelon understand the concept let alone factor strategies to mitigate it.

The Libs aren't blame free when it comes to demonising Gillard, and I think it's been alienating a lot of their middle of the roaders too. It may be partly why the overriding poll answer is 'none of them , thank you.' The Internet in general and Facebook in particular means that many of us are exposed to bucket loads of the shite every day; it's not just a cartoon in the paper and party stooges slugging it out on talk-back radio any more. The bile is constant, unrelenting, generally puerile... and frigging boring. :bored:

Ahhh, post Project, it all makes sense now. :suspect:
Lawyer tried to retrieve file after Macdonald's ICAC interview, inquiry told
Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun
Allegations of various sticky little NSW Labor fingers being poked into the government tender process. Presumably it's far more preferable for people to be laughing about Kardashian style wedding plans.

Maybe not such a bad spin effort after all. :E:}

Another boat load of Tamils arrived this morning, despite over 400 having been sent back to Sri Lanka since Aug 18th. Could the reason they keep coming be that, if you're sent back immediately, you are still given a monetary "helping hand" by the Australian taxpayer?, I seem to recall that when the first Tamils were sent back, they were given $3000 as well as a free flight home. Is that still the case?

And, (dare I say, 'of course'), on the ALPBC this morning, reports of Hamas rockets hitting Tel Aviv "in response to Israeli air strikes on Gaza". No mention of the thousands of rockets coming out of Gaza that led to the Israeli airstrikes.